N-reg situation update

[S-Works]

I still think its a moot point though. I liken dealing with the politicians on this the same as fuel taxes. They are going to go up regardless of him many lorries blockade a refinery or how many threats of it bringing down a government are made, they may delay things to make you think you are winning and then when not expecting it they slip it through. Nearly £1.50 a litre for Diesel today at a supermarket.......

Methinks you can shout and wail as much you like, but unfortunately you are not going to beat the faceless political machine.

[Pace]

Bose

Firstly apologies over the licence issue earlier in the thread! I know a few guys who jumped through licence conversion loopholes and they can be the worst at slating N reg. I appreciate that was not your route it would not have been an issue had it been

You are probably right That EASA are just going through the motions with the intention of then turning around and stating that it was not their fault that negotiations on a bi lateral failed.

They will still have a legal problem with employed pilots should anyone make a legal challenge in the EC courts.
This appears to be ignored yet it is a real issue they are aware of.

My contact who is on the June negotiating team states that both EASA and the FAA are serious about adding FCL to the existing Bi Lateral.
My question re starting exams was met with a do nothing so we will see how genuine they are.

Remember the whole thing nearly fell apart at Parliament stage where 5 MEPs were against were persuaded to vote the ship through with promises!

I do not think as Mad Jock reckons that it is a done deal. I am sure by 2014 we will have a different picture again! What that picture is ??? Only Mad Jock knows for certain

My own jet may go out of EU ops anyway so I will hold fire for a few months and see where its all heading.

Pace

[S-Works]

My contact who is on the June negotiating team states that both EASA and the FAA are serious about adding FCL to the existing Bi Lateral.

See my point about fuel taxes, industry put pressure on the government who just delayed the rise and then slipped it in later. We are still being hit by outrageous fuel tax and I bet it goes up again in the next budget.

My question re starting exams was met with a do nothing so we will see how genuine they are.

Same as the fuel tax, said by the haulage and lobbying firms.

Remember the whole thing nearly fell apart at Parliament stage where 5 MEPs were against were persuaded to vote the ship through with promises!

Yep, and they still got it through because its the dirty way that politics work.

You only have to look at the demands that EASA are making with regards to the bi lateral to realise the FAA are not going to give in. Can you really see the FAA agreeing to annual tests for everything or EASA giving into rolling currency?

We keep talking about the other bi lateral agreements with the FAA, but if you look at say the US-Canada agreement the revalidation requirements were already aligned, the TK was already aligned. At the moment we have a massive gulf between the FAA and the EASA requirements that I do not see a bi lateral overcoming. What we need to concentrate on is making or own system more proportional. It's the vast gold plating that needs to be pulled away and made in line with other countries that is going to foster proper bi lateral agreements.

At the moment we have an entire system that is just not fit for purpose. Look at the licences we now have 5 or 6 of them at last count to replace what my old UK CAA ICAO licence or my singe FAA certificate does. This is standardisation?

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by bose-x

You only have to look at the demands that EASA are making with regards to the bi lateral to realise the FAA are not going to give in. Can you really see the FAA agreeing to annual tests for everything or EASA giving into rolling currency?

No, but my understanding of the process of the bilateral is not 'your paper is accepted as though it was mine', but more like 'I will recognise your paper as proving the competency that my testing proves'.

As such, it would be quite reasonable for EASA to say, 'I recognise your paper, but you need a revalidation now to align with my currency rules for me to give you my paper'. Equally, it would not be at all surprising that both countries might want people to prove they can speak English and have been tested on things that are objectively different - such as airlaw (and physics )

Do you have a reference to the two party's current negotiating positions?

[S-Works]

'I recognise your paper, but you need a revalidation now to align with my currency rules for me to give you my paper'.

That already exists. Unfortunately it is rather to onerous for many.... What people are looking for is simplification of this down to effectively something like an air law exam and skill test.

The requirements to get a permanent certificate are actually the same already at face value.

ATPL JAA to FAA - Pass the ATP exam and check ride on type and bobs your uncle.

ATPL FAA to JAA - Pass the ATPL exam and check ride on type and bobs your uncle.

CPL FAA to JAA - Pass the CPL & IR Exams, training as prescribed and check ride.

CPL JAA to FAA - Pass the Cpl & IR Exams, training as prescribed and check ride.

I only know what the headline 'agenda' items are from discussion with contacts in the EASA licensing team through my interaction with them in the day job. I am sure Pace's contact can supply the full details.

If you just want a plain validation then it is pretty much the same as the 61.75 process but obviously time limited.

[peterh337]

Most people have lost the will to argue this stuff over and over, a long time ago, but 1 or 2 keep coming back because quite a lot of unknown people read these threads and might get duff info from them.

I think mm_flynn has got it right. Any bilateral agreement will not deliver a straight paper swap because EASA would be trashing the whole gold plated Euro FTO establishment, which simply isn't going to happen.

The FAA has very little to "give away" on the FCL front because they already allow most of what one would reasonably want. It is EASA that would be giving up a huge amount of a long-entrenched position. I just can't see what is there to usefully negotiate.

What big prize has the FAA got for EASA that would make it worthwhile trashing the European ATP cadet sausage machine which despite occassional (but in this business utterly inevitable) "setbacks" like Cabair is making loads of dosh for loads of people?

[mm_flynn]

Bose-X,

The difference between today and my hypothetical bilateral would be.

1. Rather than pass 7 or 14 exams (or 1 going the FAA way) designed to test all relevant (and much irrelevant) knowledge, It would be one exam /or possibly Oral to test knowledge of the legitimate differences.
2. Rather than an initial skills test, it would be the normal periodic check flight
3. There would be no minimum qualifying experience - i.e. no 100 hours P1 instrument time (the IR) or 100 hours as pilot (PPL) or 700 hours including 200 in the activity (CPL)
4. There would be no requirement for a minimum training period or training at the X's discretion

All in all it would be an acceptance that the pilot is as qualified as if the paper was issued by the local authority - with specific allowances for real local difference. Human factors would be a good example of a real local difference where European physiology is significantly weaker than North American and hence its requirement to be tested for a non-commercial conversion

[peterh337]

Historically, I think it's true to say that most ICAO papers have been converted with an air law exam (to supposedly address the local airspace issues) and a flight test.

Logically, it's hard to argue with the above. The flight test is the ultimate check for somebody arriving with forged or otherwise bogus papers, which would be an obvious thing to try when going for a conversion route (and reading the airline pilot forums on here it seems to be common in certain parts of the world).

The problem is that even the air law stuff in Euroland is nearly all utter crap. Reportedly it was generated (excreted) by a Portugese ATCO and you get gems like this



which make a mockery of any pretence that this is being studied to make you a safe pilot in Europe.

Then, in the present system, for a working pilot, multiply the above by 14. To even get signed off to sit the exams (by the ground school FTO) you have to wade through some 3000 pages of this crap to do their homework. (CATS uses a better online system).

Even for the FCL008/CBM IR proposal, EASA did not have the resources to re-do any of the IR syllabus, so they took the existing Learning Objectives (syllabus) and chopped them down.

Can you really see EASA signing a bilateral with the FAA and comprehensively re-hashing the TK?

I like the comment about human factors Here are a few more gems

[Pace]

I tend to agree that any Bi Lateral will not be a straight swap or even anything which will water down the training structure already in the EASA system.
A Bi lateral agreement could be shared authority over N reg aircraft based in Europe.
The complaint of EASA revolves around not having oversight/control over N reg so a Bi Lateral in that sense would work.
Sadly all this Rubbish churned out of EASA has cost 300 million Euro.
EASA had the opportunity in this rewrite of bringing FAA, Canada, much closer together where a proper Bi Lateral was possible! Using the FAA structure they could have achieved a result which would have cost a fraction of the price and achieved uniformity ....But ???
So sadly a missed opportunity which could have decomplicated aviation in Europe and reduced costs.
I tend to agree with Bose that self interest has driven the structure we are faced with and self interest towards the regulators themselves rather than the safety issues EASA are supposed to protect.

Pace

[chubbychopper]

Pace, with the GREATEST respect old chap, but please....

We know which side of the fence you are on
We have heard ALL of the arguments that you repeat day after day
We KNOW it's sh1t
We know that there is protectionism going on
We know they are a corrupt bunch of w*n**ers writing this cr*p
We KNOW they promised a bi lateral agreement
We know they lied
We know you don't have an EASA licence
We certainly KNOW there is no safety issue

Please mate, believe me - I AM on your side, but repeating the same mantra day after day really isn't gonna make a jot of difference! We know it is a scam, we KNOW there is no safety issue, but PLEASE PLEASE STOP REPEATING IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Please.

Pretty please.

They are NOT reading you.

They do not care.

They are not in the slightest bit concerned about the threat of potential legal action.

It is a done and dusted deal.......please please please STOP, accept it, get studying and spare us all the same broken record stuff that we know inside out and upside down! Please!!!!!

[Thomascl605]

Well Chubby if Pace bothers you that much then don't read this thread, pure and simple.

I am totally with Pace and many others on this subject.

1. No, we won't roll over and get shafted and won't be studying for the 14 exams crap. A true professional Pilot will evaluate this situation for what it is, apply common sense and decide not to accept the idiotic decisions coming from EASA.

2. If you wish to doff the cap and in essence be another clone of the decision making of these idiots then be my guest.

3. Don't underestimate a court case, and don't underestimate the positive outcome for the pilots that will bring it.

[S-Works]

Thomas, the problem as I see it.....

The N reg flyers died a death and they were supposed to be fighting the corner.

How many pilots do you know with the money to take a EASA to court? Who has the pull to organise a class action or whatever it's called and has the money to represent the pilots enmasse? I would doubt you would get a lawyer to represent no win no fee as the case us just not strong enough. So I think that your 'clutching straw' of a legal case is a no hoper. However if you can share expert legal opinion rather than barrack room law I would certainly be interested in looking at it. My pilot lawyer friend thinks its a no hoper, but who knows!

Don't fall back on telling people not to read the thread just because they don't agree with you and are telling you things you don't want to hear it dies nothing to help your position.

edit: speeeeling and grammar...

[peterh337]

A Bi lateral agreement could be shared authority over N reg aircraft based in Europe.
The complaint of EASA revolves around not having oversight/control over N reg so a Bi Lateral in that sense would work.

Lack of oversight is another massive misconception.

The CAA here can ground any unsafe aircraft here.

The CAA and the police can inspect any aircraft here.

The CAA here can inspect the papers of any pilot here.

The CAA can make a report to the FAA of a dodgy A&P/IA (etc) and the FAA will bust him faster than he can read this (and I know of a few who got banned from practicing for a few months, which rather tends to concentrate the mind when your livelihood is gone).

An N-reg in Europe is much more vulnerable to inspections because it has no VAT treaty protection.

An N-reg maintained here is 99% likely to be maintained by a Part M company, so it supports the industry and helps the company to pay the CAA the annual approval fees The only difference is that the N-reg return to service is signed by an individual rather than by the Part M company (but under the new EASA OPS rules any "complex" will require the Part M signoff also..... so more ££££££££ going to the local CAA ).

Does the CAA do ramp checks on G-regs? No.

Does the CAA bust EASA145 companies who use bogus-history parts and thus issue bogus EASA145 forms and the CAA has known about them for years? No. Not, apparently, as long as the said company is paying the CAA approval fees

So, "lack of oversight" is a load of nonsense.

If I was going to operate a plane which

- has never been serviced
- is unregistered
- has a bogus number on the side
- is uninsured
- no FM Immune avionics
- runs on car petrol

and I had

- no license
- no medical
- no nuffink, never even had formal flight training but I knew how to fly and do the radio

and I wanted to fly it all over Europe, airways, the lot, what reg would I pick?

G

[S-Works]

Wow..... I had no idea the UK GA licensing and certification system was so corrupt. have you thought about sharing your evidence with the UK CAA Peter?

Or am I to assume that the Belgrano is like some corrupt African state and they are in it for the back handers as well?

[mad_jock]

A true professional Pilot will evaluate this situation

And realise that they are pointing the machine into a situation where they don't have an escape route.

The wake vortex question is for civilians operating into military airfields which don't seperate you for wake votex. You can ask for anything and they will clear you for it. Also in alot of the world outside europe they don't have a clue about wake vortex or its the pilots responsability.

Another situation that you have to watch is helicopters operating a seperate circuit to a spot or ruff ground next to the runway.

The numbers are neither here nor there but its more the concept you need to have vortex seperation.

[421C]

Bose,
Peter didn't say that. He said lack of oversight was a massive misconception and he is right.

His other points are that Europe has a safety model based on "organisational approvals" rather than "individual accountability". The former works well in the airline world, because there is the scale to make it work and no other model makes sense. Part 121 is much the same in the US.

For GA maintenance and training, the organisational approval model adds a lot of overhead and little benefit IMHO. As an aircraft owner, I would have zero extra confidence in the costs and complexity Part M introduces. I also think the Peter is right that an organisation can "hide behind its approvals" and I do get the sense that if a poor Part M business ticks the boxes, pays its fees etc, the actual quality of what it does is almost secondary. Similarly for flight training to an extent. UK training is of a good quality because there are a lot of good people involved. The vast amount of paperwork adds little. You run a TRTO, you know this. The students who lost £70k when Cabair went bust know this.

The CAA's economic model adds to the distortion inherent in the EASA and pre-EASA framework. The CAA can't charge a general tax or a ramp inspection fee, they can charge for approvals and paperwork. It's no criticism of the people, you make any organisation dependent on a hammer, and that organisation will start seeing a lot of nails out there.

brgds
421C

[mad_jock]

Your getting focused on real reasons again which as we have all said safety is not the reason why they are doing it.

They just want local pilots and local aircraft under there control and paying them money. Just like all the other pilots who are under local reg.

[421C]

MJ
For once we agree. I think its probably not even the fees, since outside the UK the NAAs are less fee dependent. There's not one single EU cabal masterminding the FRA issue. My impression is that there's a mix of motives going back many years.

Until say around the early 2000s, the N-reg had operated fairly low key, in limited numbers and no-one really cared. In the UK, it was mainly bizjets operated sensibly for obvious reasons and a few high-end pistons like the Baron or Malibu or Cessna 300/400 series for owners who wanted FAA medicals and IRs.

The "problem" started about 10 years ago. The light aircraft market revitalised, with Cirrus at the lower end and the promise of the VLJs at the higher end. A few things then happened.
- the effects of the JAA were felt, including the various medical and training difficulties
- people started buying new aircraft. Most, apart from VFR light sport stuff, went straight onto the N - Cirrus, Beech, Socata,etc
- some of this was driven by better regulation under the FAA, some by the fact the many exciting new aircraft couldn't get UK TCs (TBM700, PC12, Columbia 300-400)
- people started moving older simple SEPs onto the N (PA28s, C172/182s) as awareness of the ease of the FAA system and frustration with the JAA increased

This resulted in various different reactions around Europe (I am sort of making up the next bit, but I think it impressionistically right). The German regulators got into a panic about the prospect of thousands of Eclipse light jets swarming around flown by FAA PPL/IRs. Various UK and French regulators realised that the trend was such that most of the future light aircraft fleet, other than trainers, would end up on the US register. The collective view was that "something must be done", in particular about FAA IRs. I suspect professionals like Pace and Thomas were just collateral damage, sadly.

The obvious remedy would have been to fix the bad elements of JAA regulations, and indeed this is what EASA initially promised. Unfortunately, the temptation to preserve and gold-plate the JARs was not resisted, except for some useful exceptions like the LAPL and Part MED in places.

The final irony, of course, is that this EU system for GA, that's meant to be so important that FRA operators have to be forced into it, was acknowledged to be a failure by the EASA Management Board and a group of countries tasked with rethinking the whole thing....

[soaringhigh650]

Please mate, believe me - I AM on your side, but repeating the same mantra day after day really isn't gonna make a jot of difference!

peterh337 - given your a pilot of substantial experience, you need get up from your chair, start contacting your representatives and look at how to getting things changed.

I've said this before and I make no apologies for saying this again:

Moonlighting on Internet forums with an attitude of "all other parties are on some vested-interest gravy train" and "the whole world is totally out there to screw me over" is clearly not going to help yourself or any of us here.

If what you speak is substance, please go and act on it!

[peterh337]

I don't think I wrote that quote, but IME writing to one's MP just produces a pre-prepared standard response letter.

The best thing is creating awareness, and like it or not pilot forums are effective in that. Look at the bizjet community - probably 99% of them are still totally clue-less about this stuff. That's because they fly instead of chatter

Re the earlier stuff, I don't see there has been any organised top level anti N-reg move in the principal "GA" countries i.e. UK Germany and France. Not even recently.

As I've said, the CAAs get most of the money off the N-reg community anyway, via maintenance facilities, and the Govt gets the tax via avgas (whose purchases by the IFR community are substantial). Route charges are collected off the lot. The only bits they don't get are license renewals and AME fees which amount to a miniscule % of the "flying taxes" one pays. The average IFR pilot probably pays more money to Jeppesen Hey - there's an idea. Tax Jepp

N-reg GA seems to have been happily tolerated by the regulators in these countries. They had ample opportunities, and means, of clobbering it. (I won't list some obvious ones). But they very deliberately didn't do that. They merely prevented foreign regs being operated for money and this kept flight training and most AOC ops on the local regs, thus protecting the bulk of the income stream.

I think the EASA FCL anti-N-reg stuff is a private project run by a few individuals in Cologne. Looking at the "legal" crap they have drafted and forced through the transport committee, they are not even particularly clever.