Information on EASA FCL?
 

I read and duly commented on the EASA FCL NPA when it was out for consultation last year, with particular interest in the EASA instrument rating and proposed FAA to EASA conversion proposals. I understand that according to schedule EASA FCL should become law in April 2012 but was wondering what information about progress between the close of consultation last year and implementation in 2012 will be available in the mean time?

I note the EASA website appears to be rather difficult to navigate and the only info I could find was the archived NPA that I have already read.

EASA's responses to 'stakeholder' comments are here and are probably the last we will hear on Part FCL until it becomes law. The Part Med NPA comment period is now over and the next event is EASA's responses to the comments on the NPAs of Parts OR and AR, due in September.

There are recurring rumours that implementation will be delayed beyond April 2012 but it is more likely that EASA will force things through on time to avoid losing face - again. There is a general underestimation of the level of blind arrogance that prevails among the bureaucrats in Cologne, who are actively lobbying the EC to avoid having to put future NPAs out to comment as it is seen as a complete waste of time and resources.

Just returned from a day in Cologne...

I have it on good authority that the EASA 'Opinion' on FCL (excluding medical aspects) will be published 25th or 26th August on the EASA website. The Opinion is the final 'technical' stage as this Opinion goes to the EU Commission for consideration by the Member States' representatives (i.e. part of the political agreement process, which may extend to the Parliament).

In terms of implementation the 'cover regulation' draft in the CRD published in April indicated that for private pilots' licences (ICAO compliant and the sub ICAO LAPL) member states will have the option under Article 14 of the Basic Regulation (216) to phase implementation over a period of up to two or three years (i.e. to 8 April 2015, depending on which licence) but this has to be agreed at Commission level. One the reasons is that Members States' NAAs (UK CAA in our case) have to prepare conversion reports for various national licences, other than the JAR PPL (A) and (H) which will convert to EU licences automatically. This will take time, and the CAA could not start this work until the text of the new EU FCL implementating rules has stabilised.

After this Opinion, the medical part, for which responses to the CRD closed 24th August, will need to be concluded at the techncial level this autumn, and later the work of FCL.008 group will have to have an NPA published for consultation. FCL.008 deals with the proposed new IR in particular.

The CRD on Parts OR and AR (i.e. requirements for training organisations) are indeed planned for publication in September (with a workshop Oct 20-21), but OPS is still on the slow burner.

David - any indication of when EASA proposes to ban the use of foreign licenses (e.g. a pilot flying an N-reg on an FAA license) in EU airspace?

Did you mean when, as opposed to if :(

What will be the IR conversion route under the new regulations - will it be harder than currently?

No IR conversion routes have been published.

So if a 20,000hr US ATP wants an EASA IR, he will have to sit all the exams and fly the full course.

The present "15hr" IR conversion route is not included in the proposal.

No, it doesn't make sense to me, either.

I was told by a very senior EASA official that they are playing this hardball game to drag the FAA to the table, to sign a bilateral license recognition treaty. IMHO this is grossly misguided, because the FAA already practically gives away its licenses to any foreigner wanting to fly an N-reg in its airspace, and thus sees no reason to sign a treaty to allow the use of foreign licenses in its airspace.

I predict a humiliating climbdown by EASA, at the last minute of course. But we may get some legal c0ckup...

Really? I think if you turn to page 162/3 of the FCL NPA it outlines the proposals for the conversion of foreign licences. The table has a specific entry for PPL/IR (A).

The same table then reappears in the relevant Comment Response Document (thank you to the poster that pointed me to these) largely unchanged.

Sure - I know about the page 159-162 stuff. But I think you will find this has been dissected here and elsewhere previously and is not what it seems, once one reads all the referenced documents.

Can you work out what exactly e.g. an FAA PPL/IR needs to do to fly an N-reg in the EU?

I accept that you can call it a "conversion route" but it is not an easy one.

Was it discussed in a thread on here? I must have missed that. The NPA and CRD don't give much detail I admit but where in all the EASA publications does it lead one to believe that it's not what it seems?

I agree from the information available at the moment it is not clear exactly what an FAA IR has to do to fly N reg in the EU, but it would appear from a FCL point of view they have given thought to a conversion process. Whether or not one can carry on with one's FAA IR surely rests on whether N reg will still be allowed to be based in the EU; EASAs thoughts on this seem less clear...

Sorry IO540 I've just found the threads you refer to, I'll give them a read...:)

That one at least appears easier to answer - which is Yes, provided it is a piston SE or ME, or a SE turboprop. ME TPs and jets are variously screwed; they will be able to remain long-term parked here provided an EASA MO gets variously involved in their maintenance.

Here

Regarding the 2008 FCL proposal, I would always defer to better brains than mine to work out the full interactions of the different bits. Very few bright people I know can work it out.

Many very bright people are absolutely convinced those provisions refer only to license conversions which is a completely different thing (and only relevant to people who want to fly EU-reg planes, typically IFR, but have only an ICAO non-JAA IR). And sure enough that is how it reads, superficially... this may have been intended by EASA because it is not in their interest to make such an aggressive measure too obvious too early on in the process.

Yes having read it again I see what you mean, the tables in the NPA and CRD actually seems to refer to just the conversion of licences issued in the past by EU member states to EASA licences, not non-EU member licences. Leaving as you say a bit of gap in the regs if one wants to go for anything other than the one year validation. The document does cover the conversion of foreign licences, on the last page, but makes not specific mention of IRs.

Watch this space I guess...:confused:

The prospect of a bilateral licence agreement sounds interesting though.

I am finding it very difficult to get my head around the legal aspects of this. What EASA seem to be saying is that if you are a resident of an EU state you will not be legally able to fly say an N reg aircraft based in the EU without an EU licence. That seems to fly in the face of the ICAO conventions and the very basic world wide principle that if the state of registry of the aircraft and the state of issue of the licence match then you are legal. What then happens if the FAA licence lapses (either by expiry or by failure to have a BFR). The pilot is then entitled to fly an N reg aircraft on say an EASA licence within the EU?

Since under the same conventions the state of registry retains huge amount of jurisdiction over its aircraft, there is surely a risk that this would then be illegal under the laws of the state of registry. Or, are EASA saying that in effect you must be dual licensed to fly non EU aircraft inside the EU, but only if you are permanently resident? How exactly that will be enforced is anyone's guess as a simple ramp check is unlikley to throw up any illegality.

This does not just relate to N reg. The Isle of Man is not part of the EU! Nor is Norway, Iceland, Switzerland. What of RA registered Yaks?

You aren't the only one. I posted the URL to the FCL proposal, with a detailed analysis, in the Bizjets forum, and nobody there thought it was anything other than license conversion, which would not affect an FAA CPL/IR flying an N-reg jet in Europe. I am sure they are wrong...

In that case the legality would depend on FAR 61.3 which says you need a license issued by the airspace owning country, and JAA or EASA (which is a mutual validation system for nationally issued licenses) is not recognised by the FAA.
I think that's it.

You will have to have papers complying with the State of Registry, as well as EASA papers.

If your FAA papers go void, you are illegal worldwide (State of Registry requirement). If your EASA papers go void, you are illegal in the EU (airspace owner requirement, like e.g. carrying an ADF).

For a PPL that's not an issue, but it is for an IR, and more so for a CPL/IR flying a privately owned jet/TP for the owner.
Well, yes... I guess it will work by self-policing, which tends to be driven by the insurance being void if you don't meet the regs.

I think M-reg pilots (most of whom fly on IOM validations of FAA papers, validated by the IOM CAA specifically for the particular airframe) will need to get EASA papers too i.e. 14 exams for a CPL/IR, etc.

As I've written before, the practical bottom line (assuming EASA pull this off, despite the number of wealthy jet owners which will be p1ssed off) is whether we will be able to see it coming, before the present 15-hr IR conversion route disappears. That route is the least-bad way to comply with this crap. For a PPL/IR, 7 exams plus 15hrs with an instructir, plus a checkride. You can do it as a package in Greece of 6k euros.

It just endlessly astonishes me reading all these threads. The huge amount of time energy and money that human beings use up making endless - and endlessly changing - rules about metal boxes that move from one place to another, whether on the ground or in the sky.......

B

It is basically Politics of Envy.

No safety case.

Has Europe read Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention?

Oh, silly me, Eurpoe isn't a State, yet. :ugh:

Thanks IO540 for the email, I guess there is little to do now that the comment period is over other than just wait and see. I read a lot of the comment by individuals and other organisations on the FCL documments on the EASA website and a lot of it was defending the rights of FAA licence holders in the EU however it doesn't seem to have made much difference to EASA's opinion.

I thought Jim Thorpe's article in PPL/IR on the matter was interesting and offered some hope, although again EASA don't have to listen to him...:E

Unfortunately for Europe, ICAO does allow the airspace owner absolute jurisdiction over his airspace.

For example the UK CAA can stop an FAA licensed pilot flying here in FAA medicals, or even FAA licenses. And they are reported to have exercised this right, where somebody has p1ssed them off. But it is very rare.

If this was not so, none of the 200 or so countries (most of which are permanent military dictatorships, anyway) would have never signed up.

It so happens that civilised countries (Europe, generally, etc) have not exercised this right, and have allowed international aviation.

EASA is now back-pedalling on it.

Their overt position is that they want a bilateral FCL treaty with the USA. IMHO the USA will never sign such a treaty, in the current security climate. And why should they? They dish out 61.75 papers to anybody who wants them.

EASA pretends that "61.75" is beneath them; a full treaty is the only acceptable "European way".

It is however possible that EASA is trying to do a "Saddam Hussein extra mile to avoid war" job on this, i.e. they know the FAA will never go for it, so they can say "we did our best but the FAA did not play ball, so we had no choice...". These people are seasoned old foxes, as is obvious when you meet any of them.

It is Article 32 (b) of the Convention which is the operative one here, which says that:

Each contracting State reserves the right to refuse to
recognize, for the purpose of flight above its own territory,
certificates of competency and licenses granted to any of its
nationals by another contracting State.

Not wishing to stir things up, but it seems to me that however half baked the proposals are in practice, legally the EASA approach is supported by the Convention, though I am not at all sure that the EU is a "Contracting state".

If I held an FAA IR I think I would be biting the bullet, doing the exams and the 15 hour conversion before that route disappears!!

EASA also has competence over the continuing airworthiness of aircraft operated by those permanently resident in the EU. A similar level of alarm was raised about this issue.

NPA 2010-10 sets out its proposals for dealing with this. As far as I can see, for non-complex aircraft the requirement is no more than what would be currently expected.

(More demanding requirements are imposed on operators of complex aircraft.)

T.A.201 Common requirements
1. The aircraft shall not be operated unless:
a. The aircraft is in an airworthy condition.
b. The operational and emergency equipment necessary for the intended flight is
serviceable.
c. The aircraft holds a valid certificate of airworthiness issued in accordance with
ICAO Annex 8.
d. The maintenance of the aircraft is performed in accordance with a maintenance
programme which shall comply with the requirements of Subpart C.
e. Any defect or damage affecting safe operation of the aircraft is rectified to a
standard acceptable to the State of Registry.
f. It complies with any applicable:
(i) airworthiness directive adopted or mandated by the State of Registry,
(ii) operational mandatory information, issued or adopted by the State of
Operator,
(iii) continued airworthiness requirement established by the State of Registry.

T.A.230 Additional requirements for aircraft other than complex motor-powered
aircraft registered in a third country used into, within or out of the Community
by an operator established or residing in the Community, and aircraft other than
complex motor-powered aircraft registered in a third country and operated by
an ATO to provide training outside the territory of the EU for non-commercial
purposes.

1. The operator shall ensure that the requirements of T.A.201 are complied with.
2. The aircraft shall have a type-certificate issued or validated by the Agency.
3. The aircraft maintenance programme required pursuant to T.A.201 point 1 (d) shall
comply with the requirements established by the State of Registry.
4. Aircraft maintenance shall be performed by a qualified maintenance organisation
pursuant to Subpart E or by a person holding a license issued in accordance with
ICAO Annex 1, as acceptable to the State of Registry.

Subpart C: Maintenance programme
T.A.301 Contents of the maintenance programme
1. The maintenance programme shall be based on maintenance programme
information made available by the organisation responsible for the type design.
2. The maintenance programme shall contain maintenance tasks and the intervals at
which such tasks are to be performed; taking into account the anticipated use of the
aircraft. In particular, the maintenance programme shall identify the tasks and
intervals that have been specified as mandatory in the instructions for continued
airworthiness.
T.A.302 Amendment of the maintenance programme
1. The ... operator ... is
responsible for the development of the maintenance programme and its compliance
with the State of Registry requirements.
2. The maintenance programme shall be amended as required by the State of
Registry.


Do we really have a reason to believe that the requirements for pilots on aircraft operated by those permanently resident in the EU will be more demanding?

It's a fair question. But that is now how the EASA proposals stand at present.

Currently, we have no EASA interference in foreign reg pistons (SE or ME) or SE turboprops. That covers the vast majority of light GA.

But we do seem to have the requirement to get EASA licenses on top of the State of Registry ones. Do you read the FCL proposal differently, Bookworm? You of all people should be able to get your head around it.

IMHO what has happened is that EASA realised that keeping tabs on how long a bit of metal is parked somewhere in the EU was not going to work. France dropped the idea in 2004, the UK dropped it in 2005.

But requiring additional (local) pilot licences is a lot easier, and it achieves almost the same thing, i.e. indulging the European "we are superior" emotion.

Now, EASA can say that all pilots based here comply with the same "European standard" :yuk:

They don't have to comply with Part M maintenance, which is something... but that would have been tricky because one cannot overlay Part M over the top of Part 91, in the same way that one can overlay EASA FCL on top of ICAO FCL.

Overlaying Part M on top of Part 91 would raise many conflicts e.g. a retrofitted MFD approved by the FAA but not approved by EASA... if the EASA MO turns a blind eye to that (and they must, otherwise a Part M overlay amounts to an eviction of all FRAs from the EU) then the whole scheme is meaningless.

EASA are not stupid and they must have realised all this, a few years ago.

I still think they have failed to think through the residence definitions. They will be easy for most people but it will be the marginals which will show up the rules as meaningless.

In militarised 3rd world countries, most of which ban FRAs, this is usually implemented by nobody caring what you do, but after some months some official starts to make life hard for you. You have to get a permit for every flight, and the permit takes longer and longer. You have to pay bigger bribes. Eventually you get the message... but one cannot do this kind of stuff under European transparency.

I think we'll find out real soon.

I need Mystic Meg, evidently...

I couldn't agree with you more, IO540.

I would also add that the real political agenda here, IMHO, stems from European airlines' desire to be granted greater access to the US market, which they hope will be granted under a blanket bi-lateral agreement. But as you state, IO540, in the current security paranoid climate, Uncle Sam is highly unlikely to allow the next generation of FAA licensed terrorists to be trained outside of the USA - they'd far rather train them themselves.

Well, we do have a reason now.

Opinion No 04/2010 of the European Aviation Safety Agency of 26 August 2010 for a new Commission Regulation on personnel requirements laying down Implementing Rules for Pilot Licensing.

Draft Regulation on Part-FCL

Article 1
Objective and scope
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 3
Pilot licensing
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 4(1)(c) of the BR applies to "Aircraft ... registered in a third country and ... used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community;")

Oh gawwwd not another 209 pages :ugh: :)

OK, from the 2nd URL above... page 6 of the PDF:

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.
2.
Applicants for Part–FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates already holding at least an equivalent licence issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 1 by a third country shall meet all the requirements of Part–FCL, except that the requirements of course duration, number of lessons and specific training hours may be reduced.
The credit given to the applicant shall be determined by the competent authority of the Member State to which the pilot applies on the basis of a recommendation from an approved training organisation.
3.
Holders of an ATPL issued by or on behalf of a third country in accordance with ICAO Annex 1 who have completed the experience requirements for the issue of an ATPL in the relevant aircraft category established in Subpart F of Part-FCL may be credited in full with the requirements to undergo a training course prior to undertaking the theoretical knowledge examinations and the skill test, if the third
EN 6 EN
country licence contains a valid type rating for the aircraft to be used for the ATPL skill test.
4.
Aeroplane or helicopter type ratings may be issued to holders of Part-FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates that comply with the requirements for the issue of those ratings established by a third country.
Such ratings will be restricted to aircraft registered in that third country.

What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that EASA has climbed down from requiring all foreign reg pilots having to get EASA licenses?

Page 205 of the PDF onwards has the old stuff about

A pilot licence issued in compliance with the requirements of ICAO Annex 1 by a third country may be validated by the competent authority of a Member State.

which is what we talked about before, which most people think is about license validation to fly EASA-reg planes. The PPL/IR conversion requirement is

4. In the case of private pilot licences with an instrument rating, or CPL and ATPL licences with an instrument rating where the pilot intends only to exercise private pilot privileges, the holder shall comply with the following requirements:
(a) complete the skill test for instrument rating and the type or class ratings relevant to the privileges of the licence held, in accordance with Appendix 7 and Appendix 9 to Part-FCL;
(b) demonstrate that he/she has acquired knowledge of Air Law, Aeronautical Weather Codes, Flight Planning and Performance (IR), and Human Performance;
(c) demonstrate that he/she has acquired knowledge of English in accordance with FCL.055;
(d) hold at least a valid Class 2 medical certificate issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 1;
(f) have a minimum experience of at least 100 hours of instrument flight time as pilot-in-command in the relevant category of aircraft.

[my bold] i.e. 4 exams to sit, plus the IR checkride.

But, on page 207, they list conversion requirements

B. CONVERSION OF LICENCES
1. A PPL/BPL/SPL, a CPL or ATPL licence issued in compliance with the requirements of ICAO Annex 1 by a third country may be converted into a Part-FCL PPL/BPL/SPL with a single-pilot class or type rating by the competent authority of a Member State.
The pilot shall apply to the competent authority of the Member State where he/she resides or is established.
2. The holder of the licence shall comply with the following minimum requirements, for the relevant aircraft category:
(a) pass a written examination in Air Law and Human Performance;
(b) pass the PPL, BPL or SPL skill test, as relevant, in accordance with Part-FCL;
(c) fulfil the requirements for the issue of the relevant class or type rating, in accordance with Subpart H;
(d) hold at least a Class 2 medical certificate, issued in accordance with Part-Medical;
(e) demonstrate that he/she has acquired language proficiency in accordance with FCL.055;
(f) have completed at least 100 hours of flight time as a pilot.

which involves just 2 exams, plus the checkride. I don't get this... validation is 4 exams but a conversion to a EASA license is 2 exams.

What am I missing?

Mods - hope you don't mind but I've put this message on two threads, both of which are relevant.


I've been in contact with AOPA regarding the proposed LAPL and received the following reply which I have their permision to quote:

I have been in contact with Dr Ian Perry, the AOPA/IAOPA medical representative at EASA, and he has been fully briefed regarding the importance ot UK NPPL holders being able to continue under EASA with a similar medical for the LAPL. as we have currently for the NPPL.

We will keep our members informed via the magazine when we have any final proposals regarding this matter.

Currently, EASA is proposing a medical with your GP for the LAPL, but the GP concerned is required to have some additional experience or qualification to cover him/her to undertake these medicals.

Ian Perry is currently at EASA at a meeting with the Medical Department and working on the subject of the LAPL medical for us.

IO540,
With regards professional licenses I think it says that there could be a variable reduction in training requirements, based on your current qualifications/experience but you will still have to pass the theoretical exams and flight test to get an EASA license (you will still need to get one), thats all. Don't get your hopes up :sad: i note the word "may" is used a lot, so they are really promising nothing.

Icao Cpl/atpl
 

Historically, it has been true that "professional" pilots (CPL/ATP) have got better grandfather treatment than mere PPLs.

This is why I have always recommended to anybody doing the FAA PPL/IR to put in a bit more work and get a CPL/IR, and I did that myself.

Plus I run both CAA and FAA Class 1 medicals, just as an insurance policy, to lock-in Demonstrated Ability for ever... done concurrently with the right AME, this costs hardly more than just one Class 2.

Some original versions of the EASA stuff did look like this might mean something, but I have lost track of it now... it would be interesting to find an FAA CPL/IR -> EASA PPL/IR (no use for an FAA CPL here anyway) easier than an FAA PPL/IR -> EASA PPL/IR.

What do you think?

In EASAspeak, 'accept' means either 'validate' (allow the third country licence to be used in EASA aircraft for a limited period without issuing any form of EASA licence or certificate) or 'convert' (issue an EASA licence on the basis of the third country licence).

According to Annex III to the Regulation, a third country PPL with an instrument rating may be 'validated' (for a period not exceeding 1 year) and a third country PPL without an instrument rating may be either 'validated' or 'converted'. There is, however, no method of 'converting' an IR issued by a third country.

To 'validate' a PPL/IR requires 4 exams and the IR and class/type rating skill tests

To 'validate' only a PPL requires 2 exams and the PPL and class/type rating skill tests

To 'convert' only a PPL requires 2 exams and the PPL and class/type rating skill tests

I need to study both the opinion and the draft but, at first glance, it seems as though industry's reaction to the CRD has been wholly ignored.

All i know is that these "EASAcrats" are expert bamboozlers, and with these types of people i have learnt from experience that its often not what they say thats important, its what they DON'T say. There is definately a "witch hunt" in the planning, for a myriad of political, social & economic reasons.

BB - if I understand you correctly, all you say is for use on an EASA aircraft.

What interests me is what EASA proposes to do regarding pilots who are flying ICAO (non EASA) aircraft on ICAO licenses.

I can't work it out. In the past, this has been worked out through some complex reasoning across the various proposals. Probably this:

is the key to it all i.e. an FAA PPL/IR will have to do the whole 50/55hrs dual.

Of course they are. The whole thing is a huge expenses-driven gravy train - oddly enough employing a large number of British emigre mercenaries :)

I had some emails with EASA on the certification side, and it was obvious the bloke (a Brit) was making it up as he went along, when he used the phrase "the world has changed" in reply to a specific question I asked.

A colleague was recently installing a fairly big bit of avionics, and EASA required some other bit to be installed in a specified proximity to the first bit. This was a lot of work and after a few months of haggling over details this man said "I've had enough, I am abandoning this whole project". Guess what happened? Facing the loss of fees, EASA climbed down.

It seems to me reading the material that Conversion is very limited and is only a third country's PPL/CPL/ATPL -> PPL !! The is no conversion route for IR/CPL or ATPL, which begs the question of what a 10,000 hour ATPL does if he wants a job with an EU domicile airline or operator !! On the basis of these regulations he goes back to square one, which seems quite absurd, though I guess that is what an EU ATPL would have to do if he went to work in the US.

Nothing though in the document seems to affect the principle that FAA licence in N reg aircraft = perfectly legal, irrespective of residence, unless a regulation says differently, which at the moment it does not. I wonder though how many FAA IRs will be rushing to do the exams and 15 hours just in case ...

On a separate issue, how will anyone acquire the new aerobatic rating? To get one you have to be instructed by an FI or CRI who holds the rating. Since it is a new EASA rating no-one currently holds one so there is no one to instruct for the rating!!!:ugh:

That would be taken care of in a different way. In almost every country (I have researched this a little bit) an ICAO CPL/IR can get a local CPL/IR validation, or even a conversion, provided he has a relationship with a local commercial operator of aircraft registered in that country.

I have been offered one such deal, which would get me a JAA CPL/IR, but it would involve me living there for a bit... no use.

ATPL validation works similarly.

However I doubt say Virgin will take on anybody without the full gold plated JAA 14-exam stuff, etc. It was funny to read about R. Branson publicly offering to take on Capt. Sullenberger... how would he square the paperwork on that, I have absolutely no idea :) S. (not a spring chicken) would have taken one look at the JAA exams and stuck 1 finger up.

A significant number I know have been recently.

The 7 exams can be swatted up from the question bank and passed in two goes (revise properly only those you failed; there is no FAA-style oral exam probing the marginal-pass area) at Gatwick, and the 15hrs flying can be done at a few places. It can even be done in an N-reg (I know of one case) with DfT permission. The ground school is no longer mandatory-residential but from my enquiries you need what is basically a bit of preparation and a signoff to sit the exams which costs about £1k, plus the exam fees. Still a pretty big project, and I gather much of the large Flyer group of a few years ago has dropped out.

I don't see the rationale for doing this at present, if you own an N-reg. Obviously if you have a G-reg (or rent one) then you need to do something...... but then why did you do the FAA IR?

I think you're missing the bit of the cover regulation that I quoted. Article 3 requires pilots involved in the operation of aircraft that are registered in the Community (Article 4(1)(b) of the BR) or registered in a third country and ... used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community (Article 4(1)(c) of the BR).

Thus if you, as an operator, are resident in the Community, you are required to have an EASA-Part-FCL licence even if you fly a foreign-registered aircraft. BillieBob has set out the (very limited) conversion and validation options.

Sorry, but I don't agree. The 2008 Regulation is an enabling regulation and the devil is in the detail of the Regulations now published. If you look at Article 7 of the basic regulation it says:

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.

This reflects the current position in international law. It does not seem to me that any detailed regulations have been proposed with regard to the default position under ICAO, which is that Foreign non EU registered aircraft may be flown with the appropriate (non EU) licence for the state of registry of the aircraft.

May be now, but not under the new proposals, I fear. Annex III applies and conversion is limited to getting a PPL.

IF EASA are planning on denying EU residents the right to fly non EU registered aircraft using non EASA licenses within EU airspace, professionally or privately, based purely on where they are domiciled, what would the human rights legal eagles make of that? Fighting fire with fire is maybe the answer?

Even in the above very small text, you have managed to use two very different words: resident and domiciled.

:)

Do you want a better indication of the difficulty in drafting meaningful law based on this crap?

If they use tax residence, that is tricky because (as any competent accountant will tell you) many people are in an ambiguous position on that. Especially paid CPL/IR pilots, living out of hotels.

The ICAO wording (allowing jurisdiction within the member's airspace) is "nationals", not "residents", IIRC, which AIUI means "citizens" which is something else again. But EASA has not used that one. They have used "residents", etc.

Domicile is really an English law concept which has little application in European Civil Law countries, where they use residence or nationality, so one of those terms is the more appropriate terms and the more reflective of what some eurocrats may be trying to achieve.

Unfortunately, this is covered in the draft cover reg.

Article 7
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.
...
ANNEX III
TO THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF LICENCES ISSUED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THIRD COUNTRIES

Annex III goes on to cover validations for up to 12 months, and conversions of PPLs. There is no generic "acceptance" of foreign licences for third-country operators.

When I made my earlier posts (before the opinion was published) I was thinking along the same lines as you. But unfortunately it looks quite explicit in the IRs.