N-reg situation update
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will not mean little Joe will be able to sidestep EASA by gaining an FAA
Licence but it may mean ATP holders with certain experience and hours will have
an easier route
Licence but it may mean ATP holders with certain experience and hours will have
an easier route
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No I was not talking about PPL and IRs which could well be brought closer together but addressing an argument regarding EASA not doing anything which would allow a commercial pilot wannabe a route to sidetrack EASAs own training structure.
Pace
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They always have had a quick route for experenced commercial pilots.
But always the issue has been the differences in the theoretical knowledge requirements. The JAr boys find it a piece of piss to get a FAA and the other way round there is lots of moaning thats its a pain in the arse doing the exams.
To be honest the FAA isn't quite enough theory in my opinion of working with FAA pilots. But then again the JAR stuff is to much and not actually focused to the stuff you really need.
I quite agree with Peter and PAce that alot of it is only included because some auld fud with prostate problems ex navigator thinks that pilots need to know certain things. Then some old guff engineers had an input as well then the WX man got his input etc etc.
But to be fair the longer I fly and to more different destinations the more of it I use.
Its this one set of theory must cover everything from puddle jumpers to ULH airbuses and boeings that needs sorted. But the problems is that the license and IR rating really does allow you to fly worldwide.
But always the issue has been the differences in the theoretical knowledge requirements. The JAr boys find it a piece of piss to get a FAA and the other way round there is lots of moaning thats its a pain in the arse doing the exams.
To be honest the FAA isn't quite enough theory in my opinion of working with FAA pilots. But then again the JAR stuff is to much and not actually focused to the stuff you really need.
I quite agree with Peter and PAce that alot of it is only included because some auld fud with prostate problems ex navigator thinks that pilots need to know certain things. Then some old guff engineers had an input as well then the WX man got his input etc etc.
But to be fair the longer I fly and to more different destinations the more of it I use.
Its this one set of theory must cover everything from puddle jumpers to ULH airbuses and boeings that needs sorted. But the problems is that the license and IR rating really does allow you to fly worldwide.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MadJock
Thought that was called experience which you cannot learn in the classroom
I am fully aware that you are an EASA supporter and me an FAA. We just hold different views.
The old hand thing! One sees a palm the other sees the back of the hand while they both see a hand they have a different picture.
Statistically while both systems are different FAA and JAA they both churn out equal quality ATPs.
I can understand your view that residents of a country should bide by the licencing in that country/state but then you have to beg the question of why there are so many N reg in Europe!
In a free society if you want to compete with another product you produce something which is cheaper, more attractive and better!
If EASA did that then N reg would have dissolved years ago.
There have been numerous studies made to prove the case for removing N reg on safety grounds but none have been found.
The problem we have in Europe is Burocracy and an unhealthy level of government produced jobs especially in the regulatory sense.
That is fine in one way but it strangles industry, loads cost and complexity as the end user has to pay for it all.
The FAA system works at far less cost to the end user.
Of course safety is paramount and we should regulate to plug shown safety holes but that is it.
I think as a relatively experienced Jet pilot and Captain I should not be required to sit and take 14 odd exams to do what I already do?
Okay Air Law or a differences exam but there is no rhyme or reason why I should be treated like an 18 year old wannabe pilot who knows nothing. That is wrong.
If I had things my way I would have a worldwide standard and recognition of licences so that pilots can move freely.
There is no sense to anything less and at sometime that has to come.
We also need to cut away all the rubbish which chokes our industry from regulators who regulate for their own jobs sake.
I agree with you that years back you could literally buy anything and the FAA system was a doddle but that has changed.
Pace
Thought that was called experience which you cannot learn in the classroom
I am fully aware that you are an EASA supporter and me an FAA. We just hold different views. The old hand thing! One sees a palm the other sees the back of the hand while they both see a hand they have a different picture.
Statistically while both systems are different FAA and JAA they both churn out equal quality ATPs.
I can understand your view that residents of a country should bide by the licencing in that country/state but then you have to beg the question of why there are so many N reg in Europe!
In a free society if you want to compete with another product you produce something which is cheaper, more attractive and better!
If EASA did that then N reg would have dissolved years ago.
There have been numerous studies made to prove the case for removing N reg on safety grounds but none have been found.
The problem we have in Europe is Burocracy and an unhealthy level of government produced jobs especially in the regulatory sense.
That is fine in one way but it strangles industry, loads cost and complexity as the end user has to pay for it all.
The FAA system works at far less cost to the end user.
Of course safety is paramount and we should regulate to plug shown safety holes but that is it.
I think as a relatively experienced Jet pilot and Captain I should not be required to sit and take 14 odd exams to do what I already do?
Okay Air Law or a differences exam but there is no rhyme or reason why I should be treated like an 18 year old wannabe pilot who knows nothing. That is wrong.
If I had things my way I would have a worldwide standard and recognition of licences so that pilots can move freely.
There is no sense to anything less and at sometime that has to come.
We also need to cut away all the rubbish which chokes our industry from regulators who regulate for their own jobs sake.
I agree with you that years back you could literally buy anything and the FAA system was a doddle but that has changed.
Pace
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough Pace, I was only kidding. I wrote something which my browser deleted, didn't have time to retype and wrote that instead!
My point was on
This isn't right. Derogation is nothing specific to FCL. It's a general EU term for a provision within binding EU regulations that permits a Member State to delay/amend implementation. The EASA Aircrew Regulation is now binding on Member States so the only means for them to continue to permit EU residents to operate 3rd country aircraft on the basis of 3rd country licences is through the derogation to this effect until April 2014, or through the 'horizontal' derogation delaying the implementation of all Aircrew Regulation until April 2013 (after which they'd need the 3rd country derogation)
This technical point aside, I agree with your comment that it is unlikely as a practical matter that EU resident N-reg operators are illegal today, since it is likely most countries will implement one or both derogations. However, I personally would want my NAA to state the situation as clearly as the UK CAA have done.
On the BASA, I was personally somewhat sceptical and thought this might be a way EASA and the EC were brushing off the concerns of the N-reg community in Europe during the critical period they were trying to get Part FCL through the European Parliament. I have heard (but not first hand) some very encouraging signals that there is a real will to conclude this by 2014. Of course, one can't be sure that the BASA will provide terms for licence conversion that are quite as sensible as the US-Canada ones, for example.
The other problem is one of timing and risk. Of course, a knowledgeable guy like you is quite entitled to make his choices and take a risk accordingly. One would always hope the EU/EASA would find a sensible way to bridge things, but there is always the risk that
1."Good intention X" gets implemented in EU regs a few months later than "Derogation Y" expires
2. It takes a further 6 months for NAAs and ATOs to implement various new exams or whatever
3. There is then a bottleneck in training resources as hundreds of people try and qualify
I tend to think that via various means (BASA and FCL008) the outcome for an FAA pilot in Europe will be less onerous than the present conversion outcomes. But one takes a risk on all this working out and the timing working out etc etc.
My point was on
One thing I have clarified which is causing major concern and also a misconception concerns Derogation!
Derogation concerns flight crew licencing and EASA licences.
It has nothing to do with dual licence requirements which has been moved to 2014 plus one year dispensation for those on a conversion course.
You are not flying illegally into some countries NOW!
Derogation concerns flight crew licencing and EASA licences.
It has nothing to do with dual licence requirements which has been moved to 2014 plus one year dispensation for those on a conversion course.
You are not flying illegally into some countries NOW!
This technical point aside, I agree with your comment that it is unlikely as a practical matter that EU resident N-reg operators are illegal today, since it is likely most countries will implement one or both derogations. However, I personally would want my NAA to state the situation as clearly as the UK CAA have done.
On the BASA, I was personally somewhat sceptical and thought this might be a way EASA and the EC were brushing off the concerns of the N-reg community in Europe during the critical period they were trying to get Part FCL through the European Parliament. I have heard (but not first hand) some very encouraging signals that there is a real will to conclude this by 2014. Of course, one can't be sure that the BASA will provide terms for licence conversion that are quite as sensible as the US-Canada ones, for example.
The other problem is one of timing and risk. Of course, a knowledgeable guy like you is quite entitled to make his choices and take a risk accordingly. One would always hope the EU/EASA would find a sensible way to bridge things, but there is always the risk that
1."Good intention X" gets implemented in EU regs a few months later than "Derogation Y" expires
2. It takes a further 6 months for NAAs and ATOs to implement various new exams or whatever
3. There is then a bottleneck in training resources as hundreds of people try and qualify
I tend to think that via various means (BASA and FCL008) the outcome for an FAA pilot in Europe will be less onerous than the present conversion outcomes. But one takes a risk on all this working out and the timing working out etc etc.
Last edited by 421C; 21st Apr 2012 at 13:05.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not actually.
That is actually my view and its nothing to do with the relative merits between the tow systems.
There are so many because there is a loophole which people have used, pure and simple.
Yes of course the price is cheaper because the US tax payer funds it for you. In the EU the end user pays for it. So you have the advantage you don't pay US tax's but you use there system and you don't pay for the infrastructure in europe.
I do feel for you, but there has been set a minimum theory knowledge base requirement for the EASA license which you have to prove. The fact that you have survived without it (
) for the last gawd knows how many years is neither here nor there.
As previous posters have mentioned its actually not that hard. It wasn't when I did them and that was when JAR first started and there wasn't any question banks. I did the whole lot in 5 months from PPL and a background in Engineering. With all your experence it should take alot less.
As for expense it will be all tax deductable and no doudt you can get the VAT back as well. With Sim check your looking at less than 4k.
I can understand your view that residents of a country should bide by the licencing in that country/state but then you have to beg the question of why there are so many N reg in Europe!
There are so many because there is a loophole which people have used, pure and simple.
Yes of course the price is cheaper because the US tax payer funds it for you. In the EU the end user pays for it. So you have the advantage you don't pay US tax's but you use there system and you don't pay for the infrastructure in europe.
I do feel for you, but there has been set a minimum theory knowledge base requirement for the EASA license which you have to prove. The fact that you have survived without it (
) for the last gawd knows how many years is neither here nor there. As previous posters have mentioned its actually not that hard. It wasn't when I did them and that was when JAR first started and there wasn't any question banks. I did the whole lot in 5 months from PPL and a background in Engineering. With all your experence it should take alot less.
As for expense it will be all tax deductable and no doudt you can get the VAT back as well. With Sim check your looking at less than 4k.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
421C
I too held the same view that EASA was using the idea of a Bi Lateral as a smokescreen.
Now I know for fact that they are genuine. This does not mean that the whole thing will not hit a brick wall but it is encouraging that something maybe achieved on FCL which is only right!
Advice given to me by my contact in the negotiating team who could easily have said" Knuckle down and do the 14 exams was "do nothing".
So that is what I will probably do until the end of this year or if things become clearer.
Mad Jock you dont think a bit of a lift here and a tuck there and maybe some sunglasses and removal of some hair would work? Must be worth at least 10 pints 
You can borrow my passport!
Pace
I too held the same view that EASA was using the idea of a Bi Lateral as a smokescreen.
Now I know for fact that they are genuine. This does not mean that the whole thing will not hit a brick wall but it is encouraging that something maybe achieved on FCL which is only right!
Advice given to me by my contact in the negotiating team who could easily have said" Knuckle down and do the 14 exams was "do nothing".
So that is what I will probably do until the end of this year or if things become clearer.
It wasn't when I did them and that was when JAR first started and there wasn't any question banks
You can borrow my passport!Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is the teams are sometimes all part of the smoke and mirrors game.
They don't actually give the teams the full cunning plan otherwise that can produce fall out. And I might add thats a ploy of both sides.
And even if they do come to agreement they have to get it past the red neck senators who will not like the idea of changing anything just because someone else would like it.
They don't actually give the teams the full cunning plan otherwise that can produce fall out. And I might add thats a ploy of both sides.
And even if they do come to agreement they have to get it past the red neck senators who will not like the idea of changing anything just because someone else would like it.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are so many because there is a loophole which people have used, pure
and simple.
So you have the advantage you don't pay US tax's but you use there system and
you don't pay for the infrastructure in europe
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you own your aircraft personally not using a construct under N reg?
If not and you use one through a trust its a loophole.
Nobody cares if a US passport holding pilot flys a N reg. Which is the spirit that the ICAO system was put in place for.
The US tax payers fund the FAA.
In europe the end users fund thier NAA, the less people use the NAA's the more expensive it becomes for the ones that do. And the less money they have to do thier job which means they don't do them as well or can provide suitable conditions to attract suitable qualified people that could improve things.
And pace bugger off I don't have alot of hair left as it is. And I suspect it would be a bit more of a lift and a tuck and loosing half a foot of bone out of my legs is going to nip a bit.
If not and you use one through a trust its a loophole.
Nobody cares if a US passport holding pilot flys a N reg. Which is the spirit that the ICAO system was put in place for.
The US tax payers fund the FAA.
In europe the end users fund thier NAA, the less people use the NAA's the more expensive it becomes for the ones that do. And the less money they have to do thier job which means they don't do them as well or can provide suitable conditions to attract suitable qualified people that could improve things.
And pace bugger off I don't have alot of hair left as it is. And I suspect it would be a bit more of a lift and a tuck and loosing half a foot of bone out of my legs is going to nip a bit.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If not and you use one through a trust its a loophole.
In europe the end users fund thier NAA
the less people use the NAA's the more expensive it becomes for the ones that
do. And the less money they have to do thier job which means they don't do them
as well or can provide suitable conditions to attract suitable qualified people
that could improve things.
do. And the less money they have to do thier job which means they don't do them
as well or can provide suitable conditions to attract suitable qualified people
that could improve things.
Secondly, the amusing irony in your point is as follows. It is indeed the model in the UK that users fund the CAA. The taxpayer funds the NAAs of most European countries. Why do you think Ryanair jets are all EI and Netjets are all CS? Now, under the EASA system, EU residents will have much more flexibility to choose whichever country they want for pilot licensing than under JAR-FCL. Nothing to stop every UK pilot, instructor and examiner using, say, Portugal as their state of licence issue. Let's see how that helps your concern that "the less people use the NAA's the more expensive it becomes for the ones that do"
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its currently a legit loophole I will agree but its now being shut.
The US regulations state you have to be a US citizen to own a N reg, if you are not its a fiddle. I will admit its a well known about fiddle and one that nobody cares about but it is still circumventing the law. If the trust loophole wasn't there you we wouldn't have to go through all this bloody torture of changing things.
Even if the NAA's are funded partly by the local tax payer your still not paying the money into your local one. You are getting all your oversight for free from the US tax payer. Of course things are cheaper for you with Uncle sam footing the bill.
There is under both JAR and EASA a requiment for you to move your oversight NAA with your residency. BUt alot of people don't bother and nobody seems to bother about it mainly. Its one of the things that might kick off with ryan air and forcing all there pilots onto the Irish CAA.
The US regulations state you have to be a US citizen to own a N reg, if you are not its a fiddle. I will admit its a well known about fiddle and one that nobody cares about but it is still circumventing the law. If the trust loophole wasn't there you we wouldn't have to go through all this bloody torture of changing things.
Even if the NAA's are funded partly by the local tax payer your still not paying the money into your local one. You are getting all your oversight for free from the US tax payer. Of course things are cheaper for you with Uncle sam footing the bill.
There is under both JAR and EASA a requiment for you to move your oversight NAA with your residency. BUt alot of people don't bother and nobody seems to bother about it mainly. Its one of the things that might kick off with ryan air and forcing all there pilots onto the Irish CAA.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well green card then. Its still a loophole and a fiddle for a EU resident to "own" one.
And I know in the great scheme of things its no burden what so ever having a few thousand extras tagged on to the FAA with the number of home grown that they look after.
BUt the numbers in Europe now are more than likely more than some countrys have in pilots full stop.
And I know in the great scheme of things its no burden what so ever having a few thousand extras tagged on to the FAA with the number of home grown that they look after.
BUt the numbers in Europe now are more than likely more than some countrys have in pilots full stop.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's nothing compared to the tax dollars spent to make up for Europe's lack of military, defending sea lanes etc.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its currently a legit loophole I will agree but its now being shut.
The US regulations state you have to be a US citizen to own a N reg, if you
are not its a fiddle. I will admit its a well known about fiddle and one that
nobody cares about but it is still circumventing the law. If the trust loophole
wasn't there you we wouldn't have to go through all this bloody torture of
changing things.
are not its a fiddle. I will admit its a well known about fiddle and one that
nobody cares about but it is still circumventing the law. If the trust loophole
wasn't there you we wouldn't have to go through all this bloody torture of
changing things.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And nothing changes you are still working the fiddle to get around US law.
You may continue using the fiddle but now you will have to have an EU ticket to continue. If you have a heavier than 5700kg aircraft you will also have to do both maint provisions and have the ticket unless of course you are a resident of the US.
Nothing needs to change about the owner of a N reg aircraft and why should it? Its a perfectly acceptable law. The application of it may need some looking at mind.
You may continue using the fiddle but now you will have to have an EU ticket to continue. If you have a heavier than 5700kg aircraft you will also have to do both maint provisions and have the ticket unless of course you are a resident of the US.
Nothing needs to change about the owner of a N reg aircraft and why should it? Its a perfectly acceptable law. The application of it may need some looking at mind.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in a hotel
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And where have your wild predictions led MJ ? No one arrested to my knowledge as they are not 'breaking the law'. So quick are you not to jump to conclusions about what will or won't happen. Scaremongering is what you love best on these forums.
The advice given by my national CAA is to continue flying as normal, and that a simplified transition will be worked on over the coming months, which won't include taking 14 exams.
If this doesn't occur then my few grand is chucked in the pot along with many many others to take this to the ECHR on the grounds of discrimination, breaking local employment laws and the law of precedent.
But I am hopeful that common sense prevails with a simple transfer of licence to continue flying.
The advice given by my national CAA is to continue flying as normal, and that a simplified transition will be worked on over the coming months, which won't include taking 14 exams.
If this doesn't occur then my few grand is chucked in the pot along with many many others to take this to the ECHR on the grounds of discrimination, breaking local employment laws and the law of precedent.
But I am hopeful that common sense prevails with a simple transfer of licence to continue flying.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its early days yet thomas, the wheels were slow to get in motion but will eventually reach there destination have no doudt in this matter.
And to be honest as long as you fly within you NAA airspace you will be fine. Outside that its the roll of a dice. And if you have a prang will the insurance pay up? Who knows? Has anyone bothered checking?
And to be honest as long as you fly within you NAA airspace you will be fine. Outside that its the roll of a dice. And if you have a prang will the insurance pay up? Who knows? Has anyone bothered checking?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in a hotel
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've had a few pints, haven't you ? Either that or a poor education. Do you really know anything about aircraft insurance ? A likely further spouting of your lack of knowledge and poor spelling. I had actually written a detailed response in relation to aircraft insurance but deleted it as it would be lost on you.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry I have just done the insurance experence list for our fleet.
You are talking pish you need to be legal to be insured, it does actually state that all crew need to be legally licensed to fly the aircraft in the state of registery and area of operation. It also states that if we operate outside our area of AOC operation apart from emergency diverts we ain't insured either.
If your resorting to taking the piss out of my speeling and graamer which I am more than happy to admit are ****e and always have been after spending 10 years in remedial classes at school crack on . You can take the piss out of folk in wheel chairs as well next time you see one. But still I passed the ATPL theory first time and found it a piece of piss.
Never found my spelling and grammer have had any effect on flying a plane though.
You are talking pish you need to be legal to be insured, it does actually state that all crew need to be legally licensed to fly the aircraft in the state of registery and area of operation. It also states that if we operate outside our area of AOC operation apart from emergency diverts we ain't insured either.
If your resorting to taking the piss out of my speeling and graamer which I am more than happy to admit are ****e and always have been after spending 10 years in remedial classes at school crack on . You can take the piss out of folk in wheel chairs as well next time you see one. But still I passed the ATPL theory first time and found it a piece of piss.
Never found my spelling and grammer have had any effect on flying a plane though.