IR(R) -

[bookworm]

I thought after 4/2012 all licenses would be deemed an EASA license and then a proper EASA license would be issued on renewal in 2017?

Correct, but the CAA requires you to replace the JAR-FCL licence with an EASA one if you make any changes. At least the new EASA Part-FCL one would be valid for life.

[bookworm]

Regarding requiring dual licences to fly N reg aircraft in Europe! If you remember EASA had a bilateral agreement with the FAA already in place to which they hoped to attach FCL.
Last summer there was a joint meeting between the FAA and EASA to look at ways of bringing a bi lateral about dual licences being declared by EASA as not being their route of choice as well as being legally riddled with potholes for them regarding working pilots in Europe.

News to me. The requirement for an EASA licence for operators established or resident in the EU is law. It's not going to be changed before April 2014. AFAIK, the Commission and EASA are working their empennages off trying to get the BASA implementation procedures for licensing in place by April 2014.

[Pace]

Bookworm

I have a letter from EASA staing that they are going all out to get a bi lateral for FCL with the FAA to attach to the existing bi lateral already in place! Dual licensing not being the preferred option!
The conversion with ICAO licences from
IR to EASA IR with just a flight test and oral exam you posted would appear to show flexibility by EASA in that respect ( if it happens ? )
Austria already do not feel that such dual licence requirements are enforceable and with pilots who's jobs depend on this I doubt such requirements would stand scrutiny in a court of law regarding existing EU employment laws!

There most certainly was a joint meeting with the FAA last summer with the intention whether genuine of adding FCL to a bi lateral already in existence!
Remember too that the existing structure was only passed into law by reassurances given to MEPs who opposed that their concerns would not be concerns! If that was all a con trick only time will tell but the proposed conversion to an EASA IR from an ICAO IR sounds promising
Pace

[bookworm]

I have a letter from EASA staing that they are going all out to get a bi lateral for FCL with the FAA to attach to the existing bi lateral already in place! Dual licensing not being the preferred option!

Well they're certainly trying very hard to get the licensing part of the BASA in place, but that's the first I've heard about it not being "dual licensing". You seem to be applying that it would be mutual acceptance rather than just simpler conversion. I guess we'll see.

The conversion with ICAO licences from IR to EASA IR with just a flight test and oral exam you posted would appear to show flexibility by EASA in that respect ( if it happens ? )

Yes, but definitely a separate route. I think they'd like to get both the CBM-IR (with the third country conversion part) and the BASA with the FAA in place by April 2014, but it's touch and go on both.

I can't comment on Austrian or EU employment law.

[S-Works]

Pace, I wonder at what point you will realise you are going to have to do the exams or give up flying.....l.

[Pace]

Yes, but definitely a separate route. I think they'd like to get both the CBM-IR (with the third country conversion part) and the BASA with the FAA in place by April 2014, but it's touch and go on both

Hence why in the last summer meeting I had it on good authority that 2016 was a more likely date although for obvious reasons not official.

No one mentioned mutual acceptance but a more realistic and sensible conversion route between licences.

The ICAO IR to an EASA IR with just a flight test and oral examination is a major move from the previous 7 exams.

That would be opposed by flight training organisations while an ATP conversion where the pilot has already more than 1500 hrs from FAA ATP to EASA ATP would be of little interest to flight training organisations so should theoretically be a simpler conversion.
Yet employed pilots in Europe would cause a bigger headache for EASA on legal grounds than private pilots.

Lets wait and see but I would put money on a further implementation date to 2016
Also correct me if I am wrong but the legislation regarding 3 rd country licences is already in place 2014 was an EASA Option not a directive! Only 3 countries opted into that option yet no one has been charged yet?
Technically if the above is correct you are NOW just as uninsured flying over countries which have not opted into the 2014 extension on dual licences for 3 rd country aircraft as you would be after 2014 for the simple fact that flying into or over those countries you are NOW doing so without the required licences?

[Pace]

Bose

I have never failed a flight test in my life so happy to sit an EASA flight test tomorrow and an oral exam?
If that is all that it takes no problems!

As for higher licences ie ATP and working pilots I already know of legal challenges which would occur if a simple conversion does not arise and those challenges would be successful.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Technically if the above is correct you are NOW just as uninsured flying over countries which have not opted into the 2014 extension on dual licences for 3 rd country aircraft as you would be after 2014 for the simple fact that flying into or over those countries you are NOW doing so without the required licences?

I dont think so.

It is a matter between you and the insurance company whether or not you are insured.

[S-Works]

I stand to be corrected but for commercial operations dual licensing is already in force. And be commercial I mean a pilot being remunerated.

[Ellemeet]

I fly nreg with IR.

Basically I just wait for FCL.008 and do the conversion with an oral and checkride. This should be end of the year.

If the Basa comes it will be a bonus but in converting I also get to fly IR on EASA regs. The pressure for the Basa is very high as The boss of EASA promised it as the solution when this stupid law was passed.

[Pace]

Bose

I believe it is in force but postponed to 2014 at present but countries should have opted into that postponement which only 3 had done!
Austria refuse to acknowledge the legality of the dual licensing requirements and technically if we are insured now we will be in 2014 if the dual licence was confirmed across the board by EASA.
At that point it would be interesting on who would try to make the first summons and where they get with it as the whole thing is badly flawed!
My guess is there will be a completely different picture if not by 2014 but more likely 2016

Pace

[bookworm]

I stand to be corrected but for commercial operations dual licensing is already in force.

I think that's correct (provided when you say "dual licensing" you mean the requirement for an EASA licence).

And by commercial I mean a pilot being remunerated.

But that's not correct. A CPL or ATPL is required for a commercial operation, and is also required to get remunerated for acting as a pilot. But the payment of the flight crew does not make an operation commercial.

[BEagle]

A CPL or ATPL is required for a commercial operation, and is also required to get remunerated for acting as a pilot. But the payment of the flight crew does not make an operation commercial.

However, under FCL.205.A (b), a PPL/FI may receive remuneration for conducting flight instruction at LAPL/PPL level, although his/her licence is restricted to non-commercial operation.

[Pace]

The most interesting point in this thread is the fact that dual licencing is already in force.
There is an opt out till 2014 but only three countries actually signed up to that.
As such there are aircraft flouting the law crossing or landing in these non signed up to 2014 countries every day of the week.

That beggars the question that if a serious accident occurred TODAY in one of the countries who have not signed up to the 2014 extended deadline and technically have a dual licence requirement in force now how does the insurance stand TODAY?

If the Insurance is fine today on N reg aircraft where the pilot has all the legal FAA licences in order to fly that aircraft then post 2014 the same will stand.
The EASA licences are not relevant to an FAA aircraft and as such insurance could not force you to hold licences which are not valid on an FAA aircraft.
To me this would be a technical infringement of an airspace requirement.

As stated that is relevant to aircraft flying over these countries at present and not post 2014

Pace

[mad_jock]

Pace its going to take a crash and a load of money spent in court to find out.

Unitl the point when they actually start enforcing it.

When they do you the legal case will start. By the time its finished either everyone will have got dual licenses and those that can't are the only ones left fighting. Just purely because most won't be able to not work for the 2-3 years it will take for the court case to run.

[S-Works]

I was not aware the UK CAA had opted out. From what I was told by them they had not and they require a UK resident who is flying a N Reg as a Commercial Pilot to hold an equivalent EASA Part FCL License.

[Fuji Abound]

That beggars the question that if a serious accident occurred TODAY in one of the countries who have not signed up to the 2014 extended deadline and technically have a dual licence requirement in force now how does the insurance stand TODAY?

Pace

I suspect your understanding of how the insurance market works is different from mine.

1. If you infringe the law, and without any specific agreement to the contrary it is up to the insurance company and the courts to decide whether or not you were insured. For example if you have an accident on the road and the car hasnt got an MOT the insurance company potentially have an "out". If the accident had nothing to do with the car's mechanical state some will pay, some will attempt not to. The courts have taken their own view when it has got that far.
2. If you have an agreement with the insurance company they will (or should) honour that agreement. For example when I had just an IMCr and there was the tiresome debate about approach minima I had in writing from my insurance company (and the CAA for that matter) what their position was in the event of an accident.

If I were going to any of the countries in question and was NOT dual licensed I would want to have had the discussion with my insurers at the very least.

However in a case like this an equal risk is having the aircraft grounded (awaiting a qualified pilot) or the pilot "held" for flying the aircraft without a valid license following a ramp check - should it actually ever happen potentially very embarrassing (if a commercial op.) and more than a nuisance.

If you can afford the embarrassment and the cost carry on, if you cant I suspect either hope you stay lucky or get something in writing from each of the relevant countries and the insurance company.

[Pace]

Fuji

The fact is Austria thinks the EASA regs are legally flawed so ignoring them and TODAY it's business as usual with many FAA flying into these countries with the FAA licence only!
I would go further and state that most have no clue either ; ) As with most of this EASA rubbish either!
Piss up in a Brewery springs to mind

Pace

[mad_jock]

very few would argue with that Pace.

But currently your outwith the law as it stands.

[Fuji Abound]

Pace - you know I also have every sympathy, but as with MJ, sympathy matters not one wit in the land in of the Euro (and £). I guess any of them could be grounded / uninsured IF they get caught, and IF the authorities decide to do something about it. You might "win" but at a cost and with a lot of hassle - the usual way it works!

In the UK you can fill up your yacht with pink diesel, the UK is acting outside EU remit, sail to Belgium and you can be impounded / heavily fined AND they have actually done so in a few well published cases. The RYA has gone some way to sorting out the mess - but it is still a mess.

For the same reason if you get "caught" or have an accident you (and any of the rest) could face all sorts of hassle. Of course most rely on it never happening and usually it doesnt.