EASA FCL - Latest from Brussels

[proudprivate]

Hi all,

1. With the latest session of the Transport Committee over, most MEP's are going on holiday's till mid-August now. Since quite a few of them belong to more than one Committee, they will probably still be in town until the end of the week.

This means that you still have until Friday to contact them and to voice your concerns about the EASA FCL proposal (the IMC-regulation; the N-reg issues; the onerous FTO requirements; etc...). After that, it will become more time critical (time to draft the resolution for objection; get everyone aligned; etc...)

You can find the list of TRAN MEP's here

Your MEPs : List of MEPs



2. A friend of mine told me that the Commission is holding a review of the EASA rulemaking procedure(s), with meetings taking place over the course the course of last week, presided over by Baldwin. I think such an initiative can only be applauded, as it could mean
- more efficiency
- better transparency
- appropriate stakeholder input
- more accountability
- improved consistency

Anybody else heard about this ? Or what the status / potential outcome is likely to be? Flies on the wall ?

Proudprivate

[Pace]

pushing this back up the list

[proudprivate]

I guess it should be a sticky

From experience, I've noticed that talking, in combination with writing letters, works best. I guess most people with a concern will have written an letter to a TRAN MEP at some stage.

Calling their office and speak to one of their assistents as a follow up is very useful : it allows you to clarify points, rebut the biggest Commission bull**** with specific and convincing arguments and it helps you gauge their true interest. Every MEP or MEP's assistent I've spoken with is motivated to engage with you. So while it is not much, in contrast to what a lot of people have declared here in a defeatist way, you all individually do have leverage over these people.

You can find phone numbers of their offices easily on the individual MEP's website (that is, if they keep an office as not all of them do).

Good luck with your marketing campaign

[Pace]

whoops accidental post again

[David Roberts]

PP wrote: "A friend of mine told me that the Commission is holding a review of the EASA rulemaking procedure(s), with meetings taking place over the course the course of last week, presided over by Baldwin......Anybody else heard about this ? Or what the status / potential outcome is likely to be? Flies on the wall ?"

This sounds like the 'high level group' that was set up last year by the EC, and which is due to finish its work about now. The GA rep on it is the President of the Deutscher Aero Club, and the UK CAA is there too I think.

[proudprivate]

About the DAeC...

This sounds like the 'high level group' that was set up last year by the EC, and which is due to finish its work about now. The GA rep on it is the President of the Deutscher Aero Club, and the UK CAA is there too I think.

Nothing on the DAeC website.

Interestingly, I saw their 8.3.2011 note :

Auf der EASA-Website gibt es jetzt die deutsche Übersetzung zum „Draft Regulation on Part-FCL“–Pilotenlizenzen. Die EASA hat in den vergangenen Jahren an der Entwicklung europäischer Lizenzen gearbeitet. Der DAeC und Europe Air Sports haben sich intensiv am Konsultationsprozess beteiligt. Jetzt befindet sich das Regelwerk im Abstimmungsprozess der nationalen Vertreter bevor es vom EU-Parlament verabschiedet wird.

Which process would that have been ? The EASA committee meeting was on the 7/8 December and then the topic was supposedly to go for "translation" to Parliament. Incidentally, the translated text has now been effectively presented to Parliament. Is the "Abstimmungsprozess" then a discussion about the various translations of the draft proposal ? Why would that take 7 months (from 9th December to the 9th of July) ?

the UK CAA is there too I think

My friend mentioned the French DGAC. So wouldn't be surprised of the CAA or DofT showed up too.

This sounds like the 'high level group' that was set up last year by the EC, and which is due to finish its work about now.

Could you elaborate a bit about the precise purpose / action plan of the "High level group" ? What would be the ideal outcome of such a meeting series ?

[trevs99uk]

I sent Mr Baldwin and e-mail asking several questions and got this response.

Dear Sir,
Thank you for your email dated 26 May 2011 concerning issues linked to general
aviation. Pursuant to the Commission's Communication of 11 January 2008 on Agenda
for Sustainable Future in General and Business Aviation, the Commission supports a
proportionate regulation of this sector, including the safety aspects.
With regard to licensing, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there is a
clear legal mandate in Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 that requires pilots residing in the
European Union (EU), including pilots flying n-registered aircraft, to comply with the
European licensing requirements. This Regulation also mandates the Commission to
propose common rules in the area of pilot licensing and medical certification.
Secondly, you refer to the potential socio-economic impact of the proposed rules. The
proposals have been made to ensure that throughout the EU the same criteria and
procedures are applied to determine the technical competency of pilots. It is only through
common and harmonised requirements and procedures that we will be able to achieve
both a uniform high level of safety and a common undistorted market where pilots can
exercise everywhere in the EU their activities without hindrance.
As to several issues raised in your email including the medical requirements for pilots
and general aviation instructors, the current Commission's proposals are based on
currently existing Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR FCL 1 and 3) and were subject to a
wide consultation process during which interests of all stakeholders were duly
considered. The proposals were agreed with the sole aim of ensuring an appropriate level
of safety and provide with sufficient flexibility in order to disrupt as less as possible
existing national systems.
In response to your comment on Annex II aircraft, the decision to exempt them from the
FCL requirements – except in some cases when operated commercially - was taken by
the Member states and the European Legislators based on the principle of proportionality
and subsidiarity. This allows Member States to apply softer or more adapted rules to
Annex II aircraft but does not prevent Member States from applying harmonised EU

FCL.
Ref. Ares(2011)681438 - 24/06/2011
2
The same principle of distribution of competences applies to language proficiency
requirements, as the new FCL Regulation mandates only a certain language proficiency
level; however, detailed organisational aspects of who and how should perform the tests,
as well as their cost, are left to the Member States in line with the principle of
subsidiarity.
Concerning the review of instrument rating requirements aiming at their simplification,
this issue is the subject of a currently ongoing EASA task. A public consultation (socalled
Notice of Proposed Amendment for NPA) is due to be launched in the second half
of 2011 and the final EASA proposal could be transmitted to the Commission in 2012.
Please, feel invited to participate in this consultation and contribute to the swift adoption
of the appropriate EU rules.
With regard to your question on part M, the Commission already introduced in 2008,
with Regulation (EC) No 1056/2008, a first adaptation of the continuing airworthiness
requirements of Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 which brought some alleviations to the
pre-existing requirements. The Commission has also mandated EASA to work further on
the matter and has underlined repeatedly that it was one of the priorities of EASA
rulemaking activity. EASA has initiated a number of tasks to propose alleviations where
considered possible, without impairing the level of safety, in particular task MDM.032
which has been recently concluded in the form of EASA Opinion No 1/2011. On the
basis of this Opinion, which I hope takes into account the concerns that you have
expressed, my services are currently working a further adaptation of the airworthiness
requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003. It is
expected that this amendment could be adopted in the second half of 2011 or early 2012.
This future regulation will provide another opportunity to address your concerns related
to continuing airworthiness.
You also referred to the need for harmonisation of night flying rules, which is indeed an
issue that needs to be tackled at EU level. We have moved ahead on this issue with the
new Standardised European Rules of Air (SERA), which will standardise the conditions
under which night VFR flying will take place if it is allowed at all by the Member State
in question. It was however impossible to decree that Night VFR would be allowed all
over the EU as many Member States felt that there is a need for flexibility in order to
take into account local conditions, such as geography or typical weather. The new SERA
rule is due to enter into force at the end of 2012.
In addition, on this subject EU-OPS1 contains strict limits for the commercial operation
of single-engine aeroplanes and prohibits such operations at night or under instrument
meteorological conditions (IMC) except under special visual flight rules. Nevertheless,
some Member States have authorised an exemption from the limiting rule, founded on
the need to maintain this type of operations on specific or remote areas and following the
enhanced standards of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).
1 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonization of technical requirements and
administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation, OJ L 373, 31.12.1991, p. 4, as last amended by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 859/2008, OJ L 254, 20.9.2008.
3
The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) allows since 2005 the operation of
single-engine aeroplanes by night or under IMC under certain conditions. EASA foresees
to study further this issue with the view of proposing harmonised conditions under which
the operation such operations could be allowed in the EU.
Further you commented on the plan to mandate the carriage of new radios that are
capable of operating in the 8.33 KHz channel division. Admittedly this is an expensive
mandate, but at the same time it is also an unavoidable measure. The growing congestion
in European airspace has led to a shortage of frequencies, which can be most efficiently
alleviated by splitting the available frequency band into smaller increments. This will
also benefit General Aviation operations as they will be able to continue to operate in
controlled airspace and to use the various radio-related services in uncontrolled airspace.
Unfortunately, unless all airspace users migrate to the new radios, none of these
advantages are achieved. Taking into account this possible financial burden, my services
have decided on a strategy of drawn out implementation over a period of many years to
minimise the cost. This allows radios to be swapped for new units as the old radios come
to the end of their useful age, hence reducing the additional investment need. The actual
date of final retrofit has not yet been decided, but is expected to fall around 2017 or
2018.
As regards differing access control measures at EU airports I would like to recall that EU
rules on aviation security provide for the possibility to create demarcated areas for
operations with smaller aircraft at EU airports. It is up to national authorities, based on a
local risk assessment, to adopt alternative security measures that provide an adequate
level of protection for such areas as long as these are separated from the rest of the
security restricted area of the airport. Depending on local circumstances and their risk
assessment, authorities therefore may or may not create such demarcated areas.
You have also mentioned the important issue of translation mistakes included in some
EU safety legislation. Let me inform you that both the Commission and EASA are
working together in order to improve the quality of translations and that my services are
at your disposal for addressing urgently any translation mistake identified.
Last but not least, concerning ageism, the rules contained in FCL Regulation for
commercial operations follow what is prescribed by ICAO. Nevertheless, in certain cases
- e.g. balloon pilots - some alleviations have already been made to address the concerns
raised by the general aviation, allowing these pilots to fly longer.
Finally, it is my conviction that the Commission has widely accommodated the concerns
of the general aviation community in the proposals described above.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed)
Matthew Baldwin

[bookworm]

Bear in mind Silvaire that this only applies to commercial air transport operations. There are no restrictions on private ops. I don't know Part 121 very well, but it appears that FAR 121.159 similarly prohibits Part 121 carriers from using singles.

[David Roberts]

Having had meetings with the said gentleman on three occasions in Brussels since mid April (he took up his new post in February) I can assure you he is no 'idiot bureaucrat'. Far from it. Sharp, quick, well-informed.

The quoted reply from him was clearly not written by him, but by a member of his staff whose native language is not English (UK version). That I can tell easily from some of the phraseology and syntax. Mr B, as a senior European civil servant, a Brit and ex UK DfT, would personally write such a reply slightly differently. The fact that he appears to have signed it (unless someone else did on his behalf) merely reflects the fact that as Director of Air Transport, he has a very busy diary.

Turning to the content of the reply, I think is is perfectly comprehensive (given I have not seen the letter to him) and inevitably the author has to refer to the relevant legislation.

[patowalker]

English as she is spoke : " in order to disrupt as less as possible existing national systems."

[robin]

Further you commented on the plan to mandate the carriage of new radios that are
capable of operating in the 8.33 KHz channel division. Admittedly this is an expensive
mandate, but at the same time it is also an unavoidable measure.

A fairly typical reply from EASA.

You might be right in saying these guys mean well and that something gets lost in translation. But this is fairly clear in any language - they don't appreciate the excessive burdens they are placing on GA and don't even apologise for the fact

[BillieBob]

We have moved ahead on this issue with the new Standardised European Rules of Air (SERA), which will standardise the conditions under which night VFR flying will take place if it is allowed at all by the Member State in question.

That's all very well but SERA A is not due to become law until at least the end of 2012 whereas an IR becomes mandatory for all flight under IFR from April 2012. Unless the UK acts independently to allow flight under VFR at night in the next 9 months, the night skies are going to be very quiet (which some may say is no bad thing)!

[IO540]

The proposals have been made to ensure that throughout the EU the same criteria and procedures are applied to determine the technical competency of pilots. It is only through common and harmonised requirements and procedures that we will be able to achieve both a uniform high level of safety and a common undistorted market where pilots can exercise everywhere in the EU their activities without hindrance.

That's typical Euro-bollox. There is no evidence of reduced safety under e.g. FAA regs. But what would one expect?

There is absolutely no point in asking an EASA or EU official to explain himself. You will always get the standard line trotted out.

You will achieve more by writing to them and asking them if the UK can leave the EU, or whatever.

Further you commented on the plan to mandate the carriage of new radios that are capable of operating in the 8.33 KHz channel division. Admittedly this is an expensive mandate, but at the same time it is also an unavoidable measure. The growing congestion in European airspace has led to a shortage of frequencies, which can be most efficiently alleviated by splitting the available frequency band into smaller increments. This will also benefit General Aviation operations as they will be able to continue to operate in
controlled airspace and to use the various radio-related services in uncontrolled airspace. Unfortunately, unless all airspace users migrate to the new radios, none of these advantages are achieved.

That has been comprehensively proven to be total bollox.

The frequency allocation issue is 100.000% a national radio spectrum authority job protection scheme. If frequencies were allocated centrally in the EU (or with equivalent co-operation between countries) 25kHz spacing would be fine (as it is in the USA) but perhaps a dozen jobs would be lost around Europe.

It's a very ignorant email for a Brit who ought to know better.

[BEagle]

...as many Member States felt that there is a need for flexibility in order to take into account local conditions, such as geography or typical weather.

Strange, though, that the same logic wasn't applied to the IMC rating?

The quote is explicitly allowed for under the provisions of JAR-FCL 1.175(b); however, that has not been taken into part-FCL. Had it been, all the argument about the UK IMCR would have been unnecessary.

[proudprivate]

the 8.333 kHz issue and then some

The frequency allocation issue is 100.000% a national radio spectrum authority job protection scheme. If frequencies were allocated centrally in the EU (or with equivalent co-operation between countries) 25kHz spacing would be fine (as it is in the USA) but perhaps a dozen jobs would be lost around Europe.

I know that national authorities want to sit on frequencies they rarely use (or use alternatingly with others they could also give up), so it is clear that the "sharp, quick, well-informed" Matthew Baldwin is bull****ting again, most likely deliberately deceiving the general public in this case.

But why is it a job protection issue ? Who's jobs depend on whether a frequency is allocated to a tower or another ATC facility ?

The quoted reply from him was clearly not written by him, but by a member of his staff whose native language is not English (UK version). That I can tell easily from some of the phraseology and syntax. Mr B, as a senior European civil servant, a Brit and ex UK DfT, would personally write such a reply slightly differently. The fact that he appears to have signed it (unless someone else did on his behalf) merely reflects the fact that as Director of Air Transport, he has a very busy diary.

He is not a Director General, or a Commissioner, or a Transport Minister is he ? The latter two will sign everything their cabinet tells them to sign. I know they pulled a joke on the Belgian Research Minister in the 80-ties by having him sign a decision to re-open the Antartic King Boudewijn base (which, at the time, was covered under a 30 m ice layer ).

But at director level, which is two or three steps below that in the administration, you're supposed to read what you sign. If it is gibberish (like the above letter) and you sign it, then you deliberately obfuscate a citizen's concern. The correct thing to do it to send it back and insist on more clarity from your subordinates. [I've just realised : the letter was probably written by Seebohm ]

A fairly typical reply from EASA.

In this case, it's the Commission. While I haven't had the benefit of 3 meetings with Baldwin since april, I'm beginning to get a clear idea on the Commission's "vision" on general aviation. It consists of flying locally, in class G or E airspace, on Saturday (not on Sunday for noise abatement reasons. Then only gliding is allowed - unless the neighbours complain of the noise).

Instead of being considerate and balanced (what Mr. Baldwin always claims to be), he doesn't give a toss about the costs or burdens on the aviation community.

When he writes

It is only through common and harmonised requirements and procedures that we will be able to achieve both a uniform high level of safety and a common undistorted market where pilots can exercise everywhere in the EU their activities without hindrance

he proves that he doesn't understand economics and that he abuses safety as an argument to push a protectionist agenda. Where are the safety statistics to support this FCL draft proposal ?

Without hindrance ? Is he proposing to abolish his money grabbing agency or something ? Maybe we should all write to the Polish transport minister and propose him to cut the EASA budget by 20-30 Million or so. I'm sure we can find sufficient arguments to make the case.

Strange, though, that the same logic wasn't applied to the IMC rating?

The quote is explicitly allowed for under the provisions of JAR-FCL 1.175(b); however, that has not been taken into part-FCL. Had it been, all the argument about the UK IMCR would have been unnecessary.

Exactly. Proves my earlier points about deception and the Commission's "vision".

[David Roberts]

PP wrote: [I've just realised : the letter was probably written by Seebohm ]

Good guess I would say...

I'll have a word with Mr B to suggest he reads all letters put in front of him for signature.

[fireflybob]

Folks, until we get a (hopefully peaceful) revolution then nothing will change!

I defy anyone to really understand this bureaucratic nonsense.

After all, what is a licence? Merely a piece of paper which proves you are qualified!

[tdbristol]

Lacking judgement and purpose

It may be that Baldwin (like many others in Brussels) are:

Sharp, quick, well-informed.

and in fact in my experience of these people they almost all are very bright and often hard working.
The problems however - with Baldwin and most others involved - are that:

a) they have little real experience or understanding of the issues for those involved
(as evidenced by the statements that Baldwin makes about 8.33KHz radios, night flying, and others.)

b) they are so far into 'the bureaucratic process' that they do not step back and take a holistic view of what is actually right to do for those involved.
Take the point that Baldwin makes about

clear legal mandate in Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 that requires pilots residing in the European Union (EU), including pilots flying n-registered aircraft, to comply with the European licensing requirements

Apart from the fact that this is stretching the truth [the Basic Regulation actually says no such thing] the real issue - that Baldwin and others appear not to grasp (deliberately or otherwise) - is that there is no safety or other reason to target N-reg pilots, therefore why is he and others so keen on pursuing law that works on a clearly mistaken assumption, particularly when the results will be so detrimental?
Anyone with real gumption and the real interests of those concerned would take the view that "the proposed law is daft, therefore let's change it". However Baldwin and many others seem so follow the approach:
- there is some general EU law
- therefore we should implement it to the extreme, even if it makes no real sense (and please don't bother us with the facts either)

c) And more generally, my own experience is that these people have their own agenda foremost in their mind - typically furthering their careering and/or scoring political points - and whatever 'collateral damage' occurs commensurate with this [such as N-reg and GA generally], well so be it. (In my experience this is typically the most important criteria in decision-making.)

Cynical, but that is my view.

So I think the only way to change things is to make it advantageous for the careers of those involved to change, by making it politically uncomfortable for them to continue in the same vein - so letters and phone calls to MEPs, UK DfT, the CAA...

[IO540]

Apparently, approximately 1 job in each country's CAA is concerned with aviation frequency allocation, and this is the only thing which is driving the 8.33 proposition in Europe.

The proposition is traditionally trotted out by Eurocontrol, whose blindly arrogant presentations (especially ones done by a chap going under the name of Hendrix) have to be seen to be believed.

The last one I was at, in 2009 or so, they trotted out another piece of blind faith which was thousands of VLJs clogging up the skies. I advised them that the VLJ market was just about dead, Eclipse had gone bust, the air taxi proposition discredited, etc. They were quite shocked. Afterwards, an executive from Eclipse walked up to me and congratulated me for talking sense which none of those present could have done under the names of their organisations.

This is the kind of garbage and blind arrogance which is driving regulation in the EU.

Unfortunately, the EU is quite successfully exporting its regulatory garbage outside the EU. Some of the Far East is going Part M, and one clue-less Eurocontrol speaker I saw was straight off to some S. American country "to show them how it's done". Obviously the EU is trying to push the USA out of its de facto world domination of aviation regulation, and the poor sods who are buying into this garbage do not know any better.

- there is some general EU law
- therefore we should implement it to the extreme

That was deliberate. You propose a vague law which nobody can vote against, and then you build on the back of it. A very old tactic.

[Pace]

Apart from the fact that this is stretching the truth [the Basic Regulation actually says no such thing] the real issue - that Baldwin and others appear not to grasp (deliberately or otherwise) - is that there is no safety or other reason to target N-reg pilots, therefore why is he and others so keen on pursuing law that works on a clearly mistaken assumption, particularly when the results will be so detrimental?

I am pretty sure the informed do grasp that! Sadly we presume wrongly that our industry is at the mercy of some big bad wolf.

sections of our industry wrongly see N reg as competition and have been lobbying for its removal instead of lobbying for less regulation which has created their high cost situations in the first place.

EASA is a safety body so people like Baldwin will spout that mandate whether its true or not.

They cannot spout on demonstrated threat (ie the stats) so they spout on percieved threat. ie no demonstrable threat but a broader picture of safety being achieved by control and intervention which we all know is not the case.
IE more regulations more intervention more oversight has to equal better safety. The reality is that a major reason for Europes imminent collapse has been on the mass of non productive government created positions in the UK alone amounting to 25 % of all employment.

Without regulating and then creating more jobs in sub organisations to implement those regulations all those millions of jobs in Europe would not be sustainable hence the expensive and strangled situation Europe is in now.

http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-fl...sled-lfpb.html

Have a look at the above link to see how stupid things are going

Pace