An expensive and a bureaucratic quagmire.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N reg is only available due to a legal loopholes. One of which in the States which allows you to trust an aircraft for ownership and one in alot of european countries which allowed you to operate. This loophole was historical after the second world war and also before the european community was formed.
This is now getting closed from the european end. Its been in the offing for years but now they are doing something about it. They should have done it earlier before so many pilots took advantage of it.
Your a victim of your own success getting folk to come away from the local licensing. No sovergien state is going to let a growing number of citizens stick there fingers up at the laws and procedures of that state.
Just like thousands of loopholes in the past which have benifited the minority of people they are closing the door. Yes it will cause monetry hardship for those that took advantage of the loophole. But as with all loopholes its part of the gamble you take when you decided to go down that path.
The pro's and cons of what you have been doing compared to what you are going to be made to do don't really come into it.
I am all in favour of sensible IR training and also the scope for private IR flight. The continued use of a loophole to get that is the wrong way of doing it.
And the more that I fly the more I see the benefit of the theory knowledge that I learned. I haven't even sat in a 737 simulator let alone a 737 cockpit. And out of my time I have only ever had a autopilot for less than a quarter of it..
You are getting a world wide rating to fly in controlled airspace in reference to instruments. Its valid for the most technologically advanced aircraft down to the most decrepid heaps of ****e on the planet. Some of the knowledge isn't required for flying around the relatively well resourced lands of europe, but its bloody handy when you fly outside the EU.
The 737 is used as a generic complex aircraft type, they could have just have easily used a modern TP. Its just exposing the student to the systems involved in a complex glass cockpit. If you look in a PC 12 which is well within the reach of PPL's that can afford it, its cockpit is in someways more advanced than alot of commercial aircraft.
Just because the knowledge is outside your use doesn't mean its worthless to have it.
This is now getting closed from the european end. Its been in the offing for years but now they are doing something about it. They should have done it earlier before so many pilots took advantage of it.
Your a victim of your own success getting folk to come away from the local licensing. No sovergien state is going to let a growing number of citizens stick there fingers up at the laws and procedures of that state.
Just like thousands of loopholes in the past which have benifited the minority of people they are closing the door. Yes it will cause monetry hardship for those that took advantage of the loophole. But as with all loopholes its part of the gamble you take when you decided to go down that path.
The pro's and cons of what you have been doing compared to what you are going to be made to do don't really come into it.
I am all in favour of sensible IR training and also the scope for private IR flight. The continued use of a loophole to get that is the wrong way of doing it.
And the more that I fly the more I see the benefit of the theory knowledge that I learned. I haven't even sat in a 737 simulator let alone a 737 cockpit. And out of my time I have only ever had a autopilot for less than a quarter of it..
You are getting a world wide rating to fly in controlled airspace in reference to instruments. Its valid for the most technologically advanced aircraft down to the most decrepid heaps of ****e on the planet. Some of the knowledge isn't required for flying around the relatively well resourced lands of europe, but its bloody handy when you fly outside the EU.
The 737 is used as a generic complex aircraft type, they could have just have easily used a modern TP. Its just exposing the student to the systems involved in a complex glass cockpit. If you look in a PC 12 which is well within the reach of PPL's that can afford it, its cockpit is in someways more advanced than alot of commercial aircraft.
Just because the knowledge is outside your use doesn't mean its worthless to have it.
Last edited by mad_jock; 29th Jun 2011 at 14:27.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Jock
These were such big legal loopholes that it took longer than the EEC has been in existence to close ?
In most walks of life established practice gains legal rights in it's own right.
Thousands of innocent pilots will be hard hit for doing nothing wrong and using FAA licences which are equally as good or statistically better than anything EASA churns out.
The whole thing is sickening and sadly if it goes through ( I have heard that EASA have hit legal problems) pilots will die because these pilots will be forced to attempt to fly VFR when they shouldn't ( human nature)
I am surprised and stunned at your insular views!
Pace
These were such big legal loopholes that it took longer than the EEC has been in existence to close ?
In most walks of life established practice gains legal rights in it's own right.
Thousands of innocent pilots will be hard hit for doing nothing wrong and using FAA licences which are equally as good or statistically better than anything EASA churns out.
The whole thing is sickening and sadly if it goes through ( I have heard that EASA have hit legal problems) pilots will die because these pilots will be forced to attempt to fly VFR when they shouldn't ( human nature)
I am surprised and stunned at your insular views!
Pace
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had it with MJ now...
a desire to make life difficult for other people
- his employment as a CPL in the UK
- his little bit on the side as an instructor
irrespective of the devastating blow to General Aviation (not just N-reg) and associated businesses (airports / maintenance / insurance / tourism) this will infer.
I can't judge his flying from his writing, but as far as attitude and verbal reasoning capability goes, I think he is utterly unfit as an instructor, which is probably why he is craving for all sorts of protectionist measures, the dafter and more bothersome the better.
As a good Scottish version of Onslow (although Onslow is better at spelling), he also doesn't seem to care about the fabric of European Democracy that is at stake here. Katamarino, I don't think you've missed a gem here, except of course the references to his N-reg flying former boss, his de-icing adventures, his dodgy tax past and the pearls of wisdom he picked up at the age of 17 while smearing the Cummins of his Leyland.
The guy just isn't cutting the mustard. I certainly wouldn't employ him.
I'm not going to bother to comment about his loophole nonsense, the dozens of PC12's flown by underqualified PPL/IR's or his references to outside of EU flying. The line of thought seems to be addled by whiskey.
Thanks MJ for confirming that your arguement does indeed amount to "It shouldn't be like this ... because I say so" 
You do not have a single concrete, sensible reason for closing what you have unilaterally decided are "loopholes". If Europe wants to introduce a more accessible IR and maintenance regime, then let them do it NOW, instead of banning the only sensible option and leaving us with nothing.
I have (as a number of forumites can confirm) a little experience flying into some of the stranger parts of the world, Africa included, and can safely say that knowledge of the systems of an advanced turboprop would have been about as useful as being able to knit. Maybe you can give us a few examples of situations you've experienced, flying in a private capacity, where this information has proved to be as invaluable as you claim?
You do not have a single concrete, sensible reason for closing what you have unilaterally decided are "loopholes". If Europe wants to introduce a more accessible IR and maintenance regime, then let them do it NOW, instead of banning the only sensible option and leaving us with nothing. I have (as a number of forumites can confirm) a little experience flying into some of the stranger parts of the world, Africa included, and can safely say that knowledge of the systems of an advanced turboprop would have been about as useful as being able to knit. Maybe you can give us a few examples of situations you've experienced, flying in a private capacity, where this information has proved to be as invaluable as you claim?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't work in europe sorry!
And just because I don't agree with your view that the N reg should be allowed to remain means that I get personally slandered. Its quite all right I can live without a job from proudpilot. And none of my students have had an accident yet.
Mind you this does seem to be par for the norm with the way things are going. Anyone that is pro its stoppage is bent, other motives, or its petty protectionism.
I will not gain one little bit of advantage by the N reg going in europe. Not even a penny. Nor will affect any jobs I would choose to apply for in Europe.
I haven't any private flying examples because I am not a private pilot.
What is it you lot want? a clear forum so that you can tell everyone including the media that there is an unilateral agreement that N reg should stay? Which because of the reasons I have out lined it will not in its current form.
And I don't see them as innocent pilots, you knew the risks of a change in the rules for over 10 years now. I agree the method of the whole thing leaves alot to be desired but that doesn't change the fact that the situation should never have been allowed to occur in the first place.
Is this it from now on? any mention of N reg and any nae sayers will get battered into the ground titled satans against safety, murderers of private pilots, bankrupters of familys.
It looks good I will grant you, does it aid your cause? Proberly not.
And just because I don't agree with your view that the N reg should be allowed to remain means that I get personally slandered. Its quite all right I can live without a job from proudpilot. And none of my students have had an accident yet.
Mind you this does seem to be par for the norm with the way things are going. Anyone that is pro its stoppage is bent, other motives, or its petty protectionism.
I will not gain one little bit of advantage by the N reg going in europe. Not even a penny. Nor will affect any jobs I would choose to apply for in Europe.
I haven't any private flying examples because I am not a private pilot.
What is it you lot want? a clear forum so that you can tell everyone including the media that there is an unilateral agreement that N reg should stay? Which because of the reasons I have out lined it will not in its current form.
And I don't see them as innocent pilots, you knew the risks of a change in the rules for over 10 years now. I agree the method of the whole thing leaves alot to be desired but that doesn't change the fact that the situation should never have been allowed to occur in the first place.
Is this it from now on? any mention of N reg and any nae sayers will get battered into the ground titled satans against safety, murderers of private pilots, bankrupters of familys.
It looks good I will grant you, does it aid your cause? Proberly not.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are always going to be cowboys around, but IMHO there are far less N reg cowboys than G reg ones (I've seen people bolt a new prop on after a prop strike and not tell anyone - on the G reg!!). We can't afford to be for the reasons IO pointed out before.
Also most N reg pilots in Euroland are better qualified, and probably a high proportion of them have an IR.
No reason to restrict N reg's at all IMHO.
Also most N reg pilots in Euroland are better qualified, and probably a high proportion of them have an IR.
No reason to restrict N reg's at all IMHO.
MJ, if you had a single coherent argument for the ban, then maybe you wouldn't receive such a harsh reception. As it is, you come into the Private Flying forum, tell the N-Reg brigades that they are all evil idiots and need to be punished (although you can't back it up with a single logical point), and are surprised when you receive a harsh reception?
You're just trolling at this point, surely?
Given that you are not a private pilot, how can you possibly comment on the applicability of the JAA IR syllabus to a private pilot?
I'm amazed you don't appear to understand how ridiculous your posts seem; but maybe if you could understand, you wouldn't be making them.
I don't fly an N-Reg in Europe, by the way.
You're just trolling at this point, surely?
Given that you are not a private pilot, how can you possibly comment on the applicability of the JAA IR syllabus to a private pilot?
I'm amazed you don't appear to understand how ridiculous your posts seem; but maybe if you could understand, you wouldn't be making them.
I don't fly an N-Reg in Europe, by the way.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In europe its proberly more to do with the fact that to have the gumption and the intelligence to use the loophole you arn't your average ppl pilot in the first place.
As for the quals if you going to go to all the effort of setting up a trust to get round the ownership laws to take advantage of the loophole you might as well go the whole hog. Anyway its more of a two fingers to the system if you can do something that the majority of the locals can't.
As for the quals if you going to go to all the effort of setting up a trust to get round the ownership laws to take advantage of the loophole you might as well go the whole hog. Anyway its more of a two fingers to the system if you can do something that the majority of the locals can't.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might not think its coherent because its not what you want to hear. The many times more JAR/local caa license holders might find it coherent and also quiet a number of none aviation savy politicians.
I got my IR on a PPL. The skill set I use flying commercial IR is exactly the same as that used by a PPL IR. The rules regulations and procedures are the same. In my book there is no difference between a commercial pilot operating in class A airspace and a Private. The rating allows you to operate anywhere in the world in a very broad range of hardware. The majority of the theory is not aircraft type linked. There is a need for a reduced IR as I have already stated.
And its not going to be a ban. Pilots who are not resident in the EU can continue to fly N reg for visiting international traffic with full rights as per ICAO annex. Its only locals who have taken advantage of the loop holes who will be stopped using that loophole.
But please crack with your opinions of my personal and professional standards and the fact that if someone disagrees with your view they are incoherent and trolling.
I got my IR on a PPL. The skill set I use flying commercial IR is exactly the same as that used by a PPL IR. The rules regulations and procedures are the same. In my book there is no difference between a commercial pilot operating in class A airspace and a Private. The rating allows you to operate anywhere in the world in a very broad range of hardware. The majority of the theory is not aircraft type linked. There is a need for a reduced IR as I have already stated.
And its not going to be a ban. Pilots who are not resident in the EU can continue to fly N reg for visiting international traffic with full rights as per ICAO annex. Its only locals who have taken advantage of the loop holes who will be stopped using that loophole.
But please crack with your opinions of my personal and professional standards and the fact that if someone disagrees with your view they are incoherent and trolling.
Give us some examples from your lofty commercial world then, that apply equally to both private and commercial.
Still waiting for a reason for banning N-Reg that doesn't amount to "because I say so", too. It has been a legal, accepted practice for decades; just because you have decided that it's an immoral loophole doesn't magically make it so.
I say again, give us ONE reason for banning N-Reg that is actually based on something concrete like flight safety, rather than some nebulous comparison with enthusiast motorcycles, and perhaps people will take you seriously.
Still waiting for a reason for banning N-Reg that doesn't amount to "because I say so", too. It has been a legal, accepted practice for decades; just because you have decided that it's an immoral loophole doesn't magically make it so.
I say again, give us ONE reason for banning N-Reg that is actually based on something concrete like flight safety, rather than some nebulous comparison with enthusiast motorcycles, and perhaps people will take you seriously.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Jock
EASA went to great pains and expense to prove a safety case!
They found none comparing JAA to FAA.
Infact in some cases they found the opposite.
A recent study showed FAA part 135 ops to have a better safety record than the equivalent AOC ops much to the surprise of the CAA.
Regulations should be about safety.Find a safety hole and plug it with education and regulations.
EASA regulate for regulations sake. They are a regulatory body. Less regulations doesn't equal the health of their own emloyment!
Really the whole thing is pure terratorialsm. There should be one worldwide standard so that pilots can move and work wherever they are required not this ludicrous and expensive nonsense.
Most of us are reasonable and sensible people. Show us something which makes sense and we support it,
The trouble with this lot is that it is nonsense and expensive nonsense at that!
Mad Jock!!!
What is this? Gestapo Europe ? Why do you think 67000 pilots went N reg in the first place? At any time in the past 30 plus years JAA EASA or whatever could have asked WHY???? and done something about it!
They could have asked why and then put into place something so attractive that no one would have been tempted towards N reg.
Isnt that the normal way in a free society? If your competition does better you compete not beat your customers into compliance with your will!
Dont blame the pilots but blame JAA or EASA for failing the pilots they are supposed to represent! That is the truth of the matter.
Pace
EASA went to great pains and expense to prove a safety case!
They found none comparing JAA to FAA.
Infact in some cases they found the opposite.
A recent study showed FAA part 135 ops to have a better safety record than the equivalent AOC ops much to the surprise of the CAA.
Regulations should be about safety.Find a safety hole and plug it with education and regulations.
EASA regulate for regulations sake. They are a regulatory body. Less regulations doesn't equal the health of their own emloyment!
Really the whole thing is pure terratorialsm. There should be one worldwide standard so that pilots can move and work wherever they are required not this ludicrous and expensive nonsense.
Most of us are reasonable and sensible people. Show us something which makes sense and we support it,
The trouble with this lot is that it is nonsense and expensive nonsense at that!
And I don't see them as innocent pilots, you knew the risks of a change in the rules for over 10 years now. I agree the method of the whole thing leaves alot to be desired but that doesn't change the fact that the situation should never have been allowed to occur in the first place.
should never have been allowed to occur in the first place
They could have asked why and then put into place something so attractive that no one would have been tempted towards N reg.
Isnt that the normal way in a free society? If your competition does better you compete not beat your customers into compliance with your will!
Dont blame the pilots but blame JAA or EASA for failing the pilots they are supposed to represent! That is the truth of the matter.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 30th Jun 2011 at 01:26.
Jock - as a fellow Aberdonian you are starting to embarrass me! Have you been drinking in the 'Grill' all afternoon?! Please tell me you have as I can then forgive your incoherent rants! 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: High seas
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can quite legally, and without any debate, keep my yacht (or any other vessel) on any Flag (read register) and travel to and stay at any country in the world. I can keep it there for as long as I like, maintain it to my Flag State standard (all internationally recognised through IMO), employ crew from any country (as long as they hold internationally recognised licenses), and there is no issue.
The UK mainland (Red Ensign) started overregulating some time back and hey presto lost 99% of ships from their register, not because people were being underhand or trying to avoid running a good operation, but because it was regulation for regulations sake. Other Flag States are all complying with IMO standards, but are more accommodating to commercial operators.
The UK Flag State (MCA) have shot themselves in the foot.
Ships are like aircraft, ie. they travel internationally. Instead of IMO standards, read ICAO. Why is there such a load of cr@p being spoken from MJ and others about if you are European, you have to only register/license in Euroland? ICAO is a worldwide, internationally agreed standard.
Shipping is a very old establishment who have their international movement house in order. It is long overdue that aviation did the same. Get the system and regulation workable (that means practical - like the FAA), and people won't have to look elsewhere. Don't let Euro idiots do to aviation what the MCA did to UK shipping.
The UK mainland (Red Ensign) started overregulating some time back and hey presto lost 99% of ships from their register, not because people were being underhand or trying to avoid running a good operation, but because it was regulation for regulations sake. Other Flag States are all complying with IMO standards, but are more accommodating to commercial operators.
The UK Flag State (MCA) have shot themselves in the foot.
Ships are like aircraft, ie. they travel internationally. Instead of IMO standards, read ICAO. Why is there such a load of cr@p being spoken from MJ and others about if you are European, you have to only register/license in Euroland? ICAO is a worldwide, internationally agreed standard.
Shipping is a very old establishment who have their international movement house in order. It is long overdue that aviation did the same. Get the system and regulation workable (that means practical - like the FAA), and people won't have to look elsewhere. Don't let Euro idiots do to aviation what the MCA did to UK shipping.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jock
Jumping into your shoes I can well see where you are coming from! Certain sectors of the JAA brigade have always looked down on FAA ratings.
It was almost a snob thing JAA is world class and anything less is inferior.
To a certain extent from the land of plenty came the fact that if you had plenty of dough you could literally buy what you wanted.
Many FAA Licences were regarded with suspicion.
Those times are long gone and both sets of licences are equal in the pilots they produce and to statistical scrutiny.
Hence why EASA publicly stated that they would extend the deadline from 2012 to 2014.
Not to get rid of N reg but to allow time for s bi lateral agreement on FCL with the USA.
Your statements about loopholes and all this was bound to happen doesnt hold true if EASA are to believed.
We have to take EASA at their word otherwise they are indeed a bunch of crooks.
As they have stated their intentions I see no reason why any of this anti FAA licences for European pilots will ever come about!
2014 will become 2016 then 2018 etc.
Their goal is a bilateral agreement and that is only right.
As I have stated before China and third world developing countries are forecast to mop up the supply of experienced pilots.
The huge costs of flight training and the world recession means that new pilots are not coming in at the bottom.
By 2014 to 2015 there is forecast to be a mass shortage.
Need will demand the cross border acceptance of ICAO licences otherwise airlines will be sitting on the ground with no crew in Euroland and the USA.
So step into the modern world and realise that your not supporting an EASA highland football club get rid of the terratoriaslism and work to getting one common acceptable licencing system worldwide.
Pace
Jumping into your shoes I can well see where you are coming from! Certain sectors of the JAA brigade have always looked down on FAA ratings.
It was almost a snob thing JAA is world class and anything less is inferior.
To a certain extent from the land of plenty came the fact that if you had plenty of dough you could literally buy what you wanted.
Many FAA Licences were regarded with suspicion.
Those times are long gone and both sets of licences are equal in the pilots they produce and to statistical scrutiny.
Hence why EASA publicly stated that they would extend the deadline from 2012 to 2014.
Not to get rid of N reg but to allow time for s bi lateral agreement on FCL with the USA.
Your statements about loopholes and all this was bound to happen doesnt hold true if EASA are to believed.
We have to take EASA at their word otherwise they are indeed a bunch of crooks.
As they have stated their intentions I see no reason why any of this anti FAA licences for European pilots will ever come about!
2014 will become 2016 then 2018 etc.
Their goal is a bilateral agreement and that is only right.
As I have stated before China and third world developing countries are forecast to mop up the supply of experienced pilots.
The huge costs of flight training and the world recession means that new pilots are not coming in at the bottom.
By 2014 to 2015 there is forecast to be a mass shortage.
Need will demand the cross border acceptance of ICAO licences otherwise airlines will be sitting on the ground with no crew in Euroland and the USA.
So step into the modern world and realise that your not supporting an EASA highland football club get rid of the terratoriaslism and work to getting one common acceptable licencing system worldwide.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you really think there will be a Billateral agreement with the USA? I don't because there is nothing in it for the USA. And to be honest there mentality is that everyone else does as they want not the other way round. It doesn't really matter what the US intelligent multinational savy political types think, the majority of the US political types truely believe its there job to dictate the deal. And they don't give two hoots about none citizens rights and getting screwed over by their own goverments. Example of which is the extradition treaty which basically means if the US wants someone we have to hand them over. If we want someone from the US tough.
Personally I would pin my hopes on Greece bring the euro down.
The N reg loophole getting stopped has been on the cards before JAR started.
The pilot shortage myth comes from the predicted production of Boeing. There is a shortage of training staff and CAptains while local supply sorts itself out. Once the expansion slows the expats will get booted out. Its already started in India. In europe we are over supplied by double if not triple the amount of jobs for new starts.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Flight...rch%202010.pdf
CPL issue is double that of ratings issue (and some of them will be second or even third types).
And if there is such a shortage as you say there shouldn't be a problem for all the displaced N reg commercial pilots in the EU getting work in these developing markets. But hang on you don't want to work in ****eholes like the rest of us either, do you. You want to take advantage of the quality of life that you get in europe.
And as I have said time and time again its the principle of opting out of the local system because you don't like it. It doesn't matter that the system you are using is way superior to the local system (yes i know you going to pick up on that). You live/work/operate in a state you follow that states local laws and if you use a loophole to get round the local laws and it gets shut, well thats the gamble you took when you used it.
Yes they will extend the time and proberly for another year after 2014. But in the end it will happen because its taking the piss out of the Governing States ability to govern there own country and citizens, politicians can't let that happen. The fact that a group of countries have bound themselves together towards a group policy makes life very hard for you because it blocks you from using international agreements until you are outside that zone.
The 67000 FAA pilots bit, where do they get that number from?
Thats more than the combined working commercial pilots in the EU. I presume I am counted in that number as well even though I only used the ticket for 6 months. Realistically how many actually fly N reg actively? How many N reg airframes are based in Europe? Would 100 be a fair count for the UK?
Anyway its 2500 pilots per member state which to a political type is a drop in the ocean when it comes to pissing voters off with reform.
Instead of putting effort in to trying to retain the current loophole status you would be better putting in all your efforts into getting the system in the country that you live and work in to be the best you can get it. It won't go the way you want it, but you will just have to try and work it so it doesn go the way they want it either. I never thought to say it but support the frogs its by far the most likely way your going to get a half way house.
Personally I would pin my hopes on Greece bring the euro down.
The N reg loophole getting stopped has been on the cards before JAR started.
The pilot shortage myth comes from the predicted production of Boeing. There is a shortage of training staff and CAptains while local supply sorts itself out. Once the expansion slows the expats will get booted out. Its already started in India. In europe we are over supplied by double if not triple the amount of jobs for new starts.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Flight...rch%202010.pdf
CPL issue is double that of ratings issue (and some of them will be second or even third types).
And if there is such a shortage as you say there shouldn't be a problem for all the displaced N reg commercial pilots in the EU getting work in these developing markets. But hang on you don't want to work in ****eholes like the rest of us either, do you. You want to take advantage of the quality of life that you get in europe.
And as I have said time and time again its the principle of opting out of the local system because you don't like it. It doesn't matter that the system you are using is way superior to the local system (yes i know you going to pick up on that). You live/work/operate in a state you follow that states local laws and if you use a loophole to get round the local laws and it gets shut, well thats the gamble you took when you used it.
Yes they will extend the time and proberly for another year after 2014. But in the end it will happen because its taking the piss out of the Governing States ability to govern there own country and citizens, politicians can't let that happen. The fact that a group of countries have bound themselves together towards a group policy makes life very hard for you because it blocks you from using international agreements until you are outside that zone.
The 67000 FAA pilots bit, where do they get that number from?
Thats more than the combined working commercial pilots in the EU. I presume I am counted in that number as well even though I only used the ticket for 6 months. Realistically how many actually fly N reg actively? How many N reg airframes are based in Europe? Would 100 be a fair count for the UK?
Anyway its 2500 pilots per member state which to a political type is a drop in the ocean when it comes to pissing voters off with reform.
Instead of putting effort in to trying to retain the current loophole status you would be better putting in all your efforts into getting the system in the country that you live and work in to be the best you can get it. It won't go the way you want it, but you will just have to try and work it so it doesn go the way they want it either. I never thought to say it but support the frogs its by far the most likely way your going to get a half way house.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Jock
Ideology and reality rarely make good bed fellas.
Ideologically I have every sympathy with Pace. Here we have a gentleman who the State has allowed to conduct himself in a certain way for a very long time. Evidentially there is no safety case that the State was wrong to do so.
In reality there are many examples of States recognising professional qualifications obtained else where. Ideologically as (if) we move towards a global village cross recognition will increase, as will the ability of the labour force to work any where in the world. The politicians at the moment can’t decide whether this is a good thing or not.
In reality the State has decided to out law the status quo for political reasons be they trade bargaining or be they an ideology that the changes will lead to greater control of their citizens and a better lined public purse.
As I said this thread is a perfect example of why I guess if politics could be set aside we would all agree it makes perfect sense to bilaterally recognise qualifications as long as we are satisfied they are of an equivalent standard to our own (or at least meet the accepted international standard), and why I suspect many of us would have a great deal of sympathy with the ideal that if the State has allowed a certain practise then there is an onus on the State to produce compelling evidence as to why that practice should “all of a sudden” be made illegal.
The dichotomy of your views is understandable because you debate ideology and reality and are therefore very unlikely to find a happy medium. That seems to me to so often be a truism of politics; you should not fall out in consequence or allow the debate to become personal because I don’t think either of you is right and neither of you are wrong.
If I had to take sides I still struggle with the Sate interfering in an area in which with the State’s blessing they have allowed this practice to continue for so long and now seek to make changes without demonstrating any good reason for the changes other than a vague reliance on greater control of their citizens. The extra revenue argument is nonsense because other ways could be found of “taxing” N reg. pilots and aircraft if that is what you wish to do.
Legally we have a long history of not applying legislation retrospectively and while this is not truly retrospective legislation it comes very close for those who are already operating at N reg aircraft in Europe.
Ideology and reality rarely make good bed fellas.
Ideologically I have every sympathy with Pace. Here we have a gentleman who the State has allowed to conduct himself in a certain way for a very long time. Evidentially there is no safety case that the State was wrong to do so.
In reality there are many examples of States recognising professional qualifications obtained else where. Ideologically as (if) we move towards a global village cross recognition will increase, as will the ability of the labour force to work any where in the world. The politicians at the moment can’t decide whether this is a good thing or not.
In reality the State has decided to out law the status quo for political reasons be they trade bargaining or be they an ideology that the changes will lead to greater control of their citizens and a better lined public purse.
As I said this thread is a perfect example of why I guess if politics could be set aside we would all agree it makes perfect sense to bilaterally recognise qualifications as long as we are satisfied they are of an equivalent standard to our own (or at least meet the accepted international standard), and why I suspect many of us would have a great deal of sympathy with the ideal that if the State has allowed a certain practise then there is an onus on the State to produce compelling evidence as to why that practice should “all of a sudden” be made illegal.
The dichotomy of your views is understandable because you debate ideology and reality and are therefore very unlikely to find a happy medium. That seems to me to so often be a truism of politics; you should not fall out in consequence or allow the debate to become personal because I don’t think either of you is right and neither of you are wrong.
If I had to take sides I still struggle with the Sate interfering in an area in which with the State’s blessing they have allowed this practice to continue for so long and now seek to make changes without demonstrating any good reason for the changes other than a vague reliance on greater control of their citizens. The extra revenue argument is nonsense because other ways could be found of “taxing” N reg. pilots and aircraft if that is what you wish to do.
Legally we have a long history of not applying legislation retrospectively and while this is not truly retrospective legislation it comes very close for those who are already operating at N reg aircraft in Europe.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats fair comment fuji.
I too have sympathy with the affected folk. Still doesn't change my opnion though that the current situation is wrong and needs changed. I also agree as well that our system needs changed.
And to be fair this has been in the offing for at least 10 years. I got warned by a FAA and UK licnesed pilot that it was going to changed in the future and that was in 2002. I was told to choose the license where I would be going to work, so for me without the ability to work in the US it was a simple choice to do JAR.
Personally I would have gone on the taxing option as well. Within a few years it would have been uneconomic to have one and it would have died a natural death. You never know they might start down that route in tandem it would be daft of them not to.
I too have sympathy with the affected folk. Still doesn't change my opnion though that the current situation is wrong and needs changed. I also agree as well that our system needs changed.
And to be fair this has been in the offing for at least 10 years. I got warned by a FAA and UK licnesed pilot that it was going to changed in the future and that was in 2002. I was told to choose the license where I would be going to work, so for me without the ability to work in the US it was a simple choice to do JAR.
Personally I would have gone on the taxing option as well. Within a few years it would have been uneconomic to have one and it would have died a natural death. You never know they might start down that route in tandem it would be daft of them not to.
Last edited by mad_jock; 30th Jun 2011 at 12:35.