I doubt a picture with be incorporated.

The regs are drafted still state that you need to carry picture id in addition to your licence.

I commented on that section during the consultation and the response what that they don't see a need to include a photo on the pilots licence.

Bookworm is quite correct and demonstrates the dangers of relying on a failing memory when posting from a third-rate airport in the middle of the night while waiting for Pedro to change a nosewheel tyre. I should have waited until I got back to my books. What I should have said, of course, is that no further information should be expected from Part-FCL, which deals only with how to obtain and maintain the licences, ratings and certificates required by the Basic Regulation.

EASA's position may be clarified by its response to various comments in the CRD to NPA 2008-17b, such as:

"The Basic Regulation establishes two possible ways to accept a licence issued by a third country: through a bilateral agreement celebrated between the Community and that third country and, in the case of aircraft registered in a third country flown by an operator established or residing in the Community, though unilateral acceptance based on related implementing rules. A proposal for those rules was included in NPA 2008-17, in Annex III to the Licensing regulation."

Further, the following statement was made in response to a comment on Annex III:

"In relation to the issue of the IR, however, it needs to be said that it is widely known that the content of the training required by the FARs and the JARs is different, specifically on the level of the theoretical knowledge. The Agency considers that an equivalent level of knowledge and proficiency needs to be ensured for pilots flying under IFR in the European air space in order to ensure safety. It is further considered that the requirements that were included in JAR-FCL and have been included in the Agency's proposal are adequate to guarantee that. The Agency does not intend to fundamentally change these requirements without a dedicated assessment."

In response to a comment by the FAA regarding the applicability of Annex III, the following statement was made:

"The sentence ‘established or residing in the Community’ includes both private/ commercial operators whose principle place of business is within the territory of the Community. For private pilots (GA pilots) this means their place of residence. For organisations, it means the place where their principle place of business is: the place of their head office or registered office within which the principal financial functions and operational control, including continued airworthiness management, of the Community operator are exercised."

These statements clearly confirm the Agency's intent that an operator established or residing in the Community will be able to operate a third country aircraft only on the basis of the rules in Annex III to the Cover Regulation (i.e. either by validation for up to a year or by conversion, which applies only to the licence and associated class/type rating but not to any other rating or certificate such as the IR). Since this provision is in the Basic Regulation, that is already EU law, there is no realistic way to change it in the short term, no matter what 'influence' owners of such aircraft may think they have.

Consequently, an EU-based/resident operator of a third-country aircraft (including M-Reg aircraft owned by organisations with a principle place of business in the EU) who holds an ICAO licence with instrument rating could convert the licence and any associated type/class rating in accordance with Annex III but would subsequently have to obtain an EASA IR. However, Article 7 of the Cover Regulation allows for a reduction of course duration, number of lessons and specific training hours to be reduced on the recommendation of an approved training organisation and so it would not be necessary for an individual to complete the full approved course(s) to obtain an EASA IR. They would, however, be required to pass the relevant theoretical knowledge examinations and skill test.

Currently, you have 7 exams for the JAA PPL/IR (for both an ab initio PPL/IR and the ICAO to EASA IR conversion):

a. Air Law/Operational Procedures
b. Aircraft General Knowledge
c. Flight Performance & Planning
d. Human Performance & Limitations
e. Meteorology
f. Navigation
g. Communications (IFR)

How many exams would be needed for the EASA PPL/IR, for the conversion?

You are still ignoring the bit about acceptance of third country licences in Article 4!

Look at the recital to the basic law:


In addition, third-country aircraft operated into, within or out of the territory where the Treaty applies should be subject to appropriate oversight at Community level within the limits set by the Convention on International Civil
Aviation, signed in Chicago on 7 December 1944 (the Chicago Convention), to which all Member States are parties

(the Euro lawmakes love recitals in legislation because courts over there give legislation what is termed a purposive interpretation, i.e. what is intended by the legislation rather than simply looking at the bare words divorced from the intent behind it).

Yes, this does entitle them to refuse to recognise - or place limits upon - licences granted by third countries to EU citizens. The question is not can they do it but have they (no) or will they (possibly). As IO540 points out, this issue is a lot more complex than trying to restrict a few FAA IR holders based in the EU from exercising the privileges of their licence on N reg aircraft. There are a lot of businesses which could be seriously inconvenienced and have additional costs needlessly added to their operations. This last point is particularly significant in the present climate when we face the prospect of a stalled recovery. The threat by those companies based in the EU to move their base of operations outside the EU may have a sobering effect on the EU ministers.

BillieBob: EASA say all sorts of things at various stages of the process, but the draft regulations do not address all the points previously raised. For example, Annex III tells you in detail what the process of validation and conversion is, but it does not tell you the cases where such validation of conversion is required under EU law. I defy anyone to show anything in the draft regs saying that if you are a holder of a third country licence residing in the EU then you require a conversion or validation to lawfully fly that third country's aircraft in the EU. Point me to the draft regulation that says this.

Let us not forget that these regulations need EU Council of Ministers and possibly Parliamentary approval. Having only recently told EASA to stop re-inventing the wheel it remains to be seen how the ministers and commission react to this injunction having been blatently ignored.

You may yet see EASA told to go back and come back with something simpler such as simply adopting JAA into EASA.

Let's hope so!

I hope so too, not just for myself (though I could knock off the JAA PPL/IR in a few months if I really had to) but for the havoc it would cause higher up the GA food chain.

Sure one can think of ways to get around it. For example any VP-reg jet owner (let's assume he is non EU resident) could fire his pilots, transfer the jet to EU-reg, and hire JAA CPL/IRs out of the well stocked ex airline pilot pool, etc.

More cheaply, he could stick with the VP- jet and fire just the EU-resident crew and replace them with Croatians living out of hotels, with no permanent address. In practice, given EASA's use of "resident" rather than ICAO's "national" (citizen) terminology, any pilot would do if he has no evident fixed address. This aspect will be impossible to enforce on any operator who has done the usual employer's due diligence on employees who will now have a huge incentive to conceal where they live. It is just a total and complete load of bollox.

But, as a businessman myself, I don't think the typical operator is ready and willing to treat trusted employees (especially people who fly him and his family around) like dirt.

IO,
I think you've misunderstood the Basic Regulation. It says that an Operator residing in the EU must abide by the EASA regs. But there is nothing to stop an Operator outside the EU using crew within the EU who reside in the EU. For example, an Asian airline may have crew who live in the UK. They do not need EASA FCL licences - just the licences of the state of registry.

The problem is for FRA operators residing in the EU...

brgds
421C

It must then be easy to set up an "operator" in say Jersey, who leases the a/c out.

Of course not - that is not the purpose of Part FCL.Article 3 of the Basic Regulation states: "Personnel referred to in Article 1 shall be qualified in accordance with the provisions of Annex I to this Regulation, hereon referred to as Part-FCL."

Article 1 states: This Regulation establishes common technical requirements for:
1. The licensing, training and testing of pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation;

Article 4(1)(c) states: Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance, which are:
(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....

Therefore, combining all of the referenced parts - Pilots involved in the operation of aircraft used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community shall be qualified in accordance with the provisions of Annex I to this Regulation, hereon referred to as Part-FCL (i.e hold an EASA licence or a third country licence validated by a competent authority in accordance with Annex III).
For conversion of the PPL -
Air Law
Human Performance

For issue of an IR -
Air Law
AGK - Instrumentation
Flight Performance & Monitoring
Human Performance
Meteorology
Radio Navigation
IFR Communications

Since the Air Law and Human Performance for issue of the IR will also be valid for conversion of the PPL, a total of 7.

This debate becomes no better informed by selectively quoting bits of the basic law without paying regard to the whole. Once again you fail to do this. I suggest you consider all the provisions of the basic law, but particularly Article 7 and its specific reference to Article 4(1)(c), which is the provision covering third country registered aircraft where the operator is "established or resident" in a Member State and is exactly the point we are all debating. Of course, the use of the word "may" leaves the door open to direct regulation by EASA, I fully accept that. However, looking at the present position there is nothing in the proposed regulations which amounts to such direct regulation and which says to people like IO540: "you must have an EASA IR if you wish to continue using your N reg TB20 to fly IFR in the EU", nothing at all.

In the absence of specific direct regulation of the issue the position remains what it is under ICAO Conventions and treaties (and recognised by our own ANO). If EASA meant to derogate from the treaties etc. it would have to specifically say so. So far, it has not, though it may in the future.

You clearly don't accept that Article 7 of Part-FCL is exactly that "direct regulation". Let me have one more go.

Art 7 paragraph 6 of the Basic Regulation says:

6. The measures designed to amend non-essential elements of
this Article by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance
with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in
Article 65(4). Those measures shall specify in particular:
(a) the different ratings for pilots' licences and the medical
certificates adequate for the different types of activities
performed;
(b) the conditions for issuing, maintaining, amending, limiting,
suspending or revoking licences, ratings for licences,
medical certificates, approvals and certificates referred to
in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5, and the conditions under
which such certificates and approvals need not be
requested;
(c) the privileges and responsibilities of the holders of licences,
ratings for licences, medical certificates, approvals and
certificates referred to in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5;
(d) the conditions for the conversion of existing national pilots'
licences and of national flight engineers' licences into pilots'
licences as well as the conditions for the conversion of
national medical certificates into commonly recognised
medical certificates;
(e) without prejudice to the provisions of bilateral agreements
concluded in accordance with Article 12, the conditions for
the acceptance of licences from third countries;
(f) how pilots of aircraft referred to in points (a)(ii), (d) and (f)
of Annex II, when used for commercial air transportation,
comply with the relevant essential requirements of
Annex III.

In other words, EASA is to make implementing rules to flesh out the details of the previous paragraphs of Article 7.

Part-FCL is the collection of those "measures", the implementing rules. (a), (b), (c) and (f) are covered by Part-FCL Article 3 and Annex I. (d) is covered by Part-FCL Article 4 and Annex II. And (e) is covered by Part-FCL Article 7 and Annex III, which is entitled "REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF LICENCES ISSUED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THIRD COUNTRIES".

Thus Part-FCL Article 7 and Annex III describe the mechanism by which "the requirements of the second and third subparagraphs may be satisfied by the acceptance of licences and medical certificates issued by or on behalf of a third country as far as pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(c) are concerned."

And when Part-FCL Article 7 says:

Third country licences
1. Without prejudice to Article 1, Member States may accept third country licences, including any associated ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications and medical certificates issued by or on behalf of third countries, in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to this Regulation.

it doesn't mean

"Member States may accept third country licences ... in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to this Regulation or alternatively by just accepting the licences issued by third countries without further ado."

It means that Annex III describes, exhaustively, the ways in which Member States are permitted to "accept" third country licences.

Justiciar, I can only think that you are confusing Annex III of two different regulations. You refer to Article 7 of the Basic Regulation, which states "Pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c), as well as flight simulation training devices, persons and organisations involved in the training, testing, checking or medical assessment of these pilots, shall comply with the relevant ‘essential requirements’ laid down in Annex III." This reference is to Annex III of the Basic Regulation (Essential requirements for pilot licensing referred to in Article 7) and not to Annex III of the Implementing Regulation (Requirements for the acceptance of licences issued by or on behalf of third countries).

The fact is that, as currently drafted, Article 3 of the Implementing Regulation clearly requires pilots of third country aircraft used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community to be licensed in accordance with Part FCL. In order to achieve this, Member States may accept (i.e. validate or convert) third country licences, including any associated ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications and medical certificates issued by or on behalf of third countries, in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to the Implementing Regulation.

It would have been nice if EASA perhaps published a 'plain English' Q&A to accompany the publication of these documents, it would be so much easier than this constant debate about what the regs and their potential implications are.

The problem I see is that I doubt the Commission and the European Parliament really know much about what EASA is actually doing, aviation is quite a technical subject and unless someone explains to them why some of the proposals are a bad idea they won't have any reason to reject them.

If they did that, the various stakeholders would be much better placed to comment, plus adverse news would spread much more widely, which is not in EASA's interest. The best way for them to do their job is to publish 500 page documents.

If I was running EASA, on the super expense gravy train called the EU, I would be doing the same thing.

Currently, the biggest stakeholders are mostly in the dark. When the 2005 UK DfT proposal came out (to boot out N-regs after 90 days' parking in the UK) I faxed, by name, the marketing head of every TP and jet mfg in the world. From the responses I got, almost none of them knew anything about it. Socata did, but then EADS own the French Govt, who in turn set up EASA, originally for Airbus certification ;) I did the same exercise more recently and got some interesting responses; the big names are apparently lobbying in Brussels now, at the top level.

This discussion has been going on for a long time indeed, not restricted to EASA.
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the UK ANO already prohibit a flight crew member to be paid for his services with a non UK licence in Section 1 Part 6?

Deeming a non-United Kingdom flight crew licence valid
(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), paragraph (2) applies to any licence which authorises
the holder to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft and is granted:
(a) under the law of a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom but which is
not a JAA licence; or
(b) under the law of a relevant overseas territory.
(2) Subject to paragraph (4), for the purposes of this Part, such a licence is, unless the
CAA gives a direction to the contrary, deemed to be a licence rendered valid under
this Order.
(3) Paragraph (2) does not apply to such a licence if it authorises the holder to act as a
student pilot only.
(4) A licence deemed valid under paragraph (2) does not entitle the holder:
(a) to act as a member of the flight crew of any aircraft flying for the purpose of
commercial air transport, public transport or aerial work or on any flight for which
the holder receives remuneration for services as a member of the flight crew; or
(b) in the case of a pilot's licence, to act as pilot of any aircraft flying in controlled
airspace in circumstances requiring compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules
or to give any instruction in flying.
(5) A JAA licence is, unless the CAA gives a direction to the contrary, a licence rendered
valid under this Order.

Anyone?

That part applies to G-registered aircraft. There's nothing in the ANO that stops a foreign-registered aircraft operating in the UK with a paid crew that hold licences from the state of registry only.

Of course, the operation they are allowed to perform is restricted to the rules of their own registry (eg. private vs commerical/PT) and the UK rules (eg. a US Part 135 operator can't offer air taxi within the UK).

Under EASA, if the operator is EU resident, any crew (private or paid) will have to have EASA FCL licences (although they may continue to operate a foreign-registered aircraft in the EU with relatively few other hassles).

brgds
421C

When I posted this a while ago in the Bizjet forum, nobody there believed the above.

Do they know something, or are they just ignorant?

I am in two minds whether this astonishingly aggressive position is true. I know some well placed regulatory people who disagree with the aggressive interpretation, and Eric Sivel (head? of EASA rulemaking) himself has said similar things to various people face to face over the years (myself included).

As I have said many times, it would create havoc.

IO,
This is an odd sort of topic to debate. The principle that EU operators will need EU FCL Licences is not new. It was established in the original consultation to the EASA Basic Regulation. Then published in the Basic Regulation (ie. EU law), then in the original FCL-NPA draft, in the Comment Response Documents and now the final Draft.

I don't care who "doesn't believe it", or what anyone has said officially or unofficially. It's there in black and white. It's all on the EASA website.

The only question has been what mitigation may be available through the final NPA draft, now published. What is there is pretty limited - some licence conversion principles which are broadly similar to JAR-FCL (but with training requirements at ATO and NAA discretion), and the fairly big concession for turbine operators that 3rd country Type Ratings are fully accepted onto EASA FCL Licences for use on aircraft registered in that 3rd country.

I don't know a single person who has had any involvement or understanding of this process "who doesn't believe it". It's just silly. It's already been published as EU law (the Basic Regs) and draft EU legal Implementing Rules (EASA FCL).

No. The definition of Operator is someone who has operational control of the aircraft. The EU lawyers very smartly worded this one IMHO. It would require a conspiracy in which you are the pretend 'corporate' pilot of some offshore entity which asked you to fly to places that coincidentally where the ones you wanted to fly to. Courts rip this kind of thing apart in minutes. The only legal avoidance possible is to go and reside outside the EU.

brgds
421C

PS
...and I have disagreed with you many times. What 'havoc'? You've had this theory that the disruption the EASA FCL rules would impose on EU corporate operators of foreign-registered aircraft would lead to some lobbying effort which would scupper the whole thing. I think you have been proven wrong on this. It hasn't. It has barely deflected the whole process which has been running for over 4 years now.
I've made the arguments before so not sure I can be bothered to repeat them, but briefly - I don't believe the challenge of the JAA IR has any bearing at all on why business jets in Europe are operated on 3rd country registers. There are a mass of other reasons (tax, privacy, issues of cost and difficulty of getting EASA certification for certain types and modifications etc etc). None of these (very cleverly) are impacted by the EASA regs, only the FCL one.
Just go and look at how much of a shortage there is of pilots with European professional licences and then tell me how much 'havoc' there would be. I know a fair few people who fly N, M, VP turbine aircraft corporately, but I don't know any who don't have JAA qualifications. I am sure there are some, but not enough to cause even the mildest havoc....

He is reported as having said the contrary last weekend at Duxford. See last post on page 1 of this thread:
FLYER Forums • View topic - Duxford AOPA Bonus Day Saturday 18th September 2010

You ought to post this on the Bizjet forum where it will get an audience more appropriate to the gravity (like.... pilots losing their jobs).

From flyer.co.uk

Yes, this is well known and understood. ME turboprops and all jets will have to pay an EASA Part M company for some paperwork... another ripoff scheme, prob99 motivated by the fact that practically all SE TPs flying in Europe are made in Europe but all ME TPs and currently flying jets are made in the USA, and EUs revenge for the FAA having apparently refused to sign a treaty with EASA for everything ranging from Euro airlines being able to operate within the USA to.... mutual license recognition :)

Has Sivel actually stated openly directly and unambiguously that duplicate licenses will be mandatory? He holds a PPL so must be able to give a clear answer.