N-reg situation update

[piperboy84]

I am a dual national (UK/US) so i guess I don't need a trust, the aircraft is registered to me at my UK address

[421C]

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.

If you are legal now because your country has applied the derogation, then FCL008 should give you an easier conversion to an EASA IR (eg. UK resident FAA pilots). If you are not legal now, then it should give you the prospect of becoming legal more easily. So the work of FCL008 is as important as it ever was.

It may be worth some pilots bearing in mind that FCL008 proposed an IR conversion mechanism for experienced FAA IRs which is much easier than at present - a single exam and training "as required" to pass the checkride. However, annoyingly, that route requires significant experience of instrument flight whilst qualified to be PIC in IMC - 100hrs. This is a huge amount, and I understand EASA have been asked to reconsider this. It might end up as 50hrs - still a lot. Remember, this time does not include instrument flight time whilst under training and thus not qualified to fly in IMC (ie. not holding an IMCr or ICAO IR). If at present you have fewer instrument flight hours logged, you might consider trying to accumulate more over the next couple of years - in actual IMC, or under the hood with a safety pilot or instructor.

It's impossible to know whether, when and how the FCL008 proposals will actually become part of FCL, so one can't make this suggestion with any certainty. However, it might be, on the margin, worth trying to gain more instrument flight time experience over the next year or two based on the above.

[peterh337]

I didn't realise the CBM IR 100hrs conversion requirement is PIC time. Even at 1400+hrs I don't think I have 100hrs instrument time as PIC. I have 170hrs IT but that includes the IMCR, FAA IR, JAA IR training. And I do about 5x the GA average annual hrs.

That is completely ridiculous

I can see where it comes from (an FTO industry revenue protection measure, to prevent ATPL cadets doing an FAA CPL/IR in say Arizona and then converting in Europe) but why 100hrs? The chap can still do the FAA IR, which needs 40hrs total instrument time of which 15 must be dual, and then simply ignore the conversion option here and just do an ab initio CBM IR, which needs 40hrs total instrument time of which 10hrs must be at an FTO. His FAA training time will count towards his 40hrs instrument time, won't it? His min total IR time will then be 40+10=50 which is barely below the 55hrs min total IR time at present, but he will benefit from lower cost and more concentrated training in the USA, and will pick up a valuable FAA CPL/IR at the same time.

The currently proposed CBM IR zero-training conversion is equally worthless because nobody (least of all any "modern pilot") will pass the IRT without considerable training, on NDB tracking etc. I don't see even the most experienced private or professional pilot passing the ME IRT in a piston twin in less than 15-20hrs of focused training. Such a conversion should have never been proposed because nobody will be able to use it, but it would have scared the wits out of the FTO industry.

The reason the CBM IR (FCL008 IR) is barely relevant now is that most of the pilots who are in the non-derogation countries will simply throw in the towel and quit flying, before the CBM IR arrives perhaps 2 years from now at the earliest.

What's happened is pretty disgusting. But it is a puzzle. Most of the non-derog countries were happy with resident N-regs for decades (as were the few currently known derog ones) so why did they not apply? They either have some cunning "plan" (which will include not enforcing anything) or they ritually ignore the EU and never read the EASA regs.

[Aware]

I think pilots have stopped bothering wanting to jump through hoops anymore, lifes tough enough at the moment. Im an instructor and we have not seen many IR conversions, and not many IMCs. All the FAA IR holders I know have said it will never happen, and if it does how will they police it ?

There a lot of apathy out there, people just don't give a s@@@ amymore to eurocrat nonsense.

Its akin to the computer 2000 issue, lots of hype and b@@@@@@@, people spent loads of time and money sorting something that didn't really need sorting.

Fear is a great way to get people to spend money, it looks like many have not been sucked in by it all.

[peterh337]

I think there is a lot of truth in that...

BTW, this is a handy page with explanatory notes on all this crap.

I particularly like this bit

Therefore, in the light of these considerations and due to the high sensitivity of the database (especially in relation to the substantial investment in both intellectual and monetary terms) and considering the provisions of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, of the TRIPS agreement and of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases, it is the understanding of the Agency that any form of unauthorised disclosure of proprietary information would constitute an instance of violation of the intellectual property rights of the JAA Member States, individually and collectively.

They are trying to pre-empt another FOIA action to get the JAA 7 CQB released. So it will be left to the FTOs to do their old thing and get students to memorise 1 or 2 questions each

At the end they have

Third country operators

Sorry, under construction

which is quite fitting since they managed to get the cock and bull law passed first.

[brockbank]

resident

My Cirrus is N reg but owned by Delaware Trust, I am English and spend over 6 months each year in USA, only 3 months in the UK. Am I resident in EASA land, and seeing as my aircraft is operated by a USA Trust, can I fly in EASA? I can find no definition of 'residency'.
Thanks
David

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by brockbank

My Cirrus is N reg but owned by Delaware Trust, I am English and spend over 6 months each year in USA, only 3 months in the UK. Am I resident in EASA land, and seeing as my aircraft is operated by a USA Trust, can I fly in EASA? I can find no definition of 'residency'.
Thanks
David

Dave,

I think you will find it unlikely the trust operates the aircraft (they own it, but that is not the same as operating). However, if you are non-resident in the EU for tax purposes and resident in the US, I would have thought you are established in the US not in the EU. It is also quite likely that you are the operator as well - so the rules appear not to apply to your specific situation.

(NOTE - IANAL and no one has definitive rulings on this issue).

[peterh337]

I've made some top level enquiries (sorry can't say where) on whether anybody has heard anything about how "operator" will be defined and the answer was "we have no idea".

Welcome to European "Union" rulemaking

[brockbank]

I am an accountant by training, but dont work as one, but I know a lot of good accountants! Residency is a big big taxation subject and it is no surprise that there is no 'residency' definition in EASA land. For a fee, I can find a lot of USA companies who can be the registered operator of my N reg aircraft......but how do I know if I as the pilot am an EASA resident? Is it the tax definition, time spent, citizenship, domicile, parenthood??????

[Fuji Abound]

We have been here before. Were it ever tested before the courts the word operator would take its ordinary meaning in the absence of a definition or other reference in the act. Its everyday meaning is probably not helpful but a search of the easa paperwork for the use of the word elsewhere points to a different meaning. It would however be surprising if the legislation is adopted in its current form.

[peterh337]

AFAIK the legislation is already law, in the original wording.

The word "operator" would/should be taken in its ordinary aviation context which AIUI is whoever controls where the plane flies.

That is very easy to arrange in most cases where the plane is flown by multiple people in multiple scenarios, but not for the simple private owner-pilot.

Has EASA hung its coat on the residence of the pilot then yes the taxation residence or whatever might be used, but they haven't done that. Also had they done that, it would have created a big demand for pilots who do not hold any EU passport, which would be a bit of a shot in the foot

[brockbank]

A lot of private pilots who own N reg aircraft and fly them in EASA land, with American IFR rating will be deemed to be the operator. So a huge amount hinges on the residency of the operator/pilot. I can find no definition of resident in the context of an aircraft operator or pilot, and previous posts have said that there seems to be no definition.....so how do I know as a UK pilot operator, who spends over 6 months with my aircraft, out of EASA land, whether I have to qualify under JAR?

[WestWind1950]

I see residency as the primary place where you live. What address is on your aircraft documents? Where is your "officail" mailing address? What address is your passport registered at? Where are you officially registered?

What is so difficult to define that?

As to operator. I see it as the main user of the aircraft, in case of many N-regs it could be the "owner". In other cases the operator would be the club, company, or other organisation that charters it out to others. Again, THEY are the ones with the paperwork showing it's basicall their aircraft, but they legally charter it out to pilots. They are probably also responsible for the up-keep, maintenance, etc.

So in my opinion, the operator is the person or organisation responsible for the aircraft.

[peterh337]

There is no address in a UK passport

In other cases the operator would be the club, company, or other organisation that charters it out to others.

which could easily be a company outside the EU, and let's face it this is a very common situation - even covering flying schools doing self fly hire.

What is so difficult to define that?

Because law is not the same as common sense, which works only for the most obvious scenarios.

the operator is the person or organisation responsible for the aircraft.

Responsible for what aspect of it?

It's not so easy.

I suspect EASA used some pub lawyer in Brussels. He was quite clever, avoiding the standard pitfalls like long term parking limits. But he was probably not involved in aviation to any depth.

[WestWind1950]

Peter, my passport (US) also has no address in it, but I did have to list one when I applied for it. And I am regisitered with my present adress in the data base of the consulate (I assume).

Also, it has been jumped on enough in the Robert Weaver thread that the FAA needs the actual address to make the FAA certificate legal. So I would consider THAT to be the address of residency, as far as flying certificates/licenses are concerned.

Responsible for what aspect of it?

as I mentioned before... maintenance, keeping the paperwork in order, add to that the insurance, etc. etc.

And yes, that organisation could be outside the EU. That's why, as I see it, it wouldn't be required for an United Airline (or other 3rd country airline) to have all their pilots hold a EU licence! That would really be nonsense! But if the airline, or whoever, has their MAIN business office registered in an EU country, then it would apply.

Maybe I do think too common sense.... or many of you think too complicated?

[peterh337]

But if the airline, or whoever, has their MAIN business office registered in an EU country, then it would apply.

Ah, but now you are bringing the registered office address of the corporate owner into it

See - it's not simple.

It is quite bizzare that if United Airlines set up an EU company for managing the maintenance of the part of their fleet which flies to the EU, they would apparently fall foul of this reg. But the regs make no exceptions for e.g. AOC holders which would be the obvious thing to do. In the pre-EASA scenario, getting an AOC meant that you could do just about anything that was approved in the CAA approved manual - including using an N-reg for charter work, etc. But not anymore.

[Bob Upanddown]

I hold my hand up as having an FAA licence but not having an EASA acceptable licence.
I am a EU resident. I don't deny that I am.
So, as it stands, I cannot fly N reg outside the EU state that issued my original national licence. I can apply for my current national licence to be changed to an EASA one but not until EASA FCL is adopted (depending on which country issued my licence, it might be another year). UK CAA lead the way as usual by adopting ill-written regulations from July 2012.

The problem is that the EASA clowns and the national authorities could not foresee all the problems that this disjointed and muddled introduction of EASA FCL would produce as they are just pen-pushers and don't live in the real world. But then we N reg pilots only fly N reg in the EU thanks to a muddle of regulations so we should not complain.

So, maybe, by 2014, I will have an EASA licence to keep EASA happy in their airspace and an FAA licence to keep the FAA (state of registry of the aircraft) happy. I will be happy in maybe 2 years. It is not a long time to wait for peace of mind and the ability to fly an aircraft that is not governed by Part M. We should be grateful to be able to continue flying on the N reg. Just don't tell EASA that EASA FCL won't stop anyone doing that.

Peter 337 does not help by suggesting (posting the same posts across a number of forums) that all N reg operation is at an end when clearly it is not.
He has made his own arrangements to keep flying. We don't all live or fly in the same circumstances as him. I think Peter is winding you up to look for ways around EASA FCL by claiming non-EU residency when, in fact, this is only a short-lived problem.

AOPA's across the EU should be helping N reg pilots with advice how to continue to fly. They aren't doing that as far as I can see.

[peterh337]

Peter 337 does not help by suggesting (posting the same posts across a number of forums) that all N reg operation is at an end when clearly it is not.

I did not say that. I was drawing attention to the current issue. Awareness of current and upcoming threats is always a good thing. What you want to do about it is up to you.

I see you are in Denmark. Assuming you are a private owner-pilot, have you checked whether Denmark has applied to EASA for any derogation? That would be a start.

He has made his own arrangements to keep flying. We don't all live or fly in the same circumstances as him. I think Peter is winding you up to look for ways around EASA FCL by claiming non-EU residency when, in fact, this is only a short-lived problem.

That may be true, in which case can you explain how it is "short lived"?

I see no evidence that a BASA is coming at any time, and in any case it would never be a straight paper swap.

AOPA's across the EU should be helping N reg pilots with advice how to continue to fly. They aren't doing that as far as I can see.

That's because most of them don't really exist. Even the biggest countries have poor representation, and most of Europe has effectively nobody (and very little GA).

Also AOPA UK has a bit of a history being in two minds whether to support N-regs or not. Go back say 5 years and they were very ambivalent. Unsuprising, given the large number of corporate (FTO) members. They came on board recently though.

Germany is doing quite a lot, it seems.

[421C]

It is quite bizzare that if United Airlines set up an EU company for managing the maintenance of the part of their fleet which flies to the EU, they would apparently fall foul of this reg.

Who says? A maintenance subsidiary is not an operator. UA is a Part 121 operator resident in the USA.

Also AOPA UK has a bit of a history being in two minds whether to support N-regs or not. Go back say 5 years and they were very ambivalent. Unsuprising, given the large number of corporate (FTO) members. They came on board recently though.

That's not true. AOPA UK were 100% behind the N-reg operators in 2005 (7 years ago) when the DfT consultation in the UK proposed to ban them. This was before any inkling of EASA regs. They have since been 100% supportive. Why do you keep writing this stuff?

Peter 337 does not help by suggesting (posting the same posts across a number of forums) that all N reg operation is at an end when clearly it is not

He didn't post that. Conversely, your post is the one that does not help because it's a confusing muddle.

AOPA's across the EU should be helping N reg pilots with advice how to continue to fly. They aren't doing that as far as I can
see.

An AOPA member concerned that important advice is not being given to members should contact his AOPA. AOPA people are responsive and accessible in my view. In practice, there is little advice for AOPA to give. If you fly with an FAA IR in a derogation country you have until 2014 to get an EASA IR by whichever means are available.

[peterh337]

If you fly with an FAA IR in a derogation country you have until 2014 to get an EASA IR by whichever means are available.

The flip side of that is that if you fly with an FAA IR in a country which for reasons unknown has not bothered to apply to EASA for the last-minute derogation option (which appears to be nearly all of the EU countries, most likely because they did not want to waste their lives reading the thousands of pages of EASA diatribe) you are on the face of it grounded right now, which is a situation which most find hard to accept, because (as I wrote before) it is something straight out of Kafka (one of my countrymen, I believe ).

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, as they say. So let's see how many EU based FAA IR holders pile into the (relatively few) FTOs willing to run FAA IR to JAA IR conversion courses. On the numbers of the last few years that this stuff has been cooking, the answer will be "almost none" which takes us back to the practical picture.