N-reg situation update

[bookworm]

I have rarely known such heartfelt predictions to be made on PPRuNe with Pace and perhaps Bookie and Peterh337 on one side of the fence, BoseX and 421C on the other.

I assure you that you can't squeeze a piece of paper between my and C421's thoughts on the issue, let alone a fence.

[peterh337]

And what are they?

Are we all going to get arrested at 0915Z tomorrow?

[421C]

Fuji, could you tell me what my prediction is that puts me on whatever side of the fence you say I am on?
421C

[bookworm]

Are we all going to get arrested at 0915Z tomorrow?

For eating an oil filter? No, it's a bit weird but AFAIK it's not against the law.

[Thomascl605]

So, the legal stance seems to be this.

1. Check with your local CAA as to what they specify in terms of the regs, conversion procedures or grandfather rights. You will need this in writing from them.

2. As per point 1 if they are not giving a straightforward conversion FAA to EASA such as a one time differences exam, then you need to work out your loss of earnings for the rest of your career.

3. When financial loss is calculated you would apparantly have a very strong case to take forwards to the ECHR, especially if you have been working for many years on a non european licence (law of precedent )

I would suggest if this is the case then we should get as many affected Pilots / Businesses involved as possible. Let's work together and win !

[mm_flynn]

Thomas,

It is a little early for that, given no NAA seems to know what is going on for the medium term and more generally, the NAA's have until several months into the future to decide if they have or have not implementing any of these now. So it is impossible to know the law of the land applicable Today in most EU countries (with respect to this specific subject).

In a few months we will have a much clearer picture of who is doing what, when and may well have some visible progress/or lack of progress on resolving some of the many loose ends.

IANAL, but with regard to loss in any damages case you need to take action to mitigate the loss. For the vast majority of pilots this can 'easily' be done simply through the expenditure of less than several 10s of thousands of Euros and a year or two of training and testing.

[Pace]

I have rarely known such heartfelt predictions to be made on PPRuNe with Pace and perhaps Bookie and Peterh337 on one side of the fence, BoseX and 421C on the other.

I believe strongly in licence recognition as nothing else makes any sense.
Aviation knows no boundaries and pilots should be able to work freely worldwide.
It is absolute madness that I can fly across Europe as a Captain in a jet at present but all of a sudden because of some regulators who are not regulating to their mandate of safety I would be required to hold licences which have no bearing or relevance to the aircraft I am flying.
This is protectionism of the worst kind and should have no bearing in a modern world.

Licence recognition HAS to come and the only way that can happen is by convergence of licencing standards.

Hear EASA have failed our industry massively as they had the opportunity of regulating to bringing European standards in line with the FAA but instead went off trying to reinvent the wheel.
Mad Jock inadvertently hit on a point that it was not right that so many foreign registered aircraft should be Europe based yet controlled from 2000 miles away!
That point has some merit!

In a free market society which we are supposed to be although I am starting to doubt that! The normal way to compete is to offer something which is more attractive than your competitor.
There are reasons why so many N reg are Europe based.

EASA could have got rid of N reg by putting something equally or more attractive in place.

This is nothing I know but a bi lateral could be dual control over 3rd country aircraft which are foreign based.

The FAA could give EASA control rights over foreign based aircraft which in itself would negate the need for dual licences.

I wonder if a Bi Lateral may be something along those lines rather than licence convergence and acceptance.

Sadly licence convergence and acceptance should be the way forward but EASA have missed their chance unless there is some real give and take with the FAA.

As for a legal challenge should all fail I would imagine this would be brought by AOPA and not financed by an individual.

Pace

[S-Works]

As for a legal challenge should all fail I would imagine this would be brought by AOPA and not financed by an individual.

As an AOPA member I would be veyr unhappy if my membership fees were used to fight a court case on behalf of people who have had over five years to convert licences to meet the regulations of their home country and refuse to do so because it is inconvenient or to much like hard work.

I am dual licenced so happy to take over any of the job vacancies that will arise from those who refuse to comply.......

[421C]

What happened to the N-Flyers group: http://www.november.aero/ ?
No update on their site since Sep '11?

[peterh337]

EASA could have got rid of N reg by putting something equally or more attractive in place.

Of course, but this has been known to everybody and their dog for much longer than EASA has been around.

JAA officials openly admitted (in presentations etc) that they knew this, and let's face it everybody knows this

But protectionism rules in Europe, and that's the end of it. JAA never had any legal authority. EASA (via EU directives) does have the authority but they blew it (again, because of protectionism at various levels; not just FCL but certification) and instead brought in a weird vague legal framework which merely increases the FUD element which for all the preceeding years has been the principal lid on the expansion of the N-reg community.

FUD does work pretty well and costs very little. There is a blog out there of a Bonanza owner who went N-reg and started on the FAA IR, then read about the 2005 DfT proposal and got scared and blew away some 4 or 5 digits to go back on G and gave up on the IR. He could have had 7 years of priceless IFR mission capability and enhanced safety, with at least 2 more to go....

EASA (as every other EU agency) is carefully set up to resist traditional industry pressure (which is how they managed to bring in crap like ROHS, despite protests from multi billion electronics manufacturers) but it remains vulnerable lower down because all the committees are stuffed with the same people who run national CAAs and training operations. That's why I am pessimistic on the good stuff; it is vulnerable to sufficient gold plating to make it all but worthless.

[Pace]

As an AOPA member I would be veyr unhappy if my membership fees were used to fight a court case on behalf of people who have had over five years to convert licences to meet the regulations of their home country and refuse to do so because it is inconvenient or to much like hard work.

As an AOPA member with the same rights as you I maybe unhappy with my fees defending you in a court case should one ever arise
AOPA should defend the interests of all it members regardless of colour or creed.
We have NOT had five years to meet the regulations of this country.
Remember what is on the plate now is NOT EASAs preferred route and is only the route they threaten to take should a Bi Lateral fail.
I also repeat the regulations on the plate at present are legally flawed which EASA realise.
I am equally sure Bi Lateral or no Bi Lateral what will be on the plate in 2014 will not be whats on the plate now.

I am dual licenced so happy to take over any of the job vacancies that will arise from those who refuse to comply.......

Bose you maybe lucky enough to be dual licensed but did you do the conventional route to your European licences or jump through an existing loophole? I have nothing against that other than those people who did taking a holier than thou attitude!
I was so close to going through the Irish loophole which many did myself!


Pace

[peterh337]

Quite true; also some people don't have to work for a living since they got paid off from a nice IT project

[Pace]

And by the way, stopping to Peter's tactics of trying to discredit and spread misinformation about people when they don't agree with you was something I always thought was beneath you......

Bose

I most certainly was not trying to discredit you and thanks for clearing that point up.
As stated even if you had jumped through a loophole which many have I have nothing against that neither would I have considered you a lesser pilot.
A lot with me is the principal which I do not agree with so it would be a bitter pill to chew getting licences which hold no practical relevance to the aircraft I fly and will add needless costs to me in money and time to do what I already do.
It maybe that by the end of this year I have to go the EASA way but the right way even if it does not happen now has to be global recognition and standardisation of licences and that is my principal.
EASA had a golden opportunity of doing just that while saving the industry a fortune and failed to do so.


Pace

[S-Works]

It maybe that by the end of this year I have to go the EASA way but the right way even if it does not happen now has to be global recognition and standardisation of licences and that is my principal.
EASA had a golden opportunity of doing just that while saving the industry a fortune and failed to do so.

But I think thats where the problem lies. Your principal is flawed in my humble opinion.

You chose what was perceived and easier and cheaper system. Cheaper because it is paid for by tax payers in another country. A system that you only take from. European philosophy is to protect its citizens and that includes the flight training and regulatory industry. So they are well within their rights to insist that as a European resident and tax payer you participate in the regime over here.

This is nothing to do with safety or recognition of licences, it is about protectionism. EASA are not saying that they don't recognise your licence, just that they want you to have one of theirs as well so that you have passed through the same system as everyone else. This is no different from what any other country does. Everywhere I have worked I have had to convert my licence to that countries. The complexity of conversion has been different every time. EASA have chosen to make it appear to be more difficult than it needs to be, but that is their choice and European law. So you are faced with either complying, leaving or giving up. Or if you really think your human rights are being abused take them to court. Personally I think you would only be able to claim that if you were prevented from working, which you are not, you are just being told to comply like the rest of us......

[421C]

European philosophy is to protect its citizens and that includes the flight training and regulatory industry. So they are well within their rights to insist that as a European resident and tax payer you participate in the regime over here.

There is an even more fundamental European philosophy, which is that we are a democracy and we are entitled to due process when decisions are made. If there had been a process to determine whether the interests of the "regulatory industry" and flight training outweighed those of the pilots, operators and thousands of people in the airport, aircraft, maintenance and parts industries who depend on FRA operators, and that process decided to ban FRA, then fair enough.

But there wasn't. You are just spouting some ex-post justification. I thought the purpose of regulations was to benefit flight safety. Isn't it a bit circular to argue that regulations should benefit the "regulatory industry"!

[Thomascl605]

I might have known that Bose would have put together an ill worded response such as taking the jobs of fellow European pilots who are no longer able to work. A four letter word springs to mind, beginning with s, ending in b and having ca in the middle. Do you get my drift ?

As for having 5 years to convert before this, then I find that comment absolutely ludicrous, I have never had 5 years before now in which to convert. As for trying to convert whilst working this is simply not possibly due to the demands of corporate flying. I would have to leave my job in order to convert my licence, upon passing the multi guess dross 14 written exams etc would find that my job has been taken by someone like Bose.

As for going to court, yes, I would. If it's alone then so be it at least I have had a go at the stupid legal system that now envelopes Europe. Maybe the next law from the EU will affect you Bose, perhaps you won't think it as funny then.

As I have a young family to support I do indeed believe that this would be against my human rights if enforced. Why, pray tell do I need an EASA licence to fly a plane with a big 'N' on the tail. I don't recall seeing that in the FAR's.

As for residency of operator/ pilot I also don't recall seeing that in the FAR's either. I am a legally licenced pilot that has been flying 'N' reg for years, law of precedent, and this is discrimination against european citizens at its worst.

[Pace]

Bose

The way you talk is as if N reg in Europe is something which has just been discovered and must be closed off.

N reg in Europe had grown and established itself as an industry in its own rights over decades.

In most walks of law established practice has legal rights of protection in itself.

N reg in Europe has been there legally for longer than the EU itself.
If all of a sudden EASA want to remove it in my eyes they have a moral obligation to protect those involved from financial hardship or loss of income and employment which THEIR legislation incurs on innocent European Citizens going about their legitimate business.
I think you will find that those protections are inherent in EU law.

Pace

[S-Works]

421, I AM NOT, Saying that at all. You of all people should know better.

I am saying the way it has happened. If you read what I have said constantly, I do not think that there is any benefit to this at all. It does not promote flight safety in any way.

I am just saying it as it stands at the moment and I why I think we are where we are now.

Do you really think I would not jump on the chance for EASA to just vanish and the FAA system fill the void. Lets put it in perspective on how I and the company would benefit by that.

FTO/TRTO Approvals just over £3k every time they are issued. Don't even start me on our CAMO and Part M approvals.

My own approvals. FI(A) requires renewing by test and seminar. CRI SE & ME now have to be renewed by test. My IRI needs renewing by test. My Examiner Approval needs renewing by test. I have turbine type and class ratings required to be renewed annually and biannually by test, my IR and MEP need an annual test.

Have you any idea how much that lot costs? It's all a complete crock.

However, it is where we are. If we are such a democracy, how did we get here in the first place? It is all about protectionism, pure and simple.

[S-Works]

I might have known that Bose would have put together an ill worded response such as taking the jobs of fellow European pilots who are no longer able to work. A four letter word springs to mind, beginning with s, ending in b and having ca in the middle. Do you get my drift ?

Hey, don't shoot the messenger......

[Thomascl605]

It's your current attitude Bose towards fellow European Pilots that I find troubling. It's sad that you think there would be more jobs available so that you could just walk into them. It won't be the case, that I can promise.

In fact we will be looking for a freelancer over the next few months, FAA Certs only, resident in Europe please.........