N-reg situation update

[mad_jock]

Neither me or Bose have any problems with fellow european pilots.

We are just telling you something that you don't want to hear.

Having a personal attack on everyone that tells you the bad news isn't going to change the situation.

It really doesn't matter who you employ and what tickets they have. Its not going to change the politics of whats going to happen.

[S-Works]

Thomas, I think you have misread what I wrote. I am not wishing anyone out of a job, I merely pointing out the facts. My original post about filling the gap which seems have vanished did have THREE raspberries after it indicating it was meant to be tongue in cheek humour.....

I don't need your job by the way, I have enough to do with my own....

FAA commercial pilots are not being denied a living, they are just being told they ALSO have to comply with EASA rules. That does not deny them the right to feed there children, it just means they have hoops to jump through.

This is no different from an EASA pilot wanting to go and work in the USA. You have to convert and I see nothing wrong with that.

I think the conversion path is more onerous under EASA than it needs to be and thats something that seems constantly being failed to be addressed but even so for a current commercial pilot especially a type rated one its not insurmountable.

[Pace]

If that is the case then why dont you fight the system that is costing our industry so dear instead of fighting the results of that system N reg.
Take away N reg and the system does not go away.

It really doesn't matter who you employ and what tickets they have. Its not going to change the politics of whats going to happen

Mad Jock what exactly is going to happen I am glad you know!!!



Pace

[421C]

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

Sorry bose, I should have directed that differently. You have written your understaning of why we are where we are. I agree with it as an explanation but I feel obliged to push back on it whenever I see it written, if only because people writing it often enough (even as an explanation, as you have done) has a way of "normalising" it and making it seem "OK". I fully accept that you think it is a bad thing.

[421C]

If that is the case then why dont you fight the system that
is costing our industry so dear

If I may say, knowing Bose in real life, he does his bit and more. You may not like his prose or his opinions at times, but I'd confine the discussion to that. He is highly experienced, highly and legitimately qualified (including his UK CAA Examiner approvals) and is a contributor to the GA community in his flying/teaching/examining and AOPA work well beyond the typical private or working pilot.

[mad_jock]

If that is the case then why dont you fight the system

We have better things to fight for like the IMC and maybe we realise that you don't go into battle when you know your going to loose everything and for that matter there is great potential for making things worse in a system that we are fully intergrated into.

What is going to happen?

I think they will by hook, crook and what ever means they require, make EU residents and resident aircraft comply with local oversight and thier way of doing things.

[Thomascl605]

Thanks Bose, for clearing that up.

I do disagree though that your comparison of a European pilot working in the US and converting doesn't quite stack up.

We are talking about two completely different things.

I am a European Pilot / Citizen who chooses to fly 'N' reg aircraft which happen to be in Europe. I have made a living like this for many years. I did not require a European licence to fly before and the FAR's do not state that a European licence is required to fly 'N' reg aircraft.

It's like the FAA specifying that you need an FAA licence to fly a European aircraft on say the German D register, that happens to be based in the US (even though you have a European licence) This of course wouldn't happen.

[S-Works]

If that is the case then why dont you fight the system that is costing our industry so dear instead of fighting the results of that system N reg.
Take away N reg and the system does not go away.

Because I don't have the time or inclination to enter into a bun fight of that scale. It was easier for me to comply.

It's like the FAA specifying that you need an FAA licence to fly a European aircraft on say the German D register, that happens to be based in the US (even though you have a European licence) This of course wouldn't happen.

Maybe, but that does not stop them owners of the airspace defining there own rules and that is where we are now. Although as far as I am aware the US do not allow you to operate a foreign reg on US soil long term.

[Fuji Abound]

Bose

There is a significant dichotomy in your posts:

On the one hand you say:

You chose what was perceived and easier and cheaper system. Cheaper becauseit is paid for by tax payers in another country. A system that you only takefrom.

but then:

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 thecompany would benefit by that.

By implication you decry those who have taken the FAA route for the reasonsyou give, and with the next breath wish the same system was adopted.

I can understand a state or union wanting "control" of itscitizens. I also understand that in reality aviation operates on essentiallytwo levels - with inevitably some grey in the middle. There are thoseoperations that are truly international, essentially limited to the commercialoperators or upper echelons of the business jet market and the private operatorwho will spend their life within the bounds of Europe.It would be a farce to inhibit international operators and EASA has essentiallynot done so.

Where I part company with EASA is that as laudable as it maybe to exerciseregulatory control over your citizens you cannot ignore practices which havebeen endemic in Europe for almost as long asaviation. The CAA has time and again recognised the concept of"grandfathering" and EASA should do the same and in a way that givesfull and meaningful recognition to those that are already operating within thesystem. Inevitably as those grandfathered retire or fall by the way side the"new" system applies to all, and during the transition you have keptthe majority happy.

Whether the "new" system is better than others system is anentirely different argument. There are many of us who have thought for a verylong time Europe's approach to instrument rating private pilots is contrary toany claimed aspirations of creating safer pilots but that is another story.

Equally endemic in all of these discussions are those who take some delight in telling us "well, we do warn you, we told you it was coming". Yes, but do we need constantly reminding? And is their a slightly hollow ring when the same people plead they dont favour the new system on the one hand, but embrace it on the other. I also am dual licensed so it really doesnt matter one wit to me, but actually it does, because I dont agree with what has taken place for the reasons set out. For that reason I will support Pace and everyone else on his side of the fence till the cows eventually come home and taken no pleasure at all for the hoops he may have to jump through to preserve the right to carry on doing what he has always done.

I will also never accept that EASA has embarked on an open and transparent process as suggested time and again by 421C. I maintain the process is flawed and I think more and more of the flaws are being revealed. Politicians have become terribly good at playing the cards in such a way that they are able to claim there has been consultation and that they have "listened" to the responses received, but in reality have had little or no intention of changing their original agenda. It is terribly easy to be taken in and not surprising given how well their techniques have been perfected - after all our friends in Europe have become particularly good at doing so. Fortunately the cracks are beginning to appear, and not just in so far as EASA is concerned. When times are good people will accept just about anything if you dress it up and make it look pretty, when times are not so good they tend to want to look underneath before they committ, or even after they have committed.

[mad_jock]

It's like the FAA specifying that you need an FAA licence to fly a European aircraft on say the German D register, that happens to be based in the US (even though you have a European licence) This of course wouldn't happen.

And it really wouldn't bother anyone if it did require it. It would just be another card in the back of your green book with all the rest of the collection.

[S-Works]

By implication you decry those who have taken the FAA route for the reasonsyou give, and with the next breath wish the same system was adopted.

Jesus, I don't decry anyone. I have merely stated a number of times how the situation currently is. Of course I would love EASA to cease to exist and be replaced by the FAA or an FAA like system. It would save me a fortune, but as it is not going to happen, we are where we are and we either have to put up or shut up.

I have chosen to adopt the compliance route. Others choose to complain.

There is no dichotomy in that.

[Thomascl605]

I think it would bother the pilots involved MJ. But then again the FAA have a far more practical approach and wouldn't require an unworkable transition of 14 written exams and expensive flight tests, which couldn't be undertook whilst currently employed due to length of time it would take to pass the said conversion process.

The end result of all of this in Europe is that the Pilot is flying the same aircraft with a big 'N' on the tail, no differently than he/she has done before. We are not going to accept a conversion such as this due to the many many years of precedent already set.

[Fuji Abound]

Jesus, I don't decry anyone. I have merely stated a number of times how the
situation currently is. Of course I would love EASA to cease to exist and be
replaced by the FAA or an FAA like system. It would save me a fortune, but as it
is not going to happen, we are where we are and we either have to put up or shut
up.

I have chosen to adopt the compliance route. Others choose to
complain.

There is no dichotomy in that.

Yes, I fully understand, it is the easy option.

I was making two points earlier.

We may chose to comply; we may also chose to do everything we can to resist changes with which we dont agree (including for example supporting AOPA if they adopt the same position),

We can support those to chose to complain rather than constantly reminding them "we told them theirs was a lost cause". It might well be, it might not. However if you keep spouting the same message inevitably some might think you are just taking the p***, which would be a shame. Me, well I suspect you take some pleasure in stirring the pot at most available opportunities, but then I am a bit of an old fart.

[mad_jock]

I honestly don't think it would.

It would just be like any other conversion/validation, you would just crack on with it.

I can asure you that learning 4 different sets of airlaw hasn't been all joy. Especially as most of the differences are usually about VFR and how close to a hippo or camel you can fly when its having a dump. And if you say Flight level one zero zero or flight level one hundred. Never seems to be an option of read it back the same way the controller said it.

The theory apart from a quick reread of ace the pilot technical interview the JAR stuff covers everything you will need.

We are not going to accept a conversion such as this due to the many many years of precedent already set.

You won't have any choice in the matter. The general population really don't care about your plight and 99% of the other resident european pilots don't care either.

I don't think he is stiring more like trying to get them to face facts. A Young family and the high risk of not being able to provide for them. I would have the CC out quick as a flash.

Unless of course you have started down the JAR route in the past and found them to much and the FAA was the only way you could get into commercial flying. If thats the case the exams are a completely different kettle of fish for the last 5 years or so with the online exam question banks. Its monkey see and monkey tick the box next to what it's seen before these days. If you leave it until they change the question bank again you really will be knackard.

[Thomascl605]

No, they probably don't care unless it was to affect them. But then again there may be some other law to come from EASA that could affect everyone else in the future, who knows ?

That's not to say that just because people don't care that I'm just going to accept this latest set of drivel.

There will be a stand made against this for sure.

[mad_jock]

But then again there may be some other law to come from EASA that could affect everyone else in the future, who knows ?

I know there will and there has been, the FTL scheme for a start.

Hence much bigger things to be worried about than a load (or should I really say a very small percentage in the grand scale of things) of private aircraft pilots getting shafted.

[Thomascl605]

If you are not bothered then you probably won't want to post on this thread anymore then. Hope the FTL's don't sting too much.

[mad_jock]

What and let other pilots be infected with fantasys that its not going to happen?.

Better yet why don't you start up your own forum where all the pilots that are going to get shafted can talk themselves into believing that its not going to happen. I think you already have one and nobody has posted anything this year.

You would be more sensible to make the forum a place where you could all group together to try and make the groundschool less of a bitch by clubbing together to make it worth a groundschools while to do the brush ups in two/one day chunks at venues that are more convenient for bizjet pilots. Get similar type pilots together to get block bookings of sims and TRE's to get the costs down.

[frac]

Maybe, but that does not stop them owners of the airspace defining there own rules and that is where we are now. Although as far as I am aware the US do not allow you to operate a foreign reg on US soil long term.

The USA Allow operation of foreign registration aircraft in US Airspace even if the aircraft is "based" in the US.

We see a certain number of P4 (Aruba) or VP- business jets in the US.

Last time I flew to Mc Carran (KLAS), I saw VP-BLK, a 747SP Registered to Las Vegas Sands Corporation. I understand that they also operate VQ-BMS, another 747SP.

Regards,
Frac

[peterh337]

Although as far as I am aware the US do not allow you to operate a foreign reg on US soil long term.

Yawn, another piece of old bollox which does the rounds.

There is no such reg.

It would merely be stupid to operate a plane out there if it doesn't run under the FAA regime, because all the other regimes are going to be poorly supported and more costly. For a G-reg you will need to find a Part M company.

There is an apparently true story that somebody did a round the world flight in a G-reg and when they got to Australia, they needed an Annual but the UK CAA refused to allow the local MO to do it; they wanted to fly out a couple of their inspectors out there at a vast expense. In the end, the plane was moved to N-reg and continued the trip

I've been operating under both regimes; 3 years under G and 7 under N, so I know them both.