Respectfully, you've just misunderstood it, by assuming "operators based in Europe will be subject to EASA regulation regardless of flag" does not apply to EASA FCL regulations. It does. It's reasonably clear in loads of EASA docs they keep publishing and EU laws are already on the statute book (but not implemented yet).

I don't know. Who cares? It's written plainly and consistently throughout the EASA regulations. I can't really make a clearer point on this.


I imagine that few pilots are going to lose their jobs, hence the lack of interest in the subject. Don't you think a professional pilot for an EU operator who happens not to have EU licences won't just go out an do the ATPL writtens and the relatively quick conversion courses for CPL and IR?
Remember, people with no flying background and little hope of getting flying jobs borrow £100k to get these quals. Surely someone with a pilot job already is going to do the conversion at a fraction of the cost of an ab inito candidate? Call it £1500 for the writtens all in, £2000 for the CPL, £5000k for the IR, give or take £1k. So that's £10k. Compared to what? £60k modular, £100k integrated?

£10k must be a just a day's work for a professional pilot.

I am in the wrong business.

I don't understand that reply. My point was a simple one: if people without pilot jobs find or borrow £50k-£100k for the (perhaps remote) chance of one day getting one, I think it unlikely that many pilots with jobs will be forced out of aviation by the cost of covnerting FAA qualifications to JAA ones. I didn't say or imply in the slightest that £10k was a trivial sum. Pilots go to great lengths and make a lot of sacrifices to pursue their careers.

What is the total conversion process for an FAA ATP who has zero EU-reg-aircraft time, to a JAA ATPL, for a multi crew jet like say a Lear 45?

IO,
I'm no expert in conversion for experienced pro pilots, see LASORS for detail. IIRC, there is no way to avoid the full set of JAA ATPL exams in order to get a full JAA ATPL.

The rest is down to hours. Worst case, a CPL skills test (training as reqd) and an IR skills test (15hrs min). Under EASA FCL, the LJ45 TR can be carried over. More typical/better JAA case, a TR checkride on the LJ45 and that's it.

brgds
421C

421C

It must then be easy to set up an "operator" in say Jersey, who leases the a/c out. Can I come back on this aspect of the proposed legisaltion please 421C or Bookworm. Within the GA community it is usual for N reg aircraft to be owned by an off shore trust to meet the FAA requirements. There is no doubt under trust law the trustees are the owner of the aircraft. Also it is usual under the terms of the trust agreement for the trustees to authorise certain pilots to operate the aircraft, but I am interested whether this constitutes "operational control". It seems to me there is a raft of issues connected with the operational control of an aircraft. The operator (in this case the trustees) may (and often do) lay down a whole series of requirements which must be met before a pilot can operate their aircraft; moreover these requirements will and do change. I dont entirely follow the fact that the pilot decides the destination of the aircraft in itself constitutes "operational control". After all where ever the pilot may or may not decide to go is irrelevant if he has not complied with the operational requirments of the trustees. If ever tested in Court could the Court so simply conclude the requirements of the trustees were a "sham" when clearly the trustees (as owners of the aircraft) are legally entitled to enforce their SOPs and ban a pilot from flying the aircraft at any point in time. In other words can you so simply argue that the "operational controller" is the monkey that manipulates the stick.

Agreed

I believe it does. That's exactly what trust agreements do. They retain legal ownership within the trust and a 3rd party (ie. the trust beneficiary) operates the aircraft.

In this sentence, replace the trustees with the insurers. They also lay down all sorts of requirements which can change. Does that mean the insurers are the operator? Of course not.

It's not about the requirements of the trustees or showing them to be a "sham". It's about who exercises practical, day-to-day operational control of the aircraft (within the bounds permitted by the owner and insurers etc).

Of course it's relevant, if the normal understanding of what constitutes operational control is deciding where and when the aircraft flies, again, within the constraints that may be imposed by the owner and insurers.



brgds
421C

As a further point, on the GAR form they seek to know who the 'Owner/Operator' is and they specifically reference this as Not the Pilot. In the case of a trust or corporate aircraft what is the actual legal definition of 'The Operator' and is it consistent for various elements of the European Governments?

How does renting from a flying club (where I am pretty sure the flying club is the operator) differ from renting from a Jersey based small flying club (serving only 3 or 4 individuals).


I find this subject 'amusing' (in a shaking head in amazement way).

We are going to have a situation where European Residents will be required to have a licence which doesn't legally allow them to operate the aircraft (the EASA licence) , along with the licence which does (the FAA licence) inorder to legally operate in Europe (but not outside Europe). However, non-European Residents will only require one document to legally operate (The FAA licence).

(The above assumes the NAAs continue to exist and are the agents that issue the EASA licences and hence the long standing FAA position that, for example, a Dutch issued licence is only valid for an N-reg in the Netherlands will continue to be true)

That's the most brilliant observation to date :ok:

As a follow on, the UK ANO definition of Operator is
And I don't quite understand why an aircraft management company located in IOM is not the operator of an aircraft.

On the other hand, I suspect 421C is right that it will just be easier for most of us to just sit the exams get a bit of extra flight training (which can be good value) and be done with it.

I have changed some words to show how prejudiced such a move would be and would be shot to bits in the European courts on discrimination! changed bits in red.
and we havent even started on the civil liberty laws.

Nice try Pace!!! I can see where you are coming from but it's not the same.

However if you want to launch the test case I am right behind you!

It's an interesting one. I wonder if any lawyers here can input?

Curiously the 2005 DfT proposal would have been solidly covered by Crown Immunity.

The EASA proposals are drawn up by amateurs, occassionally with legal support, but it seems evident that nobody takes the wider legal view at that stage. For example, ICAO compliance would have required the use of "national" while EASA has used "resident" which is a completely different concept and is in breach of ICAO provisions giving members states jurisdiction within their own airspace.

If I hold an FAA ATP and fly a business jet from which I earn my income and have legally done so for years I am protected in Law.

My Licence is the same as a US citizen. If discriminatory (which they are) laws are put into place which unfairly prejudice my ability to carry out my means of employment those laws can be challenged on a number of counts especially in the Eurpean Courts of human rights.

To say an American can fly in European airspace in a N reg aircraft on an FAA ATP But as a resident of Europe I am barred from doing so in the same aircraft with the same licences is without doubt PREJUDICE.

The fact that to convert that licence would cost me an awful lot of money and time is another issue.

The fact that the time required would take between 6 months and 2 years would mean that I would be unemployable for that period, would loose my job and legal livelyhood doing something which has been legal for decades and through no fault of my own.

If there are NO issues to answer in the European courts then what are ?

Pace

I dont see that is relevant. Lots of groups lay down operating conditions. the engine manufacturer lays down conditions on how the engine should be operated otherwise their warranty is void, the CAA lays down conditions which if not complied with would result in an offence having being commmitted etc, but no one would argue they are the operators. On the other hand I think the man on the number 7 omnibus would hazard that if the owners are laying down conditions that the pilot is required to comply with they are indeed the operators. Who does Joe think operates his flight to the Costas - the pilot or Sleezyjet? Who is he going after when it doesnt run on time, or the hostie spills coffee in his lap, or the pilot is rude to the passengers - not the pilot, but Sleezyjet, it is they that are perceived to be the aircraft operators.

I know I am playing devils advocate but Courts rarely consider one factor in determing a matter such as this. Are you an employee? HMRC might like to have you believe that if you work in someone's office from 9 to 5 then you are; the Courts see the matter quite differently and consider a raft of factors. I find it very hard top believe that simply because it is the pilot that determines the flight will go from Blackbushe to Southend that makes him the oeprator.

Who is the operator if the trustees inform four of the authorised pilots the shop has completed the service - would one of them please go fetch the aircraft back to its base?

If EASA intended that the pilot was for the purposes of the legislation the operator then why not use the word the "commander" shall hold an EASA FCL regardless of the state of origin of the aircraft for flights within the community unless .. .. .. Simple.

I just cant help thinking there is more to this or we are dealing with a complete bunch of amateurs.

As to FAA pilots converting their licences while it doesnt matter to me I cant help thinking those that say this are the very ones who dont need to do so - so their is an element of smugness. Stop being smug for a moment and ask yourself if you had been happily operating in Europe for the past ten years on your FAA IR would you really want to sit x exams and take another flight test, which even the most skilled of us recognise can be a bit of a lottery?

Actually I have some symphathy for EASA wanting their residents to fall directly under their authority. However if this is really what they wished to achieve then they should have proposed a reasonable method for existing pilots to convert their licences and addressed the dreadful state of affairs in Europe where pilots feel compelled to follow to the FAA route in order to obtain an IR.

Which is why they have allowed a validation of your FAA ATP for a year and then a further extension should it be required in order to allow enough time for you to continue to work and convert to an EASA licence.

So how is that discriminatory?

Bose what is required to validate the FAA ATP :rolleyes: Can I nip into central london and get it done this afternoon at some office?

On the discriminatory bit why dont Non EEC residents have to validate their licences too? same licence same plane?

Pace

Pace, no offence but you really should make an effort to and read this stuff as it clearly effects you.

When EASA take over there is a process whereby non EASA licence holders will be able to seek a 1 year validation. This validation can be further extended by the NAA to allow further opportunity to complete conversion training.

Non EEC residents don't have to validate as they are not resident!! If you choose to become an EEC resident then like it or not you become subject to the applicable rules and they have rightly or wrongly decided that those they have jurisdiction over will abide by a set of standards.

Apparently this is how democracy works....... I don't like it any better than you, just playing devils advocate.

Dont want to waste time reading stuff which will never happen and will have to be re written :) Have to ration my mental energy ;)
Bose being serious as I do on rare occasions like to add a touch of humour into my posts.

The whole lot although eloquently written stinks of discrimination. How can you require pilots flying aircraft on another states licences and reg to comply with European regs.
If an American pilot flies in European airspace and is not required to comply then no matter how you wrap it up its discriminating against Eurpean pilots flying on the same FAA licences. Those EASA licences have no basis on an N reg aircraft.

Put it another way if an American pilot is legally qualified to fly and is FAA approved type rated on the said N reg aircraft and then legally flies into European airspace you are saying that purely on his race the European pilot has to hold licences which are irrelevant to the aircraft he is flying? That is back door discrimination with no basis to the aircraft or licences held. What will they do next require EASA approved type ratings EASA approved avionic fits etc the whole thing is ridiculous.

Wish we had some legal expert in this forum.


Pace

Pace, the relevance is not around the aircraft it is around a set of standards that the Europeans have decided that their citizens will meet when operating any aircraft. You live in Europe, you abide by their rules. You live in the US you abide by theirs. They have been clever enough to ensure that they don't penalise visitors to the great country of europe by honouring ICAO agreements but those agreements don't have to extend to it's residents.

Thats not discrimination it is politics. Stinks I know.