I'm left wondeing what the signatories of the Chicago Convention intended.

Cows getting Bigger

EASA would probably count the number of times the word "international" was used and point out this has nothing to do with interantional ops - it is about regulating our citizens within the national borders of Euro world.

Great quote from the JAA website
 

The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) was an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who had agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures. This co-operation was intended to provide high and consistent standards of safety and a "level playing field" for competition in Europe. Much emphasis was placed on harmonising the JAA regulations with those of the USA.

Yeah, right....:rolleyes:

I took the time to put my down thoughts on this in a clear and constructive way to my MEPs. The substance of my comments was

The proposal in front of you for voting next week, while laudable, is flawed in fundamental respects as to its failure to address the known issues with instrument flying qualifications, its attempt to define regulation based on the concept of an operators residency, its fundamentally unreasonable (when compared to other developed nations) approach to validation or conversion as defined in Annex III. As it stands it will not enhance safety and in all likelihood will reduce the safety level in Europe.

You can use this handy link to look up and email your MEPs. Speed is of the essence as I understand they vote early next week.

Fuji

This is what sparked my response as while it gives EASA a legal chip it doesnt give EASA the sort of control that i think you mean.

Yes of course they could prosecute a 90 year old for landing in Paris but they couldnt charge him for endangering the citizans of Paris if he met all the legal requirements of the aircraft he is flying.

If the FAA pilot holds a valid FAA medical but his EASA one has expired EASA cannot charge that pilot for flying without a valid medical because he holds one on the aircraft he is licenced to fly the FAA aircraft!
Infact his EASA medical isnt valid at all on that aircraft and would not be seen as valid by any court.
If it was the other way around and his FAA Medical had expired but his EASA was current then he would be charged with flying without a valid medical. You must see that?

His EASA medical is worthless on the FAA aircraft.

Hence why I say that EASA will not get the control over their citizens that I think you mean.

All EASA can do is to charge the pilot on a technicality which bares no relationship to the aircraft in the air.

They cannot charge him on any safety grounds only the technicality of flying the aircraft without the required USELESS EASA licences in the background

Pace

Hum

You have put a lot of effort into your letter I hope you will use it to good effect by sending it to the right people?

Pace

Jan Brill, Managing Editor, Pilot und Flugzeug magazine has written an open letter to EASA illustrating the effects of EASA's proposals on FCL. It's well written and persuasive. If you know anyone of influence I suggest you send it to them.

You can find a download link for the letter on this page.

write to you MEP!
 

Done. Let's hope it helps...... :suspect:

Contact details for the Chair, Vice-Chairs and UK Members if the European Parliament Transportation Sub-Committee now added.
Open Letter to EASA

Mike Only doubt with the open letter is that it may go above anyone but very aviation knowledgables heads.

But done too.

Can you really ring these people direct?

Here are some thoughts on this I wrote elsewhere earlier today.

There appear to be 3 arguments against FRA:
1. the "principle" argument: the idea that EU citizens should be subject to EU regulation and not have a choice of an alternative 'flag of convenience'
2. the "analogy" argument: the comparison with, say, cars and driving
3. the "points scoring" argument: ie. we couldn't do this in the US with EU-registers etc etc and we'd have to notify the TSA of every flight etc etc

I think all these are utterly wrong. To support them, you sort of have to implicitly believe that regulation is there for its own sake - to have some kind of uniformity of regulating everything and everyone. What a depressing mentality that is. Surely the rationale for regulation is to serve a purpose: that the safety, economic/legal rights and welfare of citizens and businesses are enhanced and protected.

On these grounds, the analogies are irrelevant. We don't decide how to regulate cars based on boats or planes or anything else. We decide based on what is needed. The body of experience for aviation regulation is big enough that we can draw on it to decide what regulation Europe needs, without reference to other modes of transport.

Similarly, the principle argument is invalid. "Flags of convenience" get a bad name, I guess, because one thinks of ships with substandard safety and crew conditions. But why is "convenience" a bad thing when there are no negatives attached to it, and when our own flag is one of deep and unnecessary inconvenience? It seems to me fundamental that citizens should be free to do things which benefit them at no harm to anyone else, and that they are entitled to good regulation. FRA is a good thing which causes no harm, so why shouldn't we be allowed to to do it? Why shouldn't there be competition or choice between regulatory methods when such choice does not disadvantage 3rd parties? Why shouldn't EASA be forced to go back to the drawing board and design fit-for-purpose GA regulation if it wants to impose a monopoly?

The points scoring argument is the silliest. What does it matter even if the US banned all FRA? Surely the question of how EU citizens should be regulated is down to what serves their interests? What does it matter how the US chooses to regulate its citizens?

The FRA argument is simple one with, I believe, 2 factual underpinnings, either of which should be sufficient.
1. There is a proven model of FRA operation which is safe and has no adverse consequence to 3rd parties. Surely, in of itself this should be enough? Why fix things which aren't broken?
2. The European model fails to serve GA in the mainstream segment above the lightest sport aircraft and below charter jets. It failed pre JAA. It failed again with the JAA. EASA has failed to improve upon the JAA.

Fuji

Who ever asked us whether we wanted to be in Euroworld our currency thank god isnt ;)

Pace

421C

I dont want to go political but Euroland is motivated by the big state. I think regarding the UK 20% of jobs were created as government jobs many artificially.

Hence all the departments, sub departments etc The Big state will regulate regulate again and again.

Who pays for it all? The guy at the end of the chain and God he pays for it.

Euroland is the same.There are too many who cannot do anything else but regulate. The Eurostate. I think in the UK with the production of the 20% government jobs came 3000 new criminal offences. Ie you can become a criminal for doing 3000 new things you couldnt before.

There lies the problem.I flew for a company who went bankrupt trying to setup their own AOC.
I feel sorry for AOC OPS burdened with so much burocracy paperwork regulation.
Sadly that lot hasnt equalled improved safety! far from it the safety angle has gone down compared to the far less regulated part 135 FAA ops.

Sadly Europe doesnt know anything else and will carry on paying these groups of people to keep on churning out what they do because what else do they do with them all?

Sad they are damaging so many of our freedoms in the process.

Pace

Unfortunately there is absolutely nothing, nowt, zilch, that can be done about the Brussels gravy train which keeps this whole show on the road.

It is about 30 years too late for that.

The only thing which is going to work is pulling some serious "national interest" cards.

Let's say the Americans get p1ssed off and seriously threaten to call off talks on the already precarious Airbus tanker contract, some absolutely furious French/German person is going to make some very direct phone calls, and not to anybody at EASA. After all, this whole EU machine is not some computer; it is run by individual politicians who have to look after their own national interests. That is the key, and the only key.

That was a very well written post HUM. I have read all of this with great interest, given I am currently transferring my aircraft to the N reg. I have spent the last weeks talking with FAA/CAA/EASA et al. I have gleaned that not one of the individuals within the varied organisations have a clue about what each other is doing - this at ground level. The exception was a well knowledged FAA inspector in Fort Worth who told me that the FAA/EASA have a signed bi lateral agreement, with only one party holding the line - the FAA. EASA are basically doing as they wish - his words not mine. There are too numerous issues at stake here - licensing/registration/ratings/maintenance. All are being,or will be impacted. I spoke recently with a Spanair captain, who was totally pissed off with his lot. 90 hours rostered a month, difficult and multiple sectors, however, his main issue was that he was selling his light aircraft, due to 'to many difficulties with GA flying in Spain'!! Nothing depressed me more.

The current uk and european GA scene is a mess - maintenance organisations fighting for too little business, struggling to keep afloat, poor maintenance, poor regulatory body in the CAA, poor flight training in part because of the lack of business. The whole industry needs a look at from top to bottom. Perhaps, just perhaps, some good may come out of an EASA structure (I somehow doubt it) but if there were a galvaniser to rise from ANY decision on the 13/14th?????
All of the people will not be pleased all of the time, however, a middle ground will exist where some sense could be structured from all of this.

This is a watershed, and if ever it was important to get it right, it would be now. But it DOES need change.

421C

I dont think so. There are all sorts of reasons you could argue the FAA system is not perfect. For example there is some evidence that the absence of any requirment to demonstrate instrument competance (other than by self certification) is unsafe. EASA could adopt every aspect of the FARs except to require an instrument pilot to demonstrate competance by test every so often. Leaving aside for another day the debate about this specific example it would be reasonably difficult to argue based on the evidence EASA's view was unreasonable. EASA would be excercising regualtion over its own citizens in a different way to the FAA, but arguably in an equally justified way.

Such regualtion would support all of your criteria and would seem to me entirely reasonable (not that is what EASA is actually doing, although I guess some might argue otherwise).

Pace

I am afraid I still dont follow your line of argument. EASA could say any pilot in command of an aircraft in European airspace regardless of the aircraft's flag must have an EASA medical. Why not? I appreciate EASA would make themselves so unpopular it would never happen but there are no interantional agreements of which I am aware that would prevent them doing just this.

I can think of a number of countries that will only validate an ICAO license if the holder has passed that countries air law examination.

Maxred

Does it need change?

It does need deregulation, if anything.

Part M has done nothing for safety but has increased costs and has allowed various crooks to charge for unnecessary paperwork and inspections.

Not a lot can be done about flight training, which is now paying the price of decades of delivering a product which is unfit for the purpose, on the basis that most people who get a PPL chuck it in pretty soon anyway (which they have always done, anyway).

I don't think the FAA or EASA have signed any kind of treaty as yet; in fact it appears that the process has broken down.

What are the difficulties in flying in Spain? I have flown there a fair bit (VFR and IFR) and apart from some dodgy ATC with ICAO Level minus 10 English, it seems OK. Perhaps not many places to fly to (compared with somebody living in southern UK) because to the N W S is basically nothing and to the E is France, the near bit of which has little to offer to a Spaniard, and you have to cross a big chunk of The Good The Bad and the Ugly wilderness to get there :)

Fuji

I have never seen any evidence of that. It has been widely debated over years. It is a tossup between doing some real IFR and clocking up the FAA 6/6 approaches, and flying potentially very little and then passing the IR check. I have met plenty of people who had trouble maintaining the FAA 6/6 currency, but even the lowest-time JAA IR pilot has no evident trouble passing the annual check. I don't see either system objectively better, but I can see an annual IR checkride being absolutely mandatory under the European "pilots are crooks and we have to regularly test them so they can't cheat" psychology.

The FAA system does not use self certification. You have to fly the approaches. Unless of course one forges one's logbook, but if somebody is doing that, we are looking at loads of fake ATPs flying 747s... probably there are some, but they will be good enough after a bit of RHS time :)

Fuji :ugh: YES EASA can pass a law that every pilot must have a EASA Class 1 medical that is their right to do equally they can pass a law that all pilots must run around the block three times a day before they fly.

BUT BUT BUT That medical has no standing on an N reg plane.I hold JAA and FAA medicals what do you think would happen if my FAA medical ran out and I crashed the Citation I fly on N reg and told the insurance " hey guys my FAA medical has run out but I still have a current CAA one? Will that do?"

EASA can regulate till the cows come home but none of their licences medicals bla bla bla are acceptable to the FAA and its their aircraft and their regs you fly to not EASA.

If you are right I could save a lot of money by only running one medical instead of renewing two.

Turn it around the FAA may pass a law that any pilot flying in the USA has to hold an FAA medical. You ferry your aircraft to the states a G reg although you are braking a tachnical law that FAA medical cannot be used on a G reg aircraft.
Unless you carried a valid CAA medical your aircraft would not be insured.

The law braking would be different! one to the requirements of the aircraft the other to the requirement of the state. the one to the requirement of the state holds no VALIDITY on the aircraft only to the state.

There is a massive difference between the two.

Why do you think my jet owner would have to pay over $100,000 if he wanted to transfer his jet to an EASA reg?

Why do you think I cannot use my FAA licences and FAA type rating to go and hire a G reg Citation?
Finally why do you think I cannot use my FAA ATP to rent a G reg Seneca and fly airways?

This is my point! If this lot went through and you decided to be beligerant and fly your N reg Citation on full FAA licences and Medicals EASA could not do you for flying a N reg aircraft without a valid medical or licence.
They could do you for braking a European requirement to hold useless licences but nought to do with the aircraft (important difference)

Pace

Pace

The medical has as much standing as EASA wish to give it. EASA has (or will have) sovereign control over anything they like in their airspace. Therefore while EASA's regulation may be contrary or supplemental to the FARs they have every standing in a N reg aircraft in their airspace if they wish.

In your example if EASA required you to hold an EASA medical (and the FARs a FAA medical) the insurance company would presumably refuse to pay out if you failed to have both because you would have been operating illegally in airspace over which EASA has regulatory control.

In other words I was never suggesting that you dont need to meet all of your responsibilities under the FARs BUT, if EASA wish, you would also need to meet your responsibilites under EASA - which is exactly what the proposed legislation requires.

I see your smiley; I dont like it any more than you do for the reasons I have said. I fly an aircraft on the N reg. Doesnt change the arguments that EASA would use to counter yours if we allow this to come to pass which is why we must ensure our arguments are sound.

Fuji

I am not wrong on this :) and I fully understand what you are saying and where you are coming from but EASA doesnt have jurisdiction over what the FAA require to legally fly their aircraft. They have jurisdiction over their airspace. quite a marked difference. They can tell an American Airline to turn around as it doesnt have permission to enter its airspace but they cannot dictate to the FAA what Medicals or licences that American Airline pilots must hold.
They could for instance regulate that as a European resident you can only fly N reg aircraft if you hold a London Black Cab taxi Licence. Quite in their legal rights to do so. But what relevance would that TAXI licence have to the jet you are flying?

If you were ramp checked they would say" Fuji where is your London Black Cab licence? You dont have one? We are doing you for not holding a London Black Cab Taxi licence yet Flying a N reg jet but you would be prosecuted for not holding a London Cab licence NOT the correct licences and medicals to fly the Jet.

A london Black Cab Licence has as much relevance to an FAA aircraft as does an EASA Medical.

I hope you get it now :) would the missing London Taxi Licences void your insurance on the jet if all those licences were in order? I doubt it but who knows? A lawyer/insurance broker?

Pace