N-reg situation update

[chrisbl]

Peter 337 wrote:

That's why I did the JAA IR recently. It is completely useless for legal flying for me.

Peter, Your JAA IR (now EASA PPL IR) is totally useful for legal flying for you. To say other wise is totally wrong.

You may not like having to do it but thats another issue as you have made patently clear. But as someone who went N reg and FAA as a convenience to dodge the JAR requirements it looks like time is running out.

I was in the same position with an N reg and FAA and saw the writing on the wall. Its take to stop having a tantrum about it and just fly for gods sake.

I dont think all the carping on about the exams is helpful. People have a choice, do them or dont do them, same as the IR.

If some have woken up to the fact that the 15hr conversion ends soon well tough on them. Others were up to seeing what was happening and did something about it in good time. Now there is just a hard way to get an IR.

I am not going to lose any sleep over it. If pilots dont know or understand the privileges of their licences they should not be flying.

Its not difficult to read the EU Law it reads a lot like the ANO and JAR.

[MrFusion]

Could you not just setup some kind of corporate structure based in the US and have your plane "owned" through that, therefore making you a US operator and getting around the problem?

I have a G reg plane and am just looking into doing the FAA IR route in a couple of weeks.

[peterh337]

Ok so if I take (and hopefully pass) the EASA license (I am a VFR rated pilot flying a VFR equipped N reg, 180hp Maule) will I then be legal to fly in the UK or will I have to re-register the plane as a G reg. This would be a real pain as it has had a recent paint job with the N number in big letters plastered down the side. Hate to think I have to mess with the beautiful paint job

As mm_flynn says getting an EASA PPL is not at all hard - so long as you can pass the UK CAA Class 2 medical, which is an issue for a small % of pilots who will in due course be grounded, unless they can get flying under the NPPL/LAPL/whatever.

However there is no need to move from N-reg to G-reg. It would be pointless, get you nothing (except saving the annual trust fee, and having to pay an FAA CFI for a BFR every 2 years), and land you with some stupid maintenance requirements. EASA is not proposing to impose long term parking controls on N-regs (the only controls that would be possible). I am staying N-reg too.

Your JAA IR (now EASA PPL IR) is totally useful for legal flying for you. To say other wise is totally wrong.

No' it's useless because the moment I go outside the airspace which issued my JAA/EASA PPL/IR, these papers are not valid under FAR 61.3. I suggest you look up this old chestnut. The word is issued and there are no less than two FAA chief counsel rulings on it (you can find the refs on my website).

Once outside UK airspace, the JAA/EASA papers are worth no more than a certificate in taxidermy. And if I didn't want to fly abroad, I would not need an IR because one can fly all over the UK in Class G, VFR, in VMC or IMC, etc.

I am not going to get into personal issues but I am sure you had your reasons to do the FAA route originally. Now that you are working as a UK instructor I expect you to have a different take on it - the whole training establishment was never fond of foreign pilots. I was "evicted" out of my flying school the moment I got my own plane (which then was G-reg) because I was not spending any more money there and was de facto usurping their instructors' authority by using GPS, etc.

Could you not just setup some kind of corporate structure based in the US and have your plane "owned" through that, therefore making you a US operator and getting around the problem?

It's pretty obvious that lots of people will be looking at that. In many corporate / syndicate cases the solutions are obvious, but not for a straight private owner-pilot.

I have a G reg plane and am just looking into doing the FAA IR route in a couple of weeks.

If you don't have an N-reg, I wouldn't do it. An FAA IR is not worth anything on a G-reg. The UK automatic validation (due to end April 2014) validates an ICAO PPL for worldwide VFR (which is useful to the few who could get an FAA medical but could not get the CAA Class 2) and validates an ICAO IR for worldwide IFR but only OCAS which makes that worthless since nearly all of IFR flight in Europe is in CAS. In the UK, an FAA PPL/IR in a G-reg could fly IFR to say Biggin Hill (Class G) but not to Bournemouth (Class D).

An FAA PPL/IR purely to fly a G-reg never made sense.

I suggest you go here and scroll quickly all the way to the bottom, starting with Keeping the JAA IR Valid.

There is a marginal argument for using an FAA PPL/IR purely to get a JAA PPL/IR, using the 15hr IR conversion route, but it makes sense only if you are totally cash strapped (too strapped to actually fly, frankly) and your time is worth very little. In that case, doing the cheapest possible FAA route followed by the cheapest possible conversion route (Spain, probably) may be less cost than doing the 50hr ab initio JAA IR in the UK. But it's a load of hassle. If you want a "cheap" JAA PPL/IR then the best way to do it will be to go somewhere where standards are "informal" and the weather is good, and you camp out there and fly 2x a day until done, which in acceptably managed FTO terms means a particular establishment in Spain, or probably Egnatia in Greece.

The FAA IR was much harder than the JAA IR but I did it because I was flying 2x a day for 2 weeks, and the checkride was right on the 13th day. This level of currency makes "everybody" very good and minimises costs.

[goldeneaglepilot]

The FAA IR was much harder than the JAA IR but I did it because I was flying 2x a day for 2 weeks, and the checkride was right on the 13th day. This level of currency makes "everybody" very good and minimises costs.

I suggest that had you done a JAA/IR first then you would have said the JAA/IR was much harder than the FAA IR. You're right, its all about the degree of currency and experience. Starting an IR is always a tough learning curve. From memory your IR is a single IR, again that is much easier than a multi IR. I speak from experience of teaching both.

Both FAA and JAA systems for the IR have quirks, merits and disadvantadges, I could not hand on heart say one is better / easier than the other.

Both allow you to to do a journey in IFR conditions and to have the skill set to decide if that journey will be safe due to limitations such as the aircraft or weather.

[peterh337]

Both allow you to to do a journey in IFR conditions

Only for a very trivial flight though, in Europe.

Interesting you think an MEIR is a lot harder. People who have done it say it isn't much harder because you just fly around on one engine, trimmed, and very slowly I also bet the instructor/examiner is watching the ASI rather keenly because his life depends on it.

The reason I advise people to not do ME just for fun (like a lot of people used to, years ago) is the annual renewal, not just for the IR but also for the PPL. Unless one is an ME owner, this is going to cost a little into 4 digits, not least because one's currency in the rented twin will be poor.

Anyway, we now have the Kafka-esque situation whereby a policeman can pop over to Biggin and can try to arrest a few of the N-reg pilots landing there. The arrivals notice board tells him where they flew in from, so he can just pick a country which has not applied for a derogation. 99% of them won't have EASA papers..... and (this is the best bit) none of them will have a COONER (Certificate of Operator NON-EU Residence). Ergo, all = guilty.

What is the maximum penalty until this EU law?

[Pace]

It seems that not many countries have applied to EASA for a derogation on N-regs, so these people may be flying illegally as from today.

Peter

How can you be flying illegally when the laws are illegal themselves?

I am of course referring to ATPs and Commercial pilots where EASA damned well know what they are doing contravenes not only employment laws but age discrimination laws.

I agree its a total mess and a huge joke if it was funny.

EASA have delayed till 2014 if individual countries do not acknowledge what has been decreed by the rule makers that is their problem.
We should take up the French mentality and say get stuffed.

Maybe it will take a court case to drive some sense into all this madness.

Pace

[md 600 driver]

So Peter

My head is now spinning with all the cooners and other requirements

To make it easy what do I need to have a Vfr flight in my n reg helicopter
A in the uk
B in Europe
C in the rest of the world

My helicopter is on a southern aircraft trust and I am a uk national

[Cathar]

Anyway, we now have the Kafka-esque situation whereby a policeman can pop over to Biggin and can try to arrest a few of the N-reg pilots landing there. The arrivals notice board tells him where they flew in from, so he can just pick a country which has not applied for a derogation. 99% of them won't have EASA papers..... and (this is the best bit) none of them will have a COONER (Certificate of Operator NON-EU Residence). Ergo, all = guilty.

My understanding is that the UK derogation applies to UK airspace - is the text available anywhere? (As the aircraft concerned are not on the UK register I find it hard to see on what basis the UK could issue a derogation covering flights by UK based aircraft in other Member States.) If so there will be no offences committed in the UK regardless of where the aircraft/operator is based. Also there will be no need for enforcement action in the UK until 2014.

What is the maximum penalty until this EU law?

Presumably there is not one yet in the UK given the derogation but one will no doubt be introduced before 2014. Presumably this will mirror the current penalty for flying without an appropriate licence , ie £5,000 on summary convicton or a (unlimited) fine and/or up to 2 years imprisonment on conviction on indictment.

How can you be flying illegally when the laws are illegal themselves?

I am of course referring to ATPs and Commercial pilots where EASA damned well know what they are doing contravenes not only employment laws but age discrimination laws.

I think that that is nonsense. However, if you are correct it would be very interesting. Could you tell me the exact provision of EU employment and age discrimination legislation that you think that these rules contravene?

EASA have delayed till 2014 if individual countries do not acknowledge what has been decreed by the rule makers that is their problem.

EASA have not delayed the requirement until 2014. Under the Aircrew Regulation it applies from 8 April. However, the Regualtion also gives individual Member States the option to delay the implementation of the requirement until April 2014. Under the Regulation this is entirely at the discretion of the Member States. It appears to me that the derogation would have to apply to a Member State's airspace rather than to aircraft/operators based in that Member State.

[Pace]

Md 600 driver

If all this rubbish ever came into being which I doubt!! You would require a basic PPL H EASA variety to run alongside your FAA Licence.
Its the guys who fly N reg IFR who will have the biggest problem.
Private jets will not have a problem it being easy to operate outside Europe.
The guy running a private single MAY have a problem but I could well see a scheme put into place which is cost effective for the small guy to take that operation out of EASA land.
But hopefully we will never get to the stage of being forced into doing things like that!

Pace

[bookworm]

My understanding is that the UK derogation applies to UK airspace - is the text available anywhere?

The EU regulation text is not specific. Here's the UK take.

AIC W025/2012

3.1 Private flights - The UK is deferring the European validation requirements for private operations of aircraft registered in third countries (non-EASA States) until 8 April 2014. Pilots flying non-EASA Member State aircraft privately for a UK-based owner or operator using licences that are valid under the law of the State of Registry of the aircraft may therefore continue to do so under the terms of Articles 61 and 63 of the Air Navigation Order until 7 April 2014. After that date they will require a licence validation in accordance with EU regulations.

[Cathar]

Bookworm

Thank you that is interesting. I was told quite specifically that the UK derogation was airspace related and not aircraft/operator related. This seemed quite sensible to me. It does seem that the transition arrangements have been fluid so it could have changed. I would still like to know the wording of the actual derogation as notified to EASA if anyone has seen it.

However, I still do not see how the UK derogation can extend outside of the UK given that these aircraft are not registered in the UK and their pilots are not within the UK licensing system. It seems to me that if another Member State has not issued a derogation then the requirement applies in their airspace and flights by UK based aircraft will be illegal unless the pilot has an EASA licence.

[peterh337]

Regardless of which way this bit is interpreted, it means that as of yesterday almost every EU country can arrest an almost every N-reg pilot flying in from almost every other EU country.

The FTO business must be rolling on the floor laughing its head off.

[bookworm]

However, I still do not see how the UK derogation can extend outside of the UK given that these aircraft are not registered in the UK and their pilots are not within the UK licensing system. It seems to me that if another Member State has not issued a derogation then the requirement applies in their airspace and flights by UK based aircraft will be illegal unless the pilot has an EASA licence.

I think if we were talking about international aviation in the classic sense, you'd be right. But the EU slices and dices it a bit differently in the Aircrew Reg.

Article 8
Conditions for the acceptance of licences from third countries
1. Without prejudice to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and where there are no agreements concluded between the Union and a third country covering pilot licensing, Member States may accept third country licences, and associated medical certificates issued by or on behalf of third countries, in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to this Regulation.

Article 12
Entry into force and application
1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. It shall apply from 8 April 2012.
...
4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of this Regulation to pilots holding a licence and associated medical certificate issued by a third country involved in the non-commercial operation of aircraft specified in Article 4(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 until 8 April 2014.

ANNEX III
CONDITIONS FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF LICENCES ISSUED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THIRD COUNTRIES
A. VALIDATION OF LICENCES
General
1. A pilot licence issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country may be validated by the competent authority of a Member State.
Pilots shall apply to the competent authority of the Member State where they reside or are established, or, if they are not residing in the territory of the Member States, where the operator for which they are flying or intend to fly has its principal place of business.
...

The logic seems to be that because a pilot or operator would apply to the state in which they reside or are established for validation, the that state's derogation applies to the pilot or operator, because the derogation would prevent the pilot or operator from obtaining a validation. The same logic is applied to national licences, which cannot be replaced until the state that issued them gets round to doing so, in which case they must remain valid throughout the EU until then.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by Cathar

However, I still do not see how the UK derogation can extend outside of the UK given that these aircraft are not registered in the UK and their pilots are not within the UK licensing system. It seems to me that if another Member State has not issued a derogation then the requirement applies in their airspace and flights by UK based aircraft will be illegal unless the pilot has an EASA licence.

Bookworm has provided the text of the best written answer available.

As an aside, your logic that A UK derogation does not apply to a situation where neither the aircraft nor pilot are licensed/registered in the UK, misses the point that the whole EASA edifice is being applied to these situations on the basis of residency of the Operator (term undefined) and that the State of residency is the state that implements the EASA regulations/laws with respect to this operator. So logically, if the Operator is UK resident then the UK's implementation timetable and derogations apply.

If EASA had just provided a blanket delay it would be clearer - but hey ho - why would we want any clear laws or implementations - it would take so much sport out of flying internet forums. ;-).

[Pace]

If you live in the UK you have until April 2014 to get sorted (plus a once in a life time 1 year validation you can apply for if you are partway through the training).

That is NOT correct!!! This was supposed to have all kicked off in 2012 not 2014.

The extension to 2014 was for one purpose and one purpose only and that was for EASA to get an FCL agreement with the FAA.
That was the sole reason for an extension.

A Bilateral agreement was signed up to a few months back.

It has provision for FCL to be added and that is the published and stated intention of EASA to get a bilateral agreement with licence acceptance.

I have heard from very good authority that even 2014 will not happen.
Obviously EASA will not state that at this time as they are still pushing for such an agreement with the FAA by that deadline.

It is accepted by all involved that bar a miracle in bilateral FCL negotiations 2014 will move to 2016.

Regarding type ratings! A third country type rating is acceptable on a third country jet! Crazy as an EASA one is not

I do not believe something like a King Air which does not hold a requirement in the USA for a type has yet been decided.

EASA have hit a brick wall regarding European law and European residents working in Europe on FAA reg jets as well as certain discrimination laws which these regulations would undermine.

Hence the silence on employed pilots working in Europe on FAA reg aircraft.

EASA would not stand a chance in the European courts and they know it!
A poorly instigated set of regulations which could never see the light of day legally or morally.

Pace

[peterh337]

However I don't think any legal stuff would involve EASA. They just did the crooked work, the crooked dealing to get the transport committee votes, and now they are out of the picture.

As this is EU law and is forced upon all countries that signed up to the EU, any enforcement would be done locally.

Or not, of course.

Insurance issues would be done under civil law.

[Contacttower]

The extension to 2014 was for one purpose and one purpose only and that was for EASA to get an FCL agreement with the FAA.

If that is true why did EASA not make the 2014 delay universal, instead of leaving it up to member states to decide?

I have heard from very good authority that even 2014 will not happen.

Could you maybe elaborate on this?

[peterh337]

Presumably this will mirror the current penalty for flying without an appropriate licence , ie £5,000 on summary convicton or a (unlimited) fine and/or up to 2 years imprisonment on conviction on indictment.

How can you get done for flying without a license, when you do have a license. You have the FAA PPL/IR or CPL/IR which complies with ICAO.

The additional EASA FCL requirements are not relevant to aircraft operation. For example, the EASA papers do not meet FAR 61.3 once you are outside the issuing CAA's airspace.

I see the EU has the power to add whatever requirements they wish, but I don't see that these requirements are a "license". They rank no higher than say the Mode S requirement, or a requirement to carry a PLB.

One could file a Z flight plan, which is VFR within the airspace of your country (which has not applied for the derogation), and you fly IFR over the rest. Who is going to prosecute? If you have to land somewhere unexpected, an it's not a mayday, you cancel IFR first. And various versions of that

Could you maybe elaborate on this?

I don't know what Pace knows but it is pretty obvious that there is close to no prospect of a bilateral with the USA which would have the effect that pilots desire.

Another thing is any likely practical implementation of a bilateral. I wrote a lot of stuff on this a while ago and basically it is to do with what any bilateral paper deal would be actually like. In most of the world, you can validate/convert one set of ICAO papers into another, by sitting an Air Law exam and doing a flight test - or something similar. If you look at what this might mean in reality in Europe, nobody is going to pass say the UK CAA IRT without considerable training, and this would surely be at an FTO (the FTO industry will make sure of that ). There would never be any kind of straight swap from an FAA IR to an EASA IR. EASA would never ever even try to negotiate that in the first place. That is why I did the JAA IR... when you look at the incremental difference between that and various possible future options (the CBM IR, which may never happen, or some BASA-based paper swap, which in the EU will always involve exams and training and the IRT), and throw in some significant possibilities like a lack of a question bank (which makes the revision workload some 5x harder)... you get my drift? Europe is never actually going to do anything the "easy" way.

What I think has suprised many people, myself included, is that most of the EU has simply ignored EASA and EASA FCL and whatever laws the EU places on the books. Most of the EU has not applied for the available derogation (the Irish kind of did but they misunderstood it ) and together with EASA FCL reaching the books on 8th April this has the nasty effect of making most of the European N-reg community technically illegal.

This makes a mockery of the FCL008 project, of course, whose work is now totally worthless because if you are illegal now, with several years to run like that, then it's a bit like not being a virgin now.

But they are no more illegal than all the Cirrus SR22 pilots who for years have been flying IFR in CAS without ADF+DME... and nobody I know has heard anything about prosecutions, or insurance issues, there.

[piperboy84]

peterh 337

However there is no need to move from N-reg to G-reg. It would be pointless, get you nothing (except saving the annual trust fee

What trust fee? I don't have or pay for any kind of trust for my aircraft. Am I missing something?

[peterh337]

I thought you said you were N-reg.

You have to be a US citizen to own an N-reg directly.