An expensive and a bureaucratic quagmire.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never had it, but he wasn't the only one over my training period. But the others you could call bias because they were in the flight training industry in the UK.
He had 2 years to go at the time and was more than happy he was retiring. And why wouldn't he be an authority? He was flying round the world once a month. Been in the industry for 35 years.
You not honestly trying to say that it was only him and 3 PPL pukes that could see the writing on the wall 10 years ago?
The first I heard about the N reg and the political manoeverings was in 1999 when I started looking at going commercial and I was reading about the transition from UK/CAA licenses to JAR licenses. Its always been on the cards since I started flying.
He had 2 years to go at the time and was more than happy he was retiring. And why wouldn't he be an authority? He was flying round the world once a month. Been in the industry for 35 years.
You not honestly trying to say that it was only him and 3 PPL pukes that could see the writing on the wall 10 years ago?
The first I heard about the N reg and the political manoeverings was in 1999 when I started looking at going commercial and I was reading about the transition from UK/CAA licenses to JAR licenses. Its always been on the cards since I started flying.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Jock
The big boys have already got work arounds so it will be business as usual as far as they are concerned and unlikely to effect my licences.
If you mean writing on the wall that has been the case for before 2002 and failed at every attempt.
But you are really missing the point. We are supposed to be a free society open to market forces.
Surely in any free society the mmarket rules?
If we both own pubs on opposite sides of the street mine is full and yours is empty what do you do?
Your answer is to call in the heavy mob or find legal technicalities to get me shut down.
Is it not better to look at your own pub, look at mine and make yours better and more attractive so you can knock me out of business that way?
Your way is the heavy mob way!
None of us in the UK voted to be part of a Euro Sate governed by Brussels!
But we are!
When the Uk pumps more Millions of Euros to prop up the Euro dont forget that! Thank god we never joined the Euro or we would all be out with begging caps by now.
Mad Jock you so want to foillow and obey every dot from EASA please tell me one good bit of legislation from them which will improve the health of aviation in Europe?
I am not talking n reg!
I know Easy jet pilots who are already shuddering at the medical changes coming into force.
Pace
The big boys have already got work arounds so it will be business as usual as far as they are concerned and unlikely to effect my licences.
If you mean writing on the wall that has been the case for before 2002 and failed at every attempt.
But you are really missing the point. We are supposed to be a free society open to market forces.
Surely in any free society the mmarket rules?
If we both own pubs on opposite sides of the street mine is full and yours is empty what do you do?
Your answer is to call in the heavy mob or find legal technicalities to get me shut down.
Is it not better to look at your own pub, look at mine and make yours better and more attractive so you can knock me out of business that way?
Your way is the heavy mob way!
None of us in the UK voted to be part of a Euro Sate governed by Brussels!
But we are!
When the Uk pumps more Millions of Euros to prop up the Euro dont forget that! Thank god we never joined the Euro or we would all be out with begging caps by now.
Mad Jock you so want to foillow and obey every dot from EASA please tell me one good bit of legislation from them which will improve the health of aviation in Europe?
I am not talking n reg!
I know Easy jet pilots who are already shuddering at the medical changes coming into force.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you were open with a US liquer license in the UK, to right I would get you shut down on technicalities.
Well if I was trolling I would say getting rid of the N reg loophole so that everyone was working towards the same goal with our own set of regulations. I will but it will tongue in cheek.
We arn't going to change each others opinions and I am sincerly glad that the big boys have worked something out so you can continue flying.
Well if I was trolling I would say getting rid of the N reg loophole so that everyone was working towards the same goal with our own set of regulations. I will but it will tongue in cheek.
We arn't going to change each others opinions and I am sincerly glad that the big boys have worked something out so you can continue flying.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Jack
No hard feelings! I so nearly went the JAA way but opted N as it was cheaper, Easier and most jets were foreign reg.
I have a friend who has both! The funny thing is he has never had call to use his JAA licences on Jets all his work being on the FAA.
Sadly I also missed the paper conversions through places like southern Ireland.
Some of those southern Ireland converted pilots who now hold shiny JAA licences through no effort of their own are usually the worst at downing N reg and waiving their "Ill gotten" JAA as if they are superior beings.
Even holding JAA i would not be too smug as EASA are like a Cancer devouring aviation FAA and JAA. There we have a common enemy not a friend of European pilots.
Pace
No hard feelings! I so nearly went the JAA way but opted N as it was cheaper, Easier and most jets were foreign reg.
I have a friend who has both! The funny thing is he has never had call to use his JAA licences on Jets all his work being on the FAA.
Sadly I also missed the paper conversions through places like southern Ireland.
Some of those southern Ireland converted pilots who now hold shiny JAA licences through no effort of their own are usually the worst at downing N reg and waiving their "Ill gotten" JAA as if they are superior beings.
Even holding JAA i would not be too smug as EASA are like a Cancer devouring aviation FAA and JAA. There we have a common enemy not a friend of European pilots.
Pace
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tragedy of Europe applied to aviation...
Silvaire, I think you are hitting the nail on the head. Most Civil Aviation Authorities, although certainly not clueless, have little more to contribute to aviation safety than the FAA.
In addition, petty political debates and sovereignty issues have made true European integration in aviation a farce. As a result, aviation regulation in Europe becomes thwarted by side issues (a bit comparable to the amendments to the TARP) and focus on the essence is lost. The failure of making a single simplified airspace across Europe is the most painful example of this.
Also, a lot of civil servants look upon general aviation with a misguided envy ("those rich people and their private planes"; as opposed to "Heiko, Reiner, Simone und Günther vom Flugverein"), which adds to a tendency to overregulate.
Finally, from what I pick up a lot of civil servants (at the Commission and the UK CAA alike), relations with the US have recently soured up, in part caused by the inability of Europe to speak with one voice (giving the Americans the impression that we are a couple of Nutters), in part by some protectionist measures regarding airplane maintenance.
Protectionist measures are of all times. I recall a 1960's story about a Belgian Company with a French subsidiary wishing to operate a few converted 707-freighters (not sure about the type, could have been constellations or something else) on the N-register. A discussion was going on about with Aviation Authority would do the technical supervision. The FAA claimed its bit, the BdL insisted on Belgian maintenance standards and of course the SGACC did on-site inspections when the aircraft touched down at the French hub. Operational costs soared and the company folded.
The morale is : protectionism kills jobs. If the US is doing something silly then Europe should
- talk it through with the US; failing that (because they don't take you seriously in aviation because of a painful history of inconsistencies as described above)
- file a complaint at WTO level; failing that (because of some bogus safety arguments put forward by the US to circumvent WTO rules)
- retaliate in a proportionate, commensurate and efficient manner.
It is this last thing that is so bad. It is disproportionate, it hurts other people than the ones you should aim for, and it is an inefficient negotiation tool.
In addition, because of the blatant violations of the democratic process to achieve it, it puts into question the role of European Institutions that, if functioning properly, could be beneficial to the European Citizens, even when taking into account their high cost base.
What we see now is
- A Transport Commissioner (Kallas) that is clueless about the issues at hand, lying to parliament and citizens alike. The irony is that most likely he does it inadvertently, because he can't be bothered to see through the fake stories his administration are cooking up for him.
- A European Commission Transport Director (Baldwin) and one of his heads of department (Seebohm) lying to a parliamentary committee
- Petty fighting between a European Aviation Safety Committee and its adminstrative counterpart at the Commission, leading to substandard legislation of which the consequenses have not been thought through
- An EASA general director (Goudou) showing open disdain for parliament; admitting to not having considered the impact of his proposals; and then having the gall to ask for more money for his agency.
I think we should bin what is on the table; and pick up the thread again by
- postponing all deadlines linked to this nonsense (suspension of article 70 of the BR is a must)
- define and agree on roles for each administrative and enforcement entity
(abolishing the Aviation Safety Directorate at the Commission, integrating it into EASA is a not unreasonable idea, but of course not the only possibility)
- consider divesting a number of administrative and rulemaking roles at the National Civil Aviation Authorities where costs can easily be saved.
- de-regulate and reduce paperwork wherever possible; synchronise regulatory requirements that burden pilots (medicals / flight reviews / language proficiency checks / etc...) and scrutinise each carefully for their necessity, formulating proposals aimed at simplifying the life of the pilot and promoting aviation as a whole.
- increase resources for physical enforcement and accident investigation at the National level; ground planes and fine pilots that mock essential safety regulations (flying without a annual inspection, without a valid medical, etc...)
- take initiatives to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of flight training : development of training materials at cost, with a focus on air law; centralize the exam developement and provide for a large representative sample of the question database to be available to the general public; work with FTO's, RTF's and instructors with the aim of making flight training as efficient as possible, tailored to each pilot's needs
- overall, make flying available to the general public, so as to optimise airport and ATC infrastructure and to promote business and leasure travel across Europe. And design an aviation training and flying set up that can compete on its merits with the US and other countries.
Just a thought.
In addition, petty political debates and sovereignty issues have made true European integration in aviation a farce. As a result, aviation regulation in Europe becomes thwarted by side issues (a bit comparable to the amendments to the TARP) and focus on the essence is lost. The failure of making a single simplified airspace across Europe is the most painful example of this.
Also, a lot of civil servants look upon general aviation with a misguided envy ("those rich people and their private planes"; as opposed to "Heiko, Reiner, Simone und Günther vom Flugverein"), which adds to a tendency to overregulate.
Finally, from what I pick up a lot of civil servants (at the Commission and the UK CAA alike), relations with the US have recently soured up, in part caused by the inability of Europe to speak with one voice (giving the Americans the impression that we are a couple of Nutters), in part by some protectionist measures regarding airplane maintenance.
Protectionist measures are of all times. I recall a 1960's story about a Belgian Company with a French subsidiary wishing to operate a few converted 707-freighters (not sure about the type, could have been constellations or something else) on the N-register. A discussion was going on about with Aviation Authority would do the technical supervision. The FAA claimed its bit, the BdL insisted on Belgian maintenance standards and of course the SGACC did on-site inspections when the aircraft touched down at the French hub. Operational costs soared and the company folded.
The morale is : protectionism kills jobs. If the US is doing something silly then Europe should
- talk it through with the US; failing that (because they don't take you seriously in aviation because of a painful history of inconsistencies as described above)
- file a complaint at WTO level; failing that (because of some bogus safety arguments put forward by the US to circumvent WTO rules)
- retaliate in a proportionate, commensurate and efficient manner.
It is this last thing that is so bad. It is disproportionate, it hurts other people than the ones you should aim for, and it is an inefficient negotiation tool.
In addition, because of the blatant violations of the democratic process to achieve it, it puts into question the role of European Institutions that, if functioning properly, could be beneficial to the European Citizens, even when taking into account their high cost base.
What we see now is
- A Transport Commissioner (Kallas) that is clueless about the issues at hand, lying to parliament and citizens alike. The irony is that most likely he does it inadvertently, because he can't be bothered to see through the fake stories his administration are cooking up for him.
- A European Commission Transport Director (Baldwin) and one of his heads of department (Seebohm) lying to a parliamentary committee
- Petty fighting between a European Aviation Safety Committee and its adminstrative counterpart at the Commission, leading to substandard legislation of which the consequenses have not been thought through
- An EASA general director (Goudou) showing open disdain for parliament; admitting to not having considered the impact of his proposals; and then having the gall to ask for more money for his agency.
I think we should bin what is on the table; and pick up the thread again by
- postponing all deadlines linked to this nonsense (suspension of article 70 of the BR is a must)
- define and agree on roles for each administrative and enforcement entity
(abolishing the Aviation Safety Directorate at the Commission, integrating it into EASA is a not unreasonable idea, but of course not the only possibility)
- consider divesting a number of administrative and rulemaking roles at the National Civil Aviation Authorities where costs can easily be saved.
- de-regulate and reduce paperwork wherever possible; synchronise regulatory requirements that burden pilots (medicals / flight reviews / language proficiency checks / etc...) and scrutinise each carefully for their necessity, formulating proposals aimed at simplifying the life of the pilot and promoting aviation as a whole.
- increase resources for physical enforcement and accident investigation at the National level; ground planes and fine pilots that mock essential safety regulations (flying without a annual inspection, without a valid medical, etc...)
- take initiatives to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of flight training : development of training materials at cost, with a focus on air law; centralize the exam developement and provide for a large representative sample of the question database to be available to the general public; work with FTO's, RTF's and instructors with the aim of making flight training as efficient as possible, tailored to each pilot's needs
- overall, make flying available to the general public, so as to optimise airport and ATC infrastructure and to promote business and leasure travel across Europe. And design an aviation training and flying set up that can compete on its merits with the US and other countries.
Just a thought.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My spelling has always been ****e.
And I wouldn't have a problem if we went lock stock and barrel over, I wouldn't like the FTL schemes though. Although to be honest I don't think most of europe could afford or even contiplate the mindset change to go back to such a vast infrastructure of a goverment deptment to deal with purely aviation. Biggest change would be the fact that the goverment would pay instead of the industry.
JAR is spreading, Middle East has gone apart from Saudi which is because of the aramco N reg fleet I presume. Its even making its way into africa
Quite a few of the Asian CAA's have taken the theory syllabus and exams.
Alot of the commonwealth are in the process.
Personally I think that has more to do with US forgien policy than anything about quality of system. Alot of the world feels that the US has to much power over them anyway hence, all this rubbish about having a second GPS system and not being allowed to use the current one in certain situations. The fact that if the yanks want to stop its use they will anyway doesn't seem to register.
Yep which is why I think the loophole will be shut in the not so distant future. They have had a shot at it a few times in the last 10-15 years this time they can't afford to fail again from a political point of view.
And I wouldn't have a problem if we went lock stock and barrel over, I wouldn't like the FTL schemes though. Although to be honest I don't think most of europe could afford or even contiplate the mindset change to go back to such a vast infrastructure of a goverment deptment to deal with purely aviation. Biggest change would be the fact that the goverment would pay instead of the industry.
JAR is spreading, Middle East has gone apart from Saudi which is because of the aramco N reg fleet I presume. Its even making its way into africa
Quite a few of the Asian CAA's have taken the theory syllabus and exams.
Alot of the commonwealth are in the process.
Personally I think that has more to do with US forgien policy than anything about quality of system. Alot of the world feels that the US has to much power over them anyway hence, all this rubbish about having a second GPS system and not being allowed to use the current one in certain situations. The fact that if the yanks want to stop its use they will anyway doesn't seem to register.
I'd also agree that the US would want to impose its terms on any agreement - that's only natural when you're working from the assumption that your way is better
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite a few of the Asian CAA's have taken the theory syllabus and exams.
About 95% of the theory is irrelevant garbage.
The only reason they are using the CAA exam papers is because there is nothing else around, and the UK CAA has weeded out the worst of the JAA question bank.
Anyway, according to the FTOs, cheating in the ATPL exams is rife in the Far East. Some of them write the whole question bank on the back of an airway chart.
Same with foreign students in UK universities, where massive plagiarism in coursework is the default position.
Yep which is why I think the loophole will be shut in the not so distant future. They have had a shot at it a few times in the last 10-15 years this time they can't afford to fail again from a political point of view.
Under ICAO, planes can fly around the place freely. The only possible control over planes (airframes) is a long term parking ban i.e. evicting a plane after it is parked in Country X for Y months continuously. Where is the supervision and enforcement framework for such a cock and bull policy going to come from? What about a plane stuck in some hangar waiting for parts? OK, hangared planes will be exempt
And so on, and so on.
It's unworkable, which is why the French and the Brits gave up on it as soon as somebody with more than 2 braincells took it out of the hands of the DfT Arts graduates and took a look at implementation (there's a good word; I've referenced it for your convenience) and spotted the obvious work-arounds, and dropped it like a hot potato.
What EASA has proposed (dual pilot papers) is the only workable version, and even that will work only because of pilot self-policing via mandatory insurance requirements. Anybody who wants to ignore it will never be picked up, because "operator residence" is objectively unverifiable (especially if the pilot has done some fairly obvious things).
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
poudpilot I don't have a problem with your suggestions.
But the
Won't happen there has been 10-15 years of build up behind this it started with JAR. They will get it through by hook and crook.
The other changes although would be good would require a complete change in philosophy to aviation in the EU with a federal mandate with large Goverment funding. The politicians could never sell, what is in europe an elitist activity to the population when there are so many larger issues in the community which require the resources.
The only hope you have got is the Greek's and others who are on a knife edge at the moment pulling the whole lot down.
Yep IO they also fiddle there log books, you can buy a type rating on what ever you like, maybe why there is such a movement to have the conversions requirments that we have. To be honest I don't think that many would have an issue with FAA converts, its the other ICAO licenses that the issue is with.
But the
postponing all deadlines linked to this nonsense (suspension of article 70 of the BR is a must)
The other changes although would be good would require a complete change in philosophy to aviation in the EU with a federal mandate with large Goverment funding. The politicians could never sell, what is in europe an elitist activity to the population when there are so many larger issues in the community which require the resources.
The only hope you have got is the Greek's and others who are on a knife edge at the moment pulling the whole lot down.
Yep IO they also fiddle there log books, you can buy a type rating on what ever you like, maybe why there is such a movement to have the conversions requirments that we have. To be honest I don't think that many would have an issue with FAA converts, its the other ICAO licenses that the issue is with.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only hope you have got is the Greek's...
The only hope I'm having is the Transport Committee of the European Parliament, which is not overjoyed by being abused by "them" and "their" hidden agenda
Same with foreign students in UK universities, where massive plagiarism in coursework is the default position.
Moderator
As I am safely and very appreciatively based in Canada, I seem to be insulated from what would appear to be a regulatory schmozzle in Europe. Happily, I have no experience, and no comment on that. However one theme strikes me:
Perhaps there's a jab at the US in there somewhere, I'm not sure. However, I think that those who (by their free choice) purchase, use, borrow, pirate technology which the US has made available should not be whining about it, beyond expecting to get what they've paid for. Any nation can undertake to put in place their own GPS system if they feel they don't like the one that's available for use now. How much do the civilian users of the US GPS system pay for using it?
Though I do not seek to diminish the many contributions to aiviation, and it's technologies from all the other nations over the year, no one can deny that the US is the nation of origin of a great proportion of the small airplane fleet. Though I'm sure the manufacturers of the US aircraft are generally happy to sell them overseas, I don't think it's right for a person from another nation to buy a US aircraft, and then complain about US domination in the industry.
Yes, the people of the US have figured out how to maintain and operate aircraft generally safely, and cost effectively. I don't think anyone should feel burdened by the FAA continuing to "regulate" that, if they choose to not fly within the US system....
Alot of the world feels that the US has to much power over them anyway hence, all this rubbish about having a second GPS system and not being allowed to use the current one in certain situations.
Though I do not seek to diminish the many contributions to aiviation, and it's technologies from all the other nations over the year, no one can deny that the US is the nation of origin of a great proportion of the small airplane fleet. Though I'm sure the manufacturers of the US aircraft are generally happy to sell them overseas, I don't think it's right for a person from another nation to buy a US aircraft, and then complain about US domination in the industry.
Yes, the people of the US have figured out how to maintain and operate aircraft generally safely, and cost effectively. I don't think anyone should feel burdened by the FAA continuing to "regulate" that, if they choose to not fly within the US system....
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very true 
There is a strong undercurrent of dislike of the USA in the "intellectual" circles in Europe. These people have watched the John Wayne films, and the more recent media trash coming out of the USA, and think that Europe is somehow morally superior.
This is especially prevalent in the EU governing circles, and it is the main driver behind the current policy.
There isn't anything one can do about it. The EU "central European government" scene is strongly self selecting by character profile and motivation. Most of the people going to Brussels go there for the expense gravy train, but sadly many politicians at all levels have a chip on both shoulders which doesn't help with enhancing their forward vision
To date, cooler heads have always prevailed in the end and hopefully the same will happen this time.
There is a strong undercurrent of dislike of the USA in the "intellectual" circles in Europe. These people have watched the John Wayne films, and the more recent media trash coming out of the USA, and think that Europe is somehow morally superior.
This is especially prevalent in the EU governing circles, and it is the main driver behind the current policy.
There isn't anything one can do about it. The EU "central European government" scene is strongly self selecting by character profile and motivation. Most of the people going to Brussels go there for the expense gravy train, but sadly many politicians at all levels have a chip on both shoulders which doesn't help with enhancing their forward vision
To date, cooler heads have always prevailed in the end and hopefully the same will happen this time.
Moderator
Far from it, infact it was a jab at folk reinventing the wheel
I am happily oblivious as to what EASA or the JAA (whoever each is) do, as what ever it seems to be, the end result is that work seems to find it's way to me in Canada from Europe! Those few techincal interactions with EASA engineering staff I have had, have left me feeling that they were not at all familiar with the GA aircraft types we were modifying. I don't know how they added any value for their participation....
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many 3rd World countries that do similar things.
In Thailand you get the same stuff, which manifests itself through you having to wait for longer for the permission to fly to certain places, or through having to pay bigger bribes to officials. Eventually the owner "gets the message" and transfers the plane to the local registry.
But the more civilised parts of Europe rose above this stuff some decades ago. Even EASA has not (yet) proposed anything like that.
I am sure Mexico makes you enter and exit via a Port of Entry. Every country in the world does (Schengen excepted). But what happens if you over-stayed? Obviously, in Mexico, it means a bigger backhander.
But it is also a smaller issue in Mexico, because most pilots there can pop up to the USA, and break the 180-day limit that way. Does Mexico have a mandatory minimum "time away" also? If it did, the wealthier operators would still solve it easily by renting/leasing a plane from the USA and rotating it. For example, if you had a 180/180 rule then you just swap your jet every 180 days with an operator in the USA; I am sure any leasing company will be delighted to assist with that
The 2004/2005 French/UK proposals would have been equally solved by doing a swap every 90 days, so somewhere out there would need to be a fleet of four planes. Obviously this is not practical for a small private GA owner.
In Thailand you get the same stuff, which manifests itself through you having to wait for longer for the permission to fly to certain places, or through having to pay bigger bribes to officials. Eventually the owner "gets the message" and transfers the plane to the local registry.
But the more civilised parts of Europe rose above this stuff some decades ago. Even EASA has not (yet) proposed anything like that.
I am sure Mexico makes you enter and exit via a Port of Entry. Every country in the world does (Schengen excepted). But what happens if you over-stayed? Obviously, in Mexico, it means a bigger backhander.
But it is also a smaller issue in Mexico, because most pilots there can pop up to the USA, and break the 180-day limit that way. Does Mexico have a mandatory minimum "time away" also? If it did, the wealthier operators would still solve it easily by renting/leasing a plane from the USA and rotating it. For example, if you had a 180/180 rule then you just swap your jet every 180 days with an operator in the USA; I am sure any leasing company will be delighted to assist with that
The 2004/2005 French/UK proposals would have been equally solved by doing a swap every 90 days, so somewhere out there would need to be a fleet of four planes. Obviously this is not practical for a small private GA owner.
