N-reg situation update
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Back in the UK again.
Age: 77
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look for "most N-reg flight is technically finished as of today." You will find it in one of Peter 337 posts.
And where does it say in EASA-land that you have until 2014 to fly on an FAA IR?
Many opinions, I think, but little fact.
And where does it say in EASA-land that you have until 2014 to fly on an FAA IR?
Many opinions, I think, but little fact.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And where does it say in EASA-land that you have until 2014 to fly on an FAA
IR?
Many opinions, I think, but little fact
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just had to apply for new licenses. I hold UK ATPL/A and H with current IRs and all the right ticks in the boxes. According to PLD at the Belgrano if I want to fly in EASA land after 2014 I need an EASA license, I can apply for Uk licenses, but after a date in 2014 will be restricted to UK reg only and the rest of EASA land will be out, even as a destination for work.
I had an e-mail yesterday telling me that I can't have my new licenses because my Class 1 will lapse 25 days before the licenses are due to start and my medical must cover the start date. I'm so old I'm on six monthly medicals (some of my work is SPIFR) so I will have to re-submit when my medical is current. (I even had to send a copy of the cert, surely they can walk across reception and ask in the med dept if I have a medical)
God alone knows when I will see my logbooks again.
Also France is refusing to acept JAR and hence EASA at the moment, and may refuse it all together, Germany is going the same way. EASA is currently looking a bit like the Euro, some in and some out with all the inherent differences.
Sadly our beloved CAA is supine they have cheerfully bent aviation in the UK across a metaphorical table, dropped it's trousers and allowed EASA to
f+*@ it royally.
The CAA may be our regulator, but it is still a company, the service is crap, maybe its time to start a new company and go for the regulation contract, as a customer of the CAA I'm often disappointed, I spend 20 hours a week on how legislation is changing and how it will affect my company and I'm frankly sick of it.
Rant over, now back to N reg in JAR land
SND
I had an e-mail yesterday telling me that I can't have my new licenses because my Class 1 will lapse 25 days before the licenses are due to start and my medical must cover the start date. I'm so old I'm on six monthly medicals (some of my work is SPIFR) so I will have to re-submit when my medical is current. (I even had to send a copy of the cert, surely they can walk across reception and ask in the med dept if I have a medical)
God alone knows when I will see my logbooks again.
Also France is refusing to acept JAR and hence EASA at the moment, and may refuse it all together, Germany is going the same way. EASA is currently looking a bit like the Euro, some in and some out with all the inherent differences.
Sadly our beloved CAA is supine they have cheerfully bent aviation in the UK across a metaphorical table, dropped it's trousers and allowed EASA to
f+*@ it royally.
The CAA may be our regulator, but it is still a company, the service is crap, maybe its time to start a new company and go for the regulation contract, as a customer of the CAA I'm often disappointed, I spend 20 hours a week on how legislation is changing and how it will affect my company and I'm frankly sick of it.
Rant over, now back to N reg in JAR land
SND
Sadly our beloved CAA is supine they have cheerfully bent aviation in the UK across a metaphorical table, dropped it's trousers and allowed EASA to f+*@ it royally.
Get your next medical, then send the forms off to the Belgrano after July 1, and you're done.
The CAA may be our regulator, but it is still a company
Bob Upanddown asks the important question - where is this 2 year derogation pending amendment of the bilateral that was dangled in front of the TRAN committee by Mathew Baldwin last year?
Amended to say that I should have taken my own advice and examined all of the relevant legislation. I see that the UK have invoked Article 12(4) of the Aircrew Regulation to defer the application of Annex III until 2014, but only for non-commercial purposes. There remains, as far as I can see, no derogation for AOC holders or other commercial operators.
Last edited by BillieBob; 16th Apr 2012 at 08:51.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Back in the UK again.
Age: 77
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK. Tell us the facts. What is the regulatory position today and outlook for an EU resident operating an N-registered aircraft on the basis of FAA pilot qualifications?
EASA have stopped all flight on an FAA licence (but not stopped all flight in an N registered aircraft) because:
REGULATION (EC) No 216/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 20 February 2008 says at
CHAPTER II SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS Article 4, Basic principles and applicability
1. Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance, which are:
(a) designed or manufactured by an organisation for which the Agency or a Member State ensures safety oversight; or
(b) registered in a Member State, unless their regulatory safety oversight has been delegated to a third country and they are not used by a Community operator; or
(c) registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community; or
(d) registered in a third country, or registered in a Member State which has delegated their regulatory safety oversight to a third country, and used by a third-country operator into, within or out of the Community shall comply with this Regulation.
COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 says at Article 12 that
the regulation shall apply from 8th April 2012
Article 12, para 4. Says
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.
The EASA regulations therefore seem to me to state that a pilot must comply with EASA regulation 216/2008 from 8 April 2012. In other words, a pilot in the EU must hold an EASA licence whatever he flies.
The EASA regulations seem to allow a pilot with an FAA CPL/IR or PPL/IR to exercise that FAA CPL/IR or PPL/IR in his state of residency for private flights if that state has applied for a derogation up to 2014.
In a state without such a derogation, but where a state will not introduce EASA licence issue until 2013, the EASA regulations seem to me to say that a pilot must comply with EASA regulation 216/2008 from 8 April 2012.
FARs Part 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(a) Pilot certificate. No person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person—
(1) Has a pilot certificate or special purpose pilot authorization issued under this part in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization. However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used;
FAR Part 61 .3 does not allow operation on a Denmark PPL in UK so, if EASA will not allow FAA licence to be recognised, on what licence is a Denmark PPL flying an N register aircraft in UK? Because EU is not a state or country?
If FAA do not recognise EU as a state or country, then it must be that from now, you must have EASA (or JAA recognised by EASA) licence and FAA licence to fly N registration across EU. If you don’t have EASA licence but have a national licence, you must fly only N registration in own state of residency.
I think your arguments are that pilots who live in a state like UK can fly on FAA IR across EU. I think not. You need EASA IR and FAA IR. From 8th April 2012.
Bob
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think your arguments are that pilots who live in a state like UK can fly on FAA IR across EU. I think not. You need EASA IR and FAA IR. From 8th April 2012.
(d) registered in a third country, ....., and used by a third-country operator into, within or out of the Community
which I think is the bit most applicable to private pilots.
If you go back a bit in this thread you will find a post by bookworm which is IMHO the right way to approach it.
But the bottom line is that PROB99 none of the EU national CAAs have much idea what to do about this stupid regulation. For example what does "out of the Community" mean? Does it mean that a flight out of the EU is illegal? That is just bollox.
Bob Upandown
If your interpretation of the rules is correct, then hundreds if not thousands of N Reg FAA licenced EU citizens are now flying illegally since 8/4 !!
I understood there was a delay until 2014 and then a year allowed for FAA licence holders to pass the EASA licence requirements.
I understood there was a delay until 2014 and then a year allowed for FAA licence holders to pass the EASA licence requirements.
Last edited by cessnapete; 17th Apr 2012 at 08:26.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most are flying "technically illegally" as of 8th April 2012.
However there is another possibility which I have just read about. Many may have quietly applied the other available derogation that slipped in to the March 30th Regulation:
"By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of Annexes I to IV until 8 April 2013".
Annexes I-IV are all of Part FCL and Part MED so presumably this derogation would deal with the N-reg issue, at least until 2013.
However there is another possibility which I have just read about. Many may have quietly applied the other available derogation that slipped in to the March 30th Regulation:
"By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of Annexes I to IV until 8 April 2013".
Annexes I-IV are all of Part FCL and Part MED so presumably this derogation would deal with the N-reg issue, at least until 2013.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: europe
Age: 49
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know which member states have applied for derogations?
Also, does ICAO define precisely what the term "operator" means? I've seen the term defined in some ICAO publications, but I presume the definition only applies in respect of the context of those documents.
It is interesting that EASA chose to use the term "operator" rather than owner, or beneficial owner, or other such term. I can only conclude that they had reason to be a little vague, and perhaps they may have been afraid to contradict ICAO principles in some way.
In the private corporate world I think that the term operator would adequately describe the individual or company who is contracted to ensure that the aircraft is crewed, flown, maintained and operated in accordance with applicable legislation, that all bills are taken care of and that the aircraft is made available to the owner (or beneficial owner) in line with his flight schedule. In my language, those functions are taken care of by "Aircraft Managers." Whether EASA would care to argue otherwise is a matter of speculation, but I hope they pick on an airplane "operator" who has the balls for a legal challenge!
Also, does ICAO define precisely what the term "operator" means? I've seen the term defined in some ICAO publications, but I presume the definition only applies in respect of the context of those documents.
It is interesting that EASA chose to use the term "operator" rather than owner, or beneficial owner, or other such term. I can only conclude that they had reason to be a little vague, and perhaps they may have been afraid to contradict ICAO principles in some way.
In the private corporate world I think that the term operator would adequately describe the individual or company who is contracted to ensure that the aircraft is crewed, flown, maintained and operated in accordance with applicable legislation, that all bills are taken care of and that the aircraft is made available to the owner (or beneficial owner) in line with his flight schedule. In my language, those functions are taken care of by "Aircraft Managers." Whether EASA would care to argue otherwise is a matter of speculation, but I hope they pick on an airplane "operator" who has the balls for a legal challenge!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Back in the UK again.
Age: 77
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most are flying "technically illegally" as of 8th April 2012.
On a interpretation scale of one to ten, some will be at 10 and consider the rules and derogations allow a pilot to fly on a FAA PPL/IR until 2014 anywhere in EU. Others will be at one and consider no further flight in N registered is allowed in EU.
Bookworm has a good agreement but so does Cathar.
Where are the authorities on the scale of one to ten? Maybe Germany is at one and will soon arrest pilots flying IR on FAA licence? UK must be at 10??
We are in a crazy situation but at least we can still fly N registered aircraft in EU if we have the correct licenses so it is not as bad as it could have been. Maybe we should be thankful for that?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know which member states have applied for derogations?
I suspect it is embarrasingly short.
It is interesting that EASA chose to use the term "operator" rather than owner, or beneficial owner, or other such term. I can only conclude that they had reason to be a little vague, and perhaps they may have been afraid to contradict ICAO principles in some way.
1) They got good legal advice, and did this for a clever reason. One could speculate on what that reason might be. If they followed ICAO provisions and hung this on the "nationality" (citizenship) of the pilot, it would push corporate operators into firing their EU-passport holding crews and replacing them with crews holding non EU passports, which would be a massive own-goal. It is easier to understand why EASA did not propose long term parking limits: this was tried by France (2004) and the UK (2005) and both were hastily abandoned when somebody with a brain realised it would be unworkable (and easy to get around for the big boys). Hanging this on the "operator" is more subtle but leads to easy work-arounds for the bigger boys. It does capture the small private owner quite well though, IMHO, and whose only option would be to syndicate-out the aircraft to a non-EU operating company which then runs a booking website and effectively controls the aircraft.
2) They didn't get good legal advice and developed this in the committee. I think that option is more likely. The wording is far too vague to have come from a lawyer.
Where are the authorities on the scale of one to ten? Maybe Germany is at one and will soon arrest pilots flying IR on FAA licence? UK must be at 10??
Perhaps a useful way to see this is to examine each country's previous attitude to N-regs.
Germany was easy with them, as were most others. One well known exception was Denmark which imposed vague long term parking controls and did sporadic fines. The well known "zero VAT" lawyer got fined a few hundred euros. I think Norway is similar. But I see no reason why most of Europe should suddenly want to do anything.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be more concerned about the Dft thinking that it would come under thier remit than the CAA.
The CAA don't seem to bother doing that many spot checks. And don't have that many teams roving about unlike some countrys.
Dft turn up in all sorts of places, have alot more inspections and are alot more anal retentive compared to the CAA teams.
The CAA don't seem to bother doing that many spot checks. And don't have that many teams roving about unlike some countrys.
Dft turn up in all sorts of places, have alot more inspections and are alot more anal retentive compared to the CAA teams.
Bob Upanddown
Easy to say 'if you have the correct licences' but what are the correct licences at the moment?
Not being a lawyer I recently rang the CAA for guidance, the answer I received- this is an EASA matter ask them!!
Not being a lawyer I recently rang the CAA for guidance, the answer I received- this is an EASA matter ask them!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DfT have for years been very straight over the N-reg (and related FRA) community.
Sure the person at the CAA responsible for prosecutions (Ian Weston, until fairly recently) is/was actually on the DfT payroll, but I don't see a problem here.
The UK has filed for the 2 year derogation anyway...
Germany, I hear from a German pilot, has also done similarly but apparently not for everything. I don't have any details, and while I have asked a number of foreign pilots about this, most of them don't know where to look, and those that do have been told by their their CAA that they don't know what to do. France (DGAC) has told people they don't know what to do about this and frankly I don't think France gives a flying **** what EASA does.
Sure the person at the CAA responsible for prosecutions (Ian Weston, until fairly recently) is/was actually on the DfT payroll, but I don't see a problem here.
The UK has filed for the 2 year derogation anyway...
Germany, I hear from a German pilot, has also done similarly but apparently not for everything. I don't have any details, and while I have asked a number of foreign pilots about this, most of them don't know where to look, and those that do have been told by their their CAA that they don't know what to do. France (DGAC) has told people they don't know what to do about this and frankly I don't think France gives a flying **** what EASA does.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had a lengthy call with the CAA this morning regarding who adopted what on the 8th April and they have absolutely no idea!! There is no EASA list saying who has adopted Part FCL and who has applied for derogations. They have told me that they understand the vast majority of member states have adopted with effect from the 8th without derogation but are awaiting confirmation.
The ones that seem to have adopted Part FCL immediately seem to be those that struggled with mutual recognition audits in the past as there is no concept of mutual recognition. If you issue a Part FCL licence or state as the UK did that your JAA licence is a Part FCL licence then it has to be accepted.
It would seem that the derogation to give a transition period for the dual licensing was to low down on the list. Speaking to the Spanish DGAC as well today, as far as they are concerned they have no plans to apply for a derogation at this time so expect N Reg pilots to be compliant.
I have dropped mails to the other NAA's that I deal with at work to ask opinion.
But it does strike me that this has become somewhat of a beggars muddle..
The ones that seem to have adopted Part FCL immediately seem to be those that struggled with mutual recognition audits in the past as there is no concept of mutual recognition. If you issue a Part FCL licence or state as the UK did that your JAA licence is a Part FCL licence then it has to be accepted.
It would seem that the derogation to give a transition period for the dual licensing was to low down on the list. Speaking to the Spanish DGAC as well today, as far as they are concerned they have no plans to apply for a derogation at this time so expect N Reg pilots to be compliant.
I have dropped mails to the other NAA's that I deal with at work to ask opinion.
But it does strike me that this has become somewhat of a beggars muddle..
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
personally I think the UK CAA has played a blinder by doing that.
Its going to let all the others sort the mess out.
They won't have to commit any resources to it and when ever people ask them about matters they can just point them towards the other NAA's.
By the time 2014 comes along folk will have either got there EASA tickets or the aircraft will have gone due to the whole thing being a pain in the arse.
Germany looks as if its going for 1 year.
Its going to let all the others sort the mess out.
They won't have to commit any resources to it and when ever people ask them about matters they can just point them towards the other NAA's.
By the time 2014 comes along folk will have either got there EASA tickets or the aircraft will have gone due to the whole thing being a pain in the arse.
Germany looks as if its going for 1 year.