MJ,

Why do you believe the FAA does not want an FCL bilateral agreement? The current JAA->FAA process is pretty simple and the Canadian bilateral seems even more straight forward. The previous Congress was very protectionist in certain areas, but the FAA (who needs to do the agreeing of any annex) had come up with a sensible BASA. Which was approved as soon as a more pro business Congress came into power. The issue of FCL has very little downside from the FAA perspective.

I can understand why Europe might want a complex process as they seem to have an economically uncompetitive training environment and protection rather than reform could logically be the strategy of choice.

One thing I am sure of is that what we have on the plate now will not be what we have on the plate by 2014.
Reasons for that?

One my contact on the EASA negotiating team advices me to do nothing re licence conversion.

The FAA are putting Big names into negotiations in June and both sides are active in adding a FCL Bi Lateral to the existing Bi lateral signed up months back.

What will that Bi Lateral Be? I am equally sure it will NOT be give me your licence here is mine ;(

Should all that hit a brick wall EASA are still faced with Laws which they know are flawed (fact)and will not take testing in the EC courts.

If they still want the existing to work they will have to make some pretty big allowances or scrap the whole dual licencing thing.

The sad fact is that EASA had a chance of bringing both systems much closer than they are now but inisted on clinging onto a complex and expensive way.
They could have copied the FAA system with a few changes and saved the tax payers a fortune but instead have regulated to strangle the industry.
There is No evidence that Pilots trained in Europe are any better than those trained under the FAA system so why?
Partly the eastern influence of control and wanting people to fly in people carriers not GA. That part AOC OPS have missed EASA are not their friend either.

But lets give them the benefit of the doubt and see if they really are true to their word before part 2 the courts!

Pace

MJ I generally like your posts, and you are highly experienced, obviously, but I agree with Peter here and I believe you are way off beam on this one.

Individuals do not flock to the FAA system to dodge rules or manoeuvre a safety issue. My experience is the opposite where I have encountered more safety related issues under EASA/CAA, than I have ever under FAR.

The FAA system, whilst not perfect, is logical, structured, user friendly, and most importantly of all, customer focused. My recent experience.

The current shift change at EASA is utter bollox. You know it, we all know it. Digging at N reg is not helpful, clever, not warranted.

My view on it.

max at no point recently have I had a dig at N reg for either mait standards or pilot quality. There are just as many crap JAR pilots as there are FAA percentage wise.

And I don't have a problem at all with a bi-lateral 1 for 1 agreement on the FCL side of things. But with 12 month IR checks on multi engined aircraft.

The thing I argue about is that it is going to happen whatever people think and say about legal cases etc etc.

The reason why I don't think any thing will happen is two fold. They won't want to give a 1 to 1 with the licenses. And that will be very hard to get a compromise.

The second reason if they do compromise is that all the changes are going to be lumped in with a deal on annex 7 rights. Now even if they do get this sort once it gets into the realms of senate and the like the american lobbyists will have already kicked into gear. The none transatlantic airlines will not want annnex 7 rights for european carriers or for that matter any none american carrier and will try and scupper it.

If they did a seperate FCL/Engineering bi-lateral they might have a chance of getting it through, but only a small chance if the shall we say more nationalistic politicians don't get a wiff that america had to compromise in any shape or form. If they do it will crash as well. Add in annex 7 and its going to have a very rough trip through senate which I don't think it will survive. The FAA and EASA may be both all in favour with the deal but it won't get past.

To be honest there is nothing in it for the amercians to keep the european N scene going. Why should they compromise?

PS I might have got my annex 7 and annex 9 muddled up.

The BASA is there, ratified, and the politicians have had their say (which is why it took so long). It's now up to the FAA and EASA to agree an Annex on licensing.

Is that in both Eu and the US bookworm or does it still have to be ratified in the US?

To change the FAR's which would be required for the deal to go through wouldn't it have to go through both houses in the US?

... with "input" from vested interests on both sides :)

As already mentioned, the FAA has little to lose by supporting this. The USA already has a very good system, and it allows anybody to fly an N-reg plane, worldwide, on any foreign license/rating, so long as it was issued by the owner of the airspace (FAR 61.3). It also allows all foreign training, in any certified aircraft, with any correctly rated instructor, towards any US license or a rating, right up to the ATP (with some trivial exceptions). This is an extremely generous policy which has made it much easier for non-US pilots to get US papers because their European training has been fully utilised.

But Europe has a lot to lose. The pilot training and component / airframe / modification certifications systems hang largely on protectionist and job-creating practices. The FTOs are scared of hordes of highly cost-sensitive ATP cadets clearing off to do FAA CPL/IRs in the USA. So it is at this end one can expect big trouble.

I could be wrong, but only if the EU gets a big enough prize elsewhere. But I can't see any prize to be had in these areas.

If we do get a bilateral agreement then, as I've said before, it won't be anything like a straight paper swap. It may be stuff like acceptance of US training logbook entries...

yes your right Peter especially as the US has absolutely no reason to compromise in regards to FCL. And why should it?

The EU negotiating team may think they are in a good position because they have a huge remit to offer but if the US says thanks but no thanks we are quite happy with things as they are they are stumped. And they can't go back if they haven't actually recieved any compromise in return because they will be accused of taking one where the sun don't shine from uncle sam yet again.

There is no need to change 14 CFR, it is already ready for a FCL BASA


§ 61.71 Graduates of an approved training program other than under this part: Special rules.
...

(c) A person who holds a foreign pilot license and is applying for an equivalent U.S. pilot certificate on the basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement and associated Implementation Procedures for Licensing is considered to have met the applicable aeronautical experience, aeronautical knowledge, and areas of operation requirements of this part.


Regards,

Frac

Peter

I dont disagree with you on much but you are wrong here it has already happened!!!

Our most famous flight school at Oxford no longer flight trains it pilots they all go to Arizona and have done for some time.

Cranfield has gone bust!!

All that happens now in the UK is ground and sim training and sim is mostly US owned.
We have already priced ourselves out of the market! Dead, Capput GONE!!!

They do JAA and or FAA in the states.
Even sims are based on good old dollar price structures

Pace

What is the 'painfull' compromise on FCL the US needs to make?

If the deal in the EU negotiators mind is - We will let your pilots get our licences if you let our airlines provide domestic US service, then I would agree. But that is a much much broader negotiation than an FCL Annex (and quite a pish take as well).

Pace

You can build hours in the USA and you can train the CPL out there too, but you cannot train any of the 55+hrs (or whatever it actually takes under the CBM IR, if that ever comes) towards the IR in the USA. This prevents one doing the full ATPL package out there.

Cabair going bust is not relevant because it won't reduce the demand. The extra students (plus those who can recover from having lost 5 figures to the shysters) will go to other FTOs who are obviously rubbing their hands.

Silvaire1
Well that's very true :)

But I think the FAA does need to talk to EASA.

One reason is that while the FAA has happily sat there for decades, looking after the domestic US scene, and implicitly exporting its regime around the world, EASA has been very busy selling its gold plated job-creating system all over the place, to some far away places which are now adopting Part M (believe it or not).

I was at a Eurocontrol seminar a few years ago and the speaker cleared off very quickly afterwards, for 2 reasons: 1) to avoid answering questions and 2) because he was off the Venezuela to "show them how to do it". I have no idea if he was successful but clearly the Eurocrats are nibbling around the edges of the traditional FAA territory.

mm_flynn

I reckon it is something like that... a bit like the "Saddam Hussein extra mile" :) EASA will ensure that the FAA cannot agree to it, and they can then pretend to claim the moral high ground and shaft everybody.

Like I keep saying, just looking at the politics (forget aviation) I cannot see EASA giving up the present gold plated system unless they can get a massive prize in return and I can't see what that might be, and still fall within what can be stuffed into the current BASA annex.

You are collecting those oil filters for subsequent ingestion, Peter, right? You need a choice of filter. I'd want it to be a clean one with no serious particulates. Metal chips and teeth just don't mix. ;)

But ok if wrapped in Pink Underpants...;)

My oil filters are spotless.

I have my own proper tool for cutting them open and I do it myself. Never seen a single particle of metal - not even ally :)

I know you are privy to a certain level of inside info, bookworm, but we shall see :)

Peter


Bookworm Has more inside info than me but I have some:O
We both appear to be singing roughly the same tune!
But as they say the show is not over till the fat lady sings and there is plenty of singing still to go !
My advice do nothing on conversion yet !
If it all goes Pear shaped there is always a solid option of a legal challenge but I don't think it will ever have to come to that !

Pace

I have no "inside info" at all. I know that the FAA and EASA are in discussion on the topic, and I know there's the 2012 US/Europe International Aviation Safety Conference in June. I suspect we'll find out more after that.

Given that the 15hr conversion route does not appear to be disappearing now, or (in the UK) after July, I would concur.

The factors which would make me suggest people buy their anti-EASA insurance sooner would be

1) Ending of the 15hr conversion route

2) New exam TK with no QB :eek: :eek: :eek:

3) Some other nasty like a ban on IR training or IRTs in an N-reg (possible currently only in the UK and, I gather, in Belgium, from vague memory of some very recent info). There are multiple scenarios here which I won't go into (don't want to give the usual idiots any ideas) but suffice to say it would result in every owner simply going to Spain or Greece, which is probably a sufficient regulatory disincentive :)

Currently we have known derogations in UK (2yrs), Germany (1yr), France (2yrs) and the Netherlands one I am waiting for a "CAA" URL on.

I have rarely known such heartfelt predictions to be made on PPRuNe with Pace and perhaps Bookie and Peterh337 on one side of the fence, BoseX and 421C on the other.

Potentially the next few months will prove interesting in terms of seeing just how this mess unfolds. If I were to make a prediction it would only be that I dont think we will see an end any time soon - yet more evidence that the whole process is terribly flawed.

Germany seems to have gone for the 1-year horizontal derogation for all of EASA FCL and MED.

That takes care of perhaps the majority of European "higher end" (i.e. potentially N-reg) GA community.

or much later for that matter, IMHO. The structural issue is not easily solved.