It is certainly true that a private owner-pilot living outside the EU, and flying out of there to the EU, does not need to be concerned with these proposals.

Corporate operations will be able to set up various structures to achieve the same thing. Private owners probably could too. What concerns me is the insurance angle, as already discussed. This could be a field day for insurers to walk away from payouts.

The essence in a nutshell, that is...

I think the issue is really that here in Europe the tendency is to create gravy trains in aviation regulation.

If you create a gravy train, lots of people will jump on it. This will happen everywhere in the world.

Let's be frank... most people hate their jobs, and would jump on the chance of a nice cushy number in Belgium or Germany. The job doesn't have to have any objective value. They would just as happily work in a firm regulating the thickness of chocolate bar wrapping paper.

The fault is in the higher institutions, for creating these monsters which they don't understand. If you run a business, you don't create a department which you haven't got a clue what it does, but which has the power to p*ss off your customers big-time. In fact any business unit which has any kind of customer interaction would be kept on a tight leash (in a well organised company; not necessarily many of those around these days).

Zulu Alpha

No.

As drafted the regulations are designed to bite the operator not the place of ownership. The thinking is that IF the aircraft is owned by a CI company / trust but is kept at an airport in the EU and the CIs company trust is merely or little more than the owner you are dead in the water.

If on the other hand you the pilot owner live in the CIs and your aircraft is kept in the CIs then you are ok for flights backwards and forwards to the EU.

THAT is where the clarification is needed? Who knows what they mean when they refer to "Operator" because you could quite easily be an operator of the controls, domiciled in Europe (NB: EASA member state) but the the aircraft be operated by a foreign company outside the EASA. Or it could mean the company operating the aircraft and nothing to do with the person operating the controls could it not?

My plane is on trust with a trust fully run from the USA (our FAA IA's brother who is resident in the USA has a small trust company)....I am an EU resident. Am I now required to hold EASA licenses?

Thanks for the link IO, which clearly shows we're not subject to EU maintenance. Reading their proposals I believe what EASA are trying to crack down on are companies operating for H&R foreign aircraft in EASA airspace. Trouble is, it is very badly worded.....

The "complex" definition of twin turboprop or 19 seats appears to be designed to give a commercial advantage in Europe to Socata and Pilatus, over Beechcraft :) It is a bit obvious when you know the max seat config of a PC12. It is a finger-up to the USA.

People often talk about insurance companies walking away from claims but are there any known cases of this?

Take this accident for example: probable deficiencies in training, hours loggong, skills test, probable deficiencies in maintenance (engine maintained by a company without approvals for that engine) - all followed by a fatal crash.

Huddersfield Examiner - News - Local West Yorkshire News - Millionaire Brighouse businessman Paul Spencer and wife died in helicopter crash due to weather and lack of training

Air Accidents Investigation: Aerospatiale/Westland SA 341G Gazelle, YU-HEW

Did the insurance company walk away? Or is this just a bogeyman that gets put up?

I don't think insurers care much for crap training. If they did, they would walk away from most claims in the UK ;)

Same for crap maintenance. This is widespread. It is not a hugely evident safety hazard on fixed-wing but probably is on helis :)

The thing which does make them walk away, according to what the UK's biggest insurer told me, is if the flight is clearly illegal even before takeoff i.e. pilot license/medical irregularities.

Proposed EASA changes
 

Can someone please clarify for me...

Would the new proposed regulations allow someone to fly an "N" reg a/c in the EU under VFR rules with a JAA licence (or uprated to the new EASA licence) with an FAA "based on" licence ?

Apparently yes, though you would need to renew your 61.75 because the underlying Euro paper has changed, and this may mean a trip to the USA.

To qualify slightly your question.

The new proposed regulations do not allow you to do anything new. Whatever licences are required today are still required in the new world. However, if the aircraft operator is based in EASA land, then the pilot must have EASA licences as well (although it is not 100% clear what this means when there isn't a one of one mapping of licences (i.e. KingAirs).

So to fly N reg in the EU under VFR you will need an FAA licence (which can be based on pretty much any ICAO licence) AND an EASA licence.

It is also not clear to me what the status of JAA and National Licences will be from 2012. It is clear you will require an EASA licence to fly an EASA aircraft, but a national licence will be OK for Annex II. However, it is possible the national authorities will define that their licences are no longer valid for either a-EASA aircraft (which is a redundant action because EASA has already done this) or b- Aircraft not in Annex II (which would mean that you could no longer fly a C172 in the US using your 61.75 based on an old CAA or JAA licence).

JAA licences will be deemed to have been issued in accordance with the EASA implementing rules (Article 4(1) of the Cover Regulation). The UK CAA have already stated that UK national licences will be valid on UK registered Annex II aircraft - whether or not they will be valid on any other state's aircraft is nothing whatever to do with the UK CAA.

.... despite the fact they are ICAO compliant licences currently, but soon won't be.

How is it that this can happen - overnight a licence moves from compliance to non-compliance without any legislatory oversight or reason

I dont know - will EASA become a "country" since there will only be one licensing authority unlike the current regime.

Stop being obtuse. Who will issue your EASA licence? Will it be the United States of Europe or the UK?

My reading says the EASA implementmenting rules only deal with 'EASA aircraft'. If the JAA licences are deemed to only apply to EASA aircraft, that will be a bit of a disappointment for Europeans travelling to the US!

If validity of the CAA licences beyond Annex II aircraft and excluding EASA aircraft isn't a matter for the CAA then who is the competent authority?


Re the United States of Europe, I am sure once all of the States resign from ICAO, EASA will be allowed to be the Contracting State and the FAA will recognize the United States of Europe for aviation matters.

There is no doubt that this is a protectionist issue ot some degree. It would have been easy for EASA to have simply adopted Article 32 and refused to recognise licences granted to its own citizens. But this would have been a massive own goal discriminating against EU citizens and encouraging the employment of non EU nationality pilots.

I don't think it is an obtuse question at all. Under ICAO authority rests with the State above whose territory an aircraft is flying. The EASA regime does not change that and it a good question to ask where say the UK (a signatory to ICAO Conventions) now sits when it has delegated power to EASA. If EASA want to seek to derrogate from the Conventions, which it does by its rules on licensing for operators fo foreign registered aircraft established in the EU (under Article 7 of Part FCL) then this derrogation has to be done by the States, not EASA (which does not have a seat at ICAO).

If Part FCL is implemented in the way proposed it seems to me that this will put every state signatory in breach of the Conventions, unless each EU state individually notifies the derrogations as they are required to do under the Convention. There is huge ambiguity in the position of EASA at an international level as from what I can see the Conventions do not envisage a situation where a State delegated permanently and irrevocably and without retaining any power of veto or oversight its authority under the Conventions to make rules for licensing, aerodromes or airspace (yes, I know this last is Eurocontrol) above its own territory.

I imagine that EASA simply thought "we are an agency of the EU, and since the EU can force member states to do whatever it says, that's the end of it".

This is a very interesting angle, understandable if EASA's committee did not get any legal advice when they were writing this stuff.

The authority of the state in which the aircraft is registered, as is currently the case. The UK cannot determine licensing requirements to fly another state's aircraft; EASA clearly thinks it can but it remains to be seen whether it is right.

Incidentally, I did not say that JAA licences will be deemed to apply only to EASA aircraft but only that they will be deemed to have been issued in accordance with EASA Part FCL (i.e. there will be no additional conversion requirements from a JAA to an EASA licence). In the UK, at least, JAA licences will continue to be valid on both EASA and Annex II aircraft after 2012.

The specific case I was referencing was - A UK CAA issued lifetime PPL upon which our pilot has a 61.75 licence issued. The pilot has a current BFR, is in the US, rents an Nreg from a unambigously US Operator. Is he legal to fly post 2012?

One interpretation of the implementing rules is that the CAA will change the existing law to say that it is no longer legal to fly any aircraft not listed in Annex II using the lifetime PPL. This would logically be a restriction that flows through to the FAA certificate and our reference pilot would not be able to uses his FAA licence. Another interpretation is the CAA will remain silent about what one can or can not do with a CAA PPL but will change the ANO to reflect the new EASA rules by adding a statement such as "must have an EASA PPL to operate an EASA aircraft". It is this dynamic which, to me at least, remains unclear. And is very much a CAA question not a question for the state of registry.