N-reg situation update
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Page 8 when you get down to the underlined bit in the second colume is the bit that means if you a resident you need a local ticket or if the operator is EU based you also need a local ticket where ever you personally are residing. ie no commuting in from Jersey if the plane is based in Biggin. Or for that matter commuting from Biggin into Jersey. Aircraft based in Jersey and pilot living in Jersey you are fine.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in a hotel
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think MJ that you will find that this transition will not be as legally watertight for the thickies in Brussels. You can 'wash your cosh' and dream of your smarmy victory if you wish, ultimately good legal sense will prevail. We will continue to fly, it's as simple as that. Get used to it and enjoy sharing the sky with non European licenced pilots.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MadJock
But of course all this is means nothing as the whole purpose of all this is for EASA to work night and day to get a Bi Lateral?
The reason they changed dates to 2014?
The reason they persuaded 5 crucial MEPs to allow the whole bunch of rubbish through in the first place with promises they would keep.
Weaver the 24 year old who commanded so many hits on the Weaver thread all of a sudden seems a saint compared to the cheats and crooks in the so called EASA .
Addendum
MadJock
When this whole mess was shoved through the European Parliament the whole had to be passed not bits removed.
There were five MEPs who were totally opposed to what EASA wanted to do with N reg.
These MEPs were crucial and private deals and assurances were made behind closed doors to get the bill proposed (I do know a little more than I let on)
How do you think these MEPs will feel if they come away empty handed and feeling they have been ripped off and cheated?
Do you think EASA will risk a court case? or bring in allowances if faced with that option?
As they say it aint over till the Fat Lady Sings and she aint even in sight yet.
Wait till after june and remember the only reason for the 2014 delay!
Pace
But of course all this is means nothing as the whole purpose of all this is for EASA to work night and day to get a Bi Lateral?
The reason they changed dates to 2014?
The reason they persuaded 5 crucial MEPs to allow the whole bunch of rubbish through in the first place with promises they would keep.
Weaver the 24 year old who commanded so many hits on the Weaver thread all of a sudden seems a saint compared to the cheats and crooks in the so called EASA .
Addendum
MadJock
When this whole mess was shoved through the European Parliament the whole had to be passed not bits removed.
There were five MEPs who were totally opposed to what EASA wanted to do with N reg.
These MEPs were crucial and private deals and assurances were made behind closed doors to get the bill proposed (I do know a little more than I let on)
How do you think these MEPs will feel if they come away empty handed and feeling they have been ripped off and cheated?
Do you think EASA will risk a court case? or bring in allowances if faced with that option?
As they say it aint over till the Fat Lady Sings and she aint even in sight yet.
Wait till after june and remember the only reason for the 2014 delay!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 16th May 2012 at 06:14.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats based on what Thomas?
What a load of pilots would like to think or professional legal advice?
Where did you get your legal advice from?
What laws are they breaking?
Whats your reasoning that the laws have been broken?
Pace we shall see what happens in June but I agree with Bose you have to be naive to think that something won't come up to put a spanner in the works.
What a load of pilots would like to think or professional legal advice?
Where did you get your legal advice from?
What laws are they breaking?
Whats your reasoning that the laws have been broken?
Pace we shall see what happens in June but I agree with Bose you have to be naive to think that something won't come up to put a spanner in the works.
Last edited by mad_jock; 15th May 2012 at 23:03.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What laws are they breaking?
EU employment laws and age discrimination laws there is little doubt on that.
That is a last resort move which will happen if common sense does not prevail before.
The minute EASA renegade on their promises and they are promises then the legal approach will start.
There are too many who will be effected not just pilots in the N reg industry in Europe so do not be too smug MJ
Remember too that these people are victims, they are people who have been totally legally involved in N reg in Europe for decades so there are rights of established practice too.
EASA will only act if they have to! Why should for example a 58 year old working ATP have to finance gaining a set of licences which have no real relevance to the aircraft he is flying? Is it worth it for the few years left in his career?
Why should he loose his job because he cannot take 6 months off to study a mass of irrelevant material and is that all worth it for the 5 odd years still to run in his career? I add through no fault of his own. Who will pay?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 16th May 2012 at 05:35.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in a hotel
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well MJ, some laws they are breaking have already been mentioned, some not. I would also have thought that there is some kind of case for laws of negligence in employment due EASA. It's wont quite end up to be the prize triple knuckle shuffle for you that you believe.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anybody work out whether the derogation is available to paid pilots flying for the aircraft owner?
The question is more subtle than it may at first appear, because such ops do not breach the "aerial work in a FRA" ANO article and are thus effectively private flights. As this letter (obtained under FOIA in 2005) shows, it was realised by the CAA that the then Article 115 breached ICAO on these ops as it sought to force them to obtain a DfT permission for each flight, which was clearly not intended.
The question is more subtle than it may at first appear, because such ops do not breach the "aerial work in a FRA" ANO article and are thus effectively private flights. As this letter (obtained under FOIA in 2005) shows, it was realised by the CAA that the then Article 115 breached ICAO on these ops as it sought to force them to obtain a DfT permission for each flight, which was clearly not intended.
Can anybody work out whether the derogation is available to paid pilots flying for the aircraft owner?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would be my view too, FWIW, because just about every "commercial" activity implied by EASA needs an AOC.
Again I am suprised at the poor language used in these regs. It makes them unenforceable (until some case law is accumulated, and the CAA tries hard to avoid creating precedents, by settling cases on the steps of the court) and will make any higher-end aircraft owner seek some assurance from his insurer. The low-end owners won't get a ruling because they aren't big enough. The other day I spoke to the top man at a top insurer and he said in these circumstances (where not even the CAA can explain what it means) they would pay out.
Again I am suprised at the poor language used in these regs. It makes them unenforceable (until some case law is accumulated, and the CAA tries hard to avoid creating precedents, by settling cases on the steps of the court) and will make any higher-end aircraft owner seek some assurance from his insurer. The low-end owners won't get a ruling because they aren't big enough. The other day I spoke to the top man at a top insurer and he said in these circumstances (where not even the CAA can explain what it means) they would pay out.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Residence and passport numbers are not the same thing. I am confident I could prove to a French official that I am not an EU resident, despite having a UK passport..... Unenforceable.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you boys must be praying the EU hangs together then because all this stuff is now on the statute books of individual countries. If the european court goes you will have to fight in each and every country to get it changed.
And as you say we shall see what happens.
I just can't see how that this case differ's to any other bit of regulation change in respect to working requirements and there have been numerous changes which have put folk in exactly the same position over the last 15 years in respect to EU law.
Also as well if you are self employed alot of the EU employment laws don't apply to you. A 58 year old shouldn't have to finance it, his employer should, which will be their argument. But I am self employed you will say and the reply will be "have a word with yourself then".
And as you say we shall see what happens.
I just can't see how that this case differ's to any other bit of regulation change in respect to working requirements and there have been numerous changes which have put folk in exactly the same position over the last 15 years in respect to EU law.
Also as well if you are self employed alot of the EU employment laws don't apply to you. A 58 year old shouldn't have to finance it, his employer should, which will be their argument. But I am self employed you will say and the reply will be "have a word with yourself then".
