Pace,

In think in your example, you would be prosecuted for not holding a London Cab licence while in command of an N reg jet as required by EASA regulation xxxx.

I fail to see what difference that would make to you when your punishment was handed down by the court.

dp

Correct :) So it would be a technical infingement rather than an AIRCRAFT licencing infingement or a safety infringement which could only relate to FAA but would be interested to know what the lawyers say.
I know where I am getting to with this even if no one else does :\

Pace

Pace I think I am closer to understanding your argument but I am not convinced it works. Take my earlier example of the French refusing anyone over the age of 60 the right to operate in their airspace - there is no distinction between flags - it is a simple "if we catch you in our airspace as pilot in Command over 60 you will be in breach of our regulations".

I have never said EASA could have jurisdiction over the FAA requirements to fly an N reg - they cant, but I see no reason at all why EASA cant determine what additional regulations any pilot in their airspace might be required to comply with. Why cant they? If Russia where to say if we catch any pilot in any aircraft in our airspace without pink underpants what you going do when they arrest you in your white boxers - point out they dont have jurisdiction? That might cause international uproar but I see nothing to stop any sovereign nation requiring what they like of any pilot in their airspace regardless of the letter on the side.

and of course the point here is that EASA are skating around their international obligations which they dare not breach by pining these additional responsibilities on their citizens which they would argue are merely operating under a flag of convenience to side step regulations intended for their own citizens.

Take an example. When PanAm crashes on European soil because the pilot had a heart attack and the FAA did not require the pilot to have a medical the press and everyone else will lynch the FAA for their inadequate regualtions. When Jo from Dartford has the same crash in his N reg puddle jumper and the press discover he wears Union Jack boxers they are going to lynch our lot for allowing a pilot to fly in our airspace under a flag of convenience when the authorites should have known full well that it was purely a means of side stepping EASA legislation which would have prevented the acccident.

As someone said earlier an American lawyer however good cannot come and work here in the UK unless he meets the UK's requirements to practice, and the UK feel it has every right to impose these requirements even if the lawyer is practising American law in the UK which he is supremely competent to do!

In the same way an Icelandic Bank may well be authorised to operate as a Bank any where in the world but if we require they must comply with certain regulations, comply they must. When they dont we can and have frozen their assets; when the asssets are here and frozen in our banks it is difficult to argue the UK governement does not have jurisdiction over that particular foreign asset.

In terms of craft their is one other analogy. Yachts can sail any where - they are as international as aircraft. They are also flagged. Now even with the EU, in the UK we do not require the skipper of a yacht to hold any license what so ever. Sail your yacht to Greece and the Greeks will prosecute you for not being licensed in their waters. It is a prime example of where one countries licensing regulations are of no interst to another country - and that, would you believe, is within the EU!

And Pace if you dare fly your Citation without said black cab licence I will personally ensure your black cab licence is revoked!!!!

Do you think he is moon lighting? :)

Fujian,

You argument works ok for eu citizens, but the regs are broader. An American, with an FAA licence flying an N reg plane crashing in costa rica is now going to be done by EASA if that aircraft was despatched by an EU based operating company - what particular agency is going to achieve that one???

I have obviously highlighted an extreme aspect of the proposal

MM

They could not have jurisdiction out of European airspace :E But interesting as some think here with two sets of licences you would be uninsured over European airspace because your EASA illegal licences on that aircraft are predominant then as you go out of Europe your FAA licences take over and your insured ?
The EASA licences are a requirement of EASA not of the aircraft and is an airspace thing. The FAA licences and medical are the only ones which count with anything to do with the aircraft its insurance and legality.

Pace

Pace
In the event of an accident within EASA airspace the insurers could decline to pay out on a claim. It is a requirement of insurance policies that the aircraft be operated legally. As it would be illegal to operate any aircraft within European airspace without a Black Cab Licence the flight would be illegal. The fact that your other paperwork is in order is irrelevant, the lack of valid Taximetered Cabriolet Licence renders the flight illegal.

which is tricky because of you ask an insurer for a ruling, he will just say "the flight has to be legal".

He is not going to spend money on his lawyers looking into it.

IO - I wrote that as I was heading out for a much needed couple of drinks. The Spanish bit was anecdotal, maybe he was just a bit off that day, however, the underlying thought process, and situation appeared to be similar to our predicament in the UK.
Do we need change? I honestly do not know. I find the current set up not fit for purpose, therefore by default some CHANGE is required.
The issue here appears to be the scale of the process. The EU is made up of several stakeholders, all with their own views on safety/process/training etc etc. The FAA approach it with mutiple regional offices, all following the common mantra - GA is good.

I mentioned change because EASA appear to want to go down that route, but do not understand nor appreciate how to do it - AND SATISFY ALL IN THE PROCESS. Here appears to lie the problem.

Now how can that be tackled? That was why I hurridly mentioned a glavaniser of sorts, which potentially could, from the ashes:uhoh: draft a more satisfying to all and sundry, workable approach.

All comments on this thread are of course valid, because any change EASA implements will affect different people with differing strategies with differing aspirations on how they wish to fly/operate etc.

It is interesting because my timing in actually doing this transfer has co-incided with this EASA announcement.:confused::confused:

Exactly right.

I think Fuji is absolutely correct on this. Too many assumptions are made about the limits of international laws and conventions, especially the Chicargo convention. There is nothing in the convention prohibiting a country from imposing its own regulations on anyone flying over its territory to whatever extent they want. The can legislate on licences and maintenance and indeed anything which they perceive impacts on safety. Countries do this already. In many countries you have to pass an air law exam to fly that country's aircraft. Some also require a medical; others like the US do a relatively painless conversion. In the UK you don't currently have to do anything and can legally fly G reg on an FAA licence.

What few if any countries have done is to impose additional licensing requirements on say FAA certificate holders flying N reg on the basis that the operator of the aircraft is based in a certain state. I think this is something new and is not in accordance with ICAO provisions (I am no expert and stand to be corrected on this) which only provide for countries to refuse to recognise licence privileges granted to their nationals (Article 32 is the relevant one if you want to read it). These proposals are unrelated to nationality and discriminate on the basis solely of where the operator is established. This may actually be quite difficult to determine for commercial organisations. What is even more shocking is that there is a type of reverse discrimination here and if the EU and EASA set out to discourage as many companies as possible from establishing themselves in the EU then they couldn't have done a much better job:ugh:

In many instances the rules will be quite difficult to enforce. How, for example will a ramp check of an N reg in Greece determine whether the pilot is flying lawfully or not? Looking at his licences and the aircraft documents wont do it, nor even will knowing where the company it is flying for has its registered office or main european office as none of this will necessarily demonstrate where the aircraft operations are established.

Good summary by Justiciar above.

Maxred

If EASA's FCL proposals were to melt down (possible though unlikely to happen comprehensively) then we might get a return to the status quo i.e. JAA (and each country doing their own thing, as before). The problem is that you are still left with the EU expense-driven gravy train and that is an extremely powerful driver. This is a monster which is very difficult to tame, and nobody is going to disband it. EASA only has to use the magic word "safety" and since the politicians above it are clue-less about aviation they will always cave in.

I think a lot of people are getting seriously p*ssed off with EASA having published some potentially draconian proposals, then having its top officials off the record briefing everybody under the sun, for years, that the implementation won't affect this and that group (including N-regs), and then ignoring all the comments and doing the original thing...

I am writing to my MEP. The article here is a good summary of the situation but the basic point to make is that these proposals will, for the first time in "civilised country" aviation, strip existing pilots of their privileges, for no good reason whatever, and at least 99% of EASA proposals are not based on any safety data whatsoever.

The reason that I am moving to N reg, was a comprehesive failure of two UK Approved maintenance organisations to actually carry out what I paid them for. Not a new story I am sure to many.
With this move has come 9 seperate MOR, lodged Recorded Delivery to Gatwick Monday morning, Regional Office, and I copied in the Safety Reg Group in Brussels for good measure.

Perhaps a move would be to cover the whole easa/caa safety FAILURE, to the MEP as fodder:O

Might be to late, but in the event 13/14th brought a pause, more ammo to the cause

Unfortunately moving to N-reg will not by itself improve the quality of your maintenance.

The only way to do that is to get clued up about planes and manage the process closely - more closely than most people do.

For example when I take mine for the Annual, I buy all the parts which must be changed and free-issue them to the company. They don't cost much (on the TB20) but this avoids irritating crap like the air filter (£15; a generic Lyco part) not being changed.

I also type up a list of known things to do, and a list of things to not do (e.g. fuel selector o-rings which were changed on the last 50hr check and which need doing every few years).

Many N-reg owners pay the EASA Part M standard Annual cost anyway...

But at least you can avoid the known crooks, because anybody can do the work and then an A&P/IA signs the release to service. That A&P/IA needs to be somebody you know and trust. If possibly you pay him directly. In fact if you had a hangar where maintenance was allowed, he could do all maintenance on your plane.

The advantage of N is that you can get more involved and use individuals who you know are good. With EASA stuff you end up using companies where you have no idea who does the work. The company has the approvals but the job can be done by somebody good, or by a monkey, but because the company is approved you have no comeback and the CAA will do nothing.

You still need to do the usual airfield-political stuff i.e. use a local company for some work at least, because you will need them when you are AOGd :)

Yes, exactly. I have chosen my DAR, and I have chosen my IA. Time will tell if these are the 'right guys'. It was a move, whilst I had considered it, did not want to actually make. However my type, Beech Bonanza, and mods I wanted to carry out, the EASA route was untenable, therefore I did not have any choice left. There is of course much more detail to the story, but that for another time.

I like your point on buying my own parts, sounds good, and of course you effectively manage the process, not the other way round.

I know have to consider what to do on my IR rating:confused::confused:

The reason we're moving to the N reg is several fold...

Firstly so that I can fly IFR using my FAA IR
Secondly so the co-owner can train for his FAA IR using independent CFII at his own pace and without having to do a formal ground school course which he doesn't have time for (being a busy dentist).
Thirdly so that I can upgrade the avionics (and hence increase safety) without being weighed down by bureaucratic STC process and associated fees.

All this adds to safety.

For me to convert the FAA IR to a JAA IR firstly will take 6 months of ground study before I get in the aeroplane. I'd then have to get my aeroplane approved for IR training (despite waas enabled avionics fully IFR certified) and find a FTO willing to train me in it (I probably know more about flying with these high tech avionics than many of their FIs)- I estimate the whole process to cost me £6-7,000. For the co-owner to do it from scratch in our aeroplane it would probably cost £10,000, not including actual aeroplane costs, fees, etc. (I have assumed £200 per hour for the privilege of the instructor training in our own aeroplane)

So in real terms it would cost us £20,000+. As the aeroplane is being rebuilt after an accident (NB by a JAA Part 145 company so we're not doing Europe out of work), it is actually beneficial to do it now as this will avoid lost of CAA fees, and the money saved on them will almost pay for the conversion to N reg.

Had there been a realistic IR conversion process, a realistic IR training regime and simplified installation of avionics and gizmos without the huge fees involved, then likely we'd have kept the aeroplane G reg. We only fly it privately after all and it is not a 747 ferrying passengers around for hire and reward.

I have a friend who not only is a G reg TP captain but also a FAA CFII who can fly with my buddy as and when. Under the FARs of the 40 hrs instrument time required, he can do up to 25 with a safety pilot - i.e. me, so he can practice the basics for "free" and then the CFII can fly with him from time to time. IN return for IR training we'd swap aeroplane time, so my buddy (who I trust completely - he trained me in the USA some time ago) can then use our aeroplane for his own personal use for X hours (+ fuel which he will pay for). The "real" cost of using our aeroplane is far less than paying for an FI.

Clearly if these new rules do come it to force it will cause us a bit of a headache, but won't make much difference if the IMCr grandfather rights also come in, along with an EIR (I also hold JAA PPL/IMC along with my FAA CPL/IR).

The thing I am not clear on is the maintenance....Our part M company said with some glee yesterday that we'd be subject to ARCs and EASA maintenance, but as the aeroplane is on the N reg, also the FAA required maintenance. I am not sure if this is correct, I spent an hour on the EASA website before getting so bored I gave up....

That comment from your Part M company has just not made my morning. Think I will have to look into that in greater detail. It is not my reading of it, however, best I go back and check:eek:

On current proposals it is 100% bollox, much as I completely believe they said it with all the glee they could muster :ugh:

This is a fantastic business for spotting the axe grinders ;) A bit too easy though...

Read my post earlier in the thread :)

The proposal is here but there appears to be a typo between the stuff on page 8 and the stuff on page 9, but it won't affect you anyway if your plane has an EASA TC. No EASA maintenance oversight for SE or ME pistons or SE turboprops (below 5700kg, single crew, etc - the definition of 'non complex' is in there too). This is the one bit of good news from EASA for most of us. Bad news if you fly a King Air etc but probably not too much because any company doing the servicing for you will be EASA 145 anyway...

Just a thought, are the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in the EEC?

I thought not, so surely all the N reg aircraft will just base themselves there and continue to fly round Europe as usual.

What an awful mess this EASA is turning out to be. The whole thing seems to be based on the principle that its a privilege to fly in Europe, whereas in the US its a right.