I am a dual national (UK/US) so i guess I don't need a trust, the aircraft is registered to me at my UK address

If you are legal now because your country has applied the derogation, then FCL008 should give you an easier conversion to an EASA IR (eg. UK resident FAA pilots). If you are not legal now, then it should give you the prospect of becoming legal more easily. So the work of FCL008 is as important as it ever was.

It may be worth some pilots bearing in mind that FCL008 proposed an IR conversion mechanism for experienced FAA IRs which is much easier than at present - a single exam and training "as required" to pass the checkride. However, annoyingly, that route requires significant experience of instrument flight whilst qualified to be PIC in IMC - 100hrs. This is a huge amount, and I understand EASA have been asked to reconsider this. It might end up as 50hrs - still a lot. Remember, this time does not include instrument flight time whilst under training and thus not qualified to fly in IMC (ie. not holding an IMCr or ICAO IR). If at present you have fewer instrument flight hours logged, you might consider trying to accumulate more over the next couple of years - in actual IMC, or under the hood with a safety pilot or instructor.

It's impossible to know whether, when and how the FCL008 proposals will actually become part of FCL, so one can't make this suggestion with any certainty. However, it might be, on the margin, worth trying to gain more instrument flight time experience over the next year or two based on the above.

I didn't realise the CBM IR 100hrs conversion requirement is PIC time. Even at 1400+hrs I don't think I have 100hrs instrument time as PIC. I have 170hrs IT but that includes the IMCR, FAA IR, JAA IR training. And I do about 5x the GA average annual hrs.

That is completely ridiculous :ugh:

I can see where it comes from (an FTO industry :yuk: revenue :yuk: protection :yuk: measure, to prevent ATPL cadets doing an FAA CPL/IR in say Arizona and then converting in Europe) but why 100hrs? The chap can still do the FAA IR, which needs 40hrs total instrument time of which 15 must be dual, and then simply ignore the conversion option here and just do an ab initio CBM IR, which needs 40hrs total instrument time of which 10hrs must be at an FTO. His FAA training time will count towards his 40hrs instrument time, won't it? His min total IR time will then be 40+10=50 which is barely below the 55hrs min total IR time at present, but he will benefit from lower cost and more concentrated training in the USA, and will pick up a valuable FAA CPL/IR at the same time.

The currently proposed CBM IR zero-training conversion is equally worthless because nobody (least of all any "modern pilot") will pass the IRT without considerable training, on NDB tracking etc. I don't see even the most experienced private or professional pilot passing the ME IRT in a piston twin in less than 15-20hrs of focused training. Such a conversion should have never been proposed because nobody will be able to use it, but it would have scared the wits out of the FTO industry.

The reason the CBM IR (FCL008 IR) is barely relevant now is that most of the pilots who are in the non-derogation countries will simply throw in the towel and quit flying, before the CBM IR arrives perhaps 2 years from now at the earliest.

What's happened is pretty disgusting. But it is a puzzle. Most of the non-derog countries were happy with resident N-regs for decades (as were the few currently known derog ones) so why did they not apply? They either have some cunning "plan" (which will include not enforcing anything) or they ritually ignore the EU and never read the EASA regs.

I think pilots have stopped bothering wanting to jump through hoops anymore, lifes tough enough at the moment. Im an instructor and we have not seen many IR conversions, and not many IMCs. All the FAA IR holders I know have said it will never happen, and if it does how will they police it ?

There a lot of apathy out there, people just don't give a s@@@ amymore to eurocrat nonsense.

Its akin to the computer 2000 issue, lots of hype and b@@@@@@@, people spent loads of time and money sorting something that didn't really need sorting.

Fear is a great way to get people to spend money, it looks like many have not been sucked in by it all.

I think there is a lot of truth in that...

BTW, this is a handy page with explanatory notes on all this crap.

I particularly like this bit

Therefore, in the light of these considerations and due to the high sensitivity of the database (especially in relation to the substantial investment in both intellectual and monetary terms) and considering the provisions of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, of the TRIPS agreement and of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases, it is the understanding of the Agency that any form of unauthorised disclosure of proprietary information would constitute an instance of violation of the intellectual property rights of the JAA Member States, individually and collectively.

They are trying to pre-empt another FOIA action to get the JAA 7 CQB released. So it will be left to the FTOs to do their old thing and get students to memorise 1 or 2 questions each :)

At the end they have

which is quite fitting since they managed to get the cock and bull law passed first.

resident
 

My Cirrus is N reg but owned by Delaware Trust, I am English and spend over 6 months each year in USA, only 3 months in the UK. Am I resident in EASA land, and seeing as my aircraft is operated by a USA Trust, can I fly in EASA? I can find no definition of 'residency'.
Thanks
David

Dave,

I think you will find it unlikely the trust operates the aircraft (they own it, but that is not the same as operating). However, if you are non-resident in the EU for tax purposes and resident in the US, I would have thought you are established in the US not in the EU. It is also quite likely that you are the operator as well - so the rules appear not to apply to your specific situation.

(NOTE - IANAL and no one has definitive rulings on this issue).

I've made some top level enquiries (sorry can't say where) on whether anybody has heard anything about how "operator" will be defined and the answer was "we have no idea".

Welcome to European "Union" :yuk: rulemaking :yuk:

I am an accountant by training, but dont work as one, but I know a lot of good accountants! Residency is a big big taxation subject and it is no surprise that there is no 'residency' definition in EASA land. For a fee, I can find a lot of USA companies who can be the registered operator of my N reg aircraft......but how do I know if I as the pilot am an EASA resident? Is it the tax definition, time spent, citizenship, domicile, parenthood??????

We have been here before. Were it ever tested before the courts the word operator would take its ordinary meaning in the absence of a definition or other reference in the act. Its everyday meaning is probably not helpful but a search of the easa paperwork for the use of the word elsewhere points to a different meaning. It would however be surprising if the legislation is adopted in its current form.

AFAIK the legislation is already law, in the original wording.

The word "operator" would/should be taken in its ordinary aviation context which AIUI is whoever controls where the plane flies.

That is very easy to arrange in most cases where the plane is flown by multiple people in multiple scenarios, but not for the simple private owner-pilot.

Has EASA hung its coat on the residence of the pilot then yes the taxation residence or whatever might be used, but they haven't done that. Also had they done that, it would have created a big demand for pilots who do not hold any EU passport, which would be a bit of a shot in the foot :)

A lot of private pilots who own N reg aircraft and fly them in EASA land, with American IFR rating will be deemed to be the operator. So a huge amount hinges on the residency of the operator/pilot. I can find no definition of resident in the context of an aircraft operator or pilot, and previous posts have said that there seems to be no definition.....so how do I know as a UK pilot operator, who spends over 6 months with my aircraft, out of EASA land, whether I have to qualify under JAR?

I see residency as the primary place where you live. What address is on your aircraft documents? Where is your "officail" mailing address? What address is your passport registered at? Where are you officially registered?

What is so difficult to define that?

As to operator. I see it as the main user of the aircraft, in case of many N-regs it could be the "owner". In other cases the operator would be the club, company, or other organisation that charters it out to others. Again, THEY are the ones with the paperwork showing it's basicall their aircraft, but they legally charter it out to pilots. They are probably also responsible for the up-keep, maintenance, etc.

So in my opinion, the operator is the person or organisation responsible for the aircraft.

There is no address in a UK passport :)

which could easily be a company outside the EU, and let's face it this is a very common situation - even covering flying schools doing self fly hire.
Because law is not the same as common sense, which works only for the most obvious scenarios.

Responsible for what aspect of it?

It's not so easy.

I suspect EASA used some pub lawyer in Brussels. He was quite clever, avoiding the standard pitfalls like long term parking limits. But he was probably not involved in aviation to any depth.

Peter, my passport (US) also has no address in it, but I did have to list one when I applied for it. And I am regisitered with my present adress in the data base of the consulate (I assume).

Also, it has been jumped on enough in the Robert Weaver thread that the FAA needs the actual address to make the FAA certificate legal. So I would consider THAT to be the address of residency, as far as flying certificates/licenses are concerned.

as I mentioned before... maintenance, keeping the paperwork in order, add to that the insurance, etc. etc.

And yes, that organisation could be outside the EU. That's why, as I see it, it wouldn't be required for an United Airline (or other 3rd country airline) to have all their pilots hold a EU licence! That would really be nonsense! But if the airline, or whoever, has their MAIN business office registered in an EU country, then it would apply.

Maybe I do think too common sense.... or many of you think too complicated? :p

Ah, but now you are bringing the registered office address of the corporate owner into it :)

See - it's not simple.

It is quite bizzare that if United Airlines set up an EU company for managing the maintenance of the part of their fleet which flies to the EU, they would apparently fall foul of this reg. But the regs make no exceptions for e.g. AOC holders which would be the obvious thing to do. In the pre-EASA scenario, getting an AOC meant that you could do just about anything that was approved in the CAA approved manual - including using an N-reg for charter work, etc. But not anymore.

I hold my hand up as having an FAA licence but not having an EASA acceptable licence.
I am a EU resident. I don't deny that I am.
So, as it stands, I cannot fly N reg outside the EU state that issued my original national licence. I can apply for my current national licence to be changed to an EASA one but not until EASA FCL is adopted (depending on which country issued my licence, it might be another year). UK CAA lead the way as usual by adopting ill-written regulations from July 2012.

The problem is that the EASA clowns and the national authorities could not foresee all the problems that this disjointed and muddled introduction of EASA FCL would produce as they are just pen-pushers and don't live in the real world. But then we N reg pilots only fly N reg in the EU thanks to a muddle of regulations so we should not complain.

So, maybe, by 2014, I will have an EASA licence to keep EASA happy in their airspace and an FAA licence to keep the FAA (state of registry of the aircraft) happy. I will be happy in maybe 2 years. It is not a long time to wait for peace of mind and the ability to fly an aircraft that is not governed by Part M. We should be grateful to be able to continue flying on the N reg. Just don't tell EASA that EASA FCL won't stop anyone doing that.

Peter 337 does not help by suggesting (posting the same posts across a number of forums) that all N reg operation is at an end when clearly it is not.
He has made his own arrangements to keep flying. We don't all live or fly in the same circumstances as him. I think Peter is winding you up to look for ways around EASA FCL by claiming non-EU residency when, in fact, this is only a short-lived problem.

AOPA's across the EU should be helping N reg pilots with advice how to continue to fly. They aren't doing that as far as I can see.

I did not say that. I was drawing attention to the current issue. Awareness of current and upcoming threats is always a good thing. What you want to do about it is up to you.

I see you are in Denmark. Assuming you are a private owner-pilot, have you checked whether Denmark has applied to EASA for any derogation? That would be a start.

That may be true, in which case can you explain how it is "short lived"?

I see no evidence that a BASA is coming at any time, and in any case it would never be a straight paper swap.

That's because most of them don't really exist. Even the biggest countries have poor representation, and most of Europe has effectively nobody (and very little GA).

Also AOPA UK has a bit of a history being in two minds whether to support N-regs or not. Go back say 5 years and they were very ambivalent. Unsuprising, given the large number of corporate (FTO) members. They came on board recently though.

Germany is doing quite a lot, it seems.

Who says? A maintenance subsidiary is not an operator. UA is a Part 121 operator resident in the USA.

That's not true. AOPA UK were 100% behind the N-reg operators in 2005 (7 years ago) when the DfT consultation in the UK proposed to ban them. This was before any inkling of EASA regs. They have since been 100% supportive. Why do you keep writing this stuff?


He didn't post that. Conversely, your post is the one that does not help because it's a confusing muddle.

An AOPA member concerned that important advice is not being given to members should contact his AOPA. AOPA people are responsive and accessible in my view. In practice, there is little advice for AOPA to give. If you fly with an FAA IR in a derogation country you have until 2014 to get an EASA IR by whichever means are available.

The flip side of that is that if you fly with an FAA IR in a country which for reasons unknown has not bothered to apply to EASA for the last-minute derogation option (which appears to be nearly all of the EU countries, most likely because they did not want to waste their lives reading the thousands of pages of EASA diatribe) you are on the face of it grounded right now, which is a situation which most find hard to accept, because (as I wrote before) it is something straight out of Kafka (one of my countrymen, I believe :) ).

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, as they say. So let's see how many EU based FAA IR holders pile into the (relatively few) FTOs willing to run FAA IR to JAA IR conversion courses. On the numbers of the last few years that this stuff has been cooking, the answer will be "almost none" which takes us back to the practical picture.

If you look for "most N-reg flight is technically finished as of today." You will find it in one of Peter 337 posts.

And where does it say in EASA-land that you have until 2014 to fly on an FAA IR?

Many opinions, I think, but little fact.

What you might now get is a few people posting the EASA FCL passages for the nth time... maybe.

OK. Tell us the facts. What is the regulatory position today and outlook for an EU resident operating an N-registered aircraft on the basis of FAA pilot and medical qualifications?

Bob Upanddown

You can start here.

It is a bit of a mess though.

I've just had to apply for new licenses. I hold UK ATPL/A and H with current IRs and all the right ticks in the boxes. According to PLD at the Belgrano if I want to fly in EASA land after 2014 I need an EASA license, I can apply for Uk licenses, but after a date in 2014 will be restricted to UK reg only and the rest of EASA land will be out, even as a destination for work.

I had an e-mail yesterday telling me that I can't have my new licenses because my Class 1 will lapse 25 days before the licenses are due to start and my medical must cover the start date. I'm so old I'm on six monthly medicals (some of my work is SPIFR) so I will have to re-submit when my medical is current. (I even had to send a copy of the cert, surely they can walk across reception and ask in the med dept if I have a medical)
God alone knows when I will see my logbooks again.

Also France is refusing to acept JAR and hence EASA at the moment, and may refuse it all together, Germany is going the same way. EASA is currently looking a bit like the Euro, some in and some out with all the inherent differences.

Sadly our beloved CAA is supine they have cheerfully bent aviation in the UK across a metaphorical table, dropped it's trousers and allowed EASA to
f+*@ it royally.

The CAA may be our regulator, but it is still a company, the service is crap, maybe its time to start a new company and go for the regulation contract, as a customer of the CAA I'm often disappointed, I spend 20 hours a week on how legislation is changing and how it will affect my company and I'm frankly sick of it.

Rant over, now back to N reg in JAR land

SND

That's completely out of order. The CAA has provided clarity of intentions which surpass anything that any of the other NAAs have done. Neither France nor Germany have a choice as to whether to accept EASA.

Get your next medical, then send the forms off to the Belgrano after July 1, and you're done.

No, it isn't, the CAA is a public corporation, wholly controlled by central government through the DfT.

Bob Upanddown asks the important question - where is this 2 year derogation pending amendment of the bilateral that was dangled in front of the TRAN committee by Mathew Baldwin last year?

Amended to say that I should have taken my own advice and examined all of the relevant legislation. I see that the UK have invoked Article 12(4) of the Aircrew Regulation to defer the application of Annex III until 2014, but only for non-commercial purposes. There remains, as far as I can see, no derogation for AOC holders or other commercial operators.

I am not an expert (as you are 421C from you many postings and Peter337) but this is what I find.

EASA have stopped all flight on an FAA licence (but not stopped all flight in an N registered aircraft) because:

REGULATION (EC) No 216/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 20 February 2008 says at
CHAPTER II SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS Article 4, Basic principles and applicability

1. Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance, which are:
(a) designed or manufactured by an organisation for which the Agency or a Member State ensures safety oversight; or
(b) registered in a Member State, unless their regulatory safety oversight has been delegated to a third country and they are not used by a Community operator; or
(c) registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community; or
(d) registered in a third country, or registered in a Member State which has delegated their regulatory safety oversight to a third country, and used by a third-country operator into, within or out of the Community shall comply with this Regulation.

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 says at Article 12 that
the regulation shall apply from 8th April 2012

Article 12, para 4. Says
By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of this Regulation to pilots holding a licence and associated medical certificate issued by a third country involved in the non-commercial operation of aircraft specified in Article 4(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 until 8 April 2014.


The EASA regulations therefore seem to me to state that a pilot must comply with EASA regulation 216/2008 from 8 April 2012. In other words, a pilot in the EU must hold an EASA licence whatever he flies.

The EASA regulations seem to allow a pilot with an FAA CPL/IR or PPL/IR to exercise that FAA CPL/IR or PPL/IR in his state of residency for private flights if that state has applied for a derogation up to 2014.

In a state without such a derogation, but where a state will not introduce EASA licence issue until 2013, the EASA regulations seem to me to say that a pilot must comply with EASA regulation 216/2008 from 8 April 2012.




FARs Part 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(a) Pilot certificate. No person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person—
(1) Has a pilot certificate or special purpose pilot authorization issued under this part in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization. However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used;



FAR Part 61 .3 does not allow operation on a Denmark PPL in UK so, if EASA will not allow FAA licence to be recognised, on what licence is a Denmark PPL flying an N register aircraft in UK? Because EU is not a state or country?

If FAA do not recognise EU as a state or country, then it must be that from now, you must have EASA (or JAA recognised by EASA) licence and FAA licence to fly N registration across EU. If you don’t have EASA licence but have a national licence, you must fly only N registration in own state of residency.

I think your arguments are that pilots who live in a state like UK can fly on FAA IR across EU. I think not. You need EASA IR and FAA IR. From 8th April 2012.

Bob

That depends on the interpretation of the 2 year derogation, and how one defines the residence of the "operator" mentioned in

(d) registered in a third country, ....., and used by a third-country operator into, within or out of the Community

which I think is the bit most applicable to private pilots.
If you go back a bit in this thread you will find a post by bookworm which is IMHO the right way to approach it.

But the bottom line is that PROB99 none of the EU national CAAs have much idea what to do about this stupid regulation. For example what does "out of the Community" mean? Does it mean that a flight out of the EU is illegal? That is just bollox.

Bob Upandown
 

If your interpretation of the rules is correct, then hundreds if not thousands of N Reg FAA licenced EU citizens are now flying illegally since 8/4 !!
I understood there was a delay until 2014 and then a year allowed for FAA licence holders to pass the EASA licence requirements.

I think most are flying "technically illegally" as of 8th April 2012.

However there is another possibility which I have just read about. Many may have quietly applied the other available derogation that slipped in to the March 30th Regulation:

"By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of Annexes I to IV until 8 April 2013".

Annexes I-IV are all of Part FCL and Part MED so presumably this derogation would deal with the N-reg issue, at least until 2013.

Does anyone know which member states have applied for derogations?

Also, does ICAO define precisely what the term "operator" means? I've seen the term defined in some ICAO publications, but I presume the definition only applies in respect of the context of those documents.

It is interesting that EASA chose to use the term "operator" rather than owner, or beneficial owner, or other such term. I can only conclude that they had reason to be a little vague, and perhaps they may have been afraid to contradict ICAO principles in some way.

In the private corporate world I think that the term operator would adequately describe the individual or company who is contracted to ensure that the aircraft is crewed, flown, maintained and operated in accordance with applicable legislation, that all bills are taken care of and that the aircraft is made available to the owner (or beneficial owner) in line with his flight schedule. In my language, those functions are taken care of by "Aircraft Managers." Whether EASA would care to argue otherwise is a matter of speculation, but I hope they pick on an airplane "operator" who has the balls for a legal challenge!

What you believe depends on your own interpretation but I agree with Peter 337.
On a interpretation scale of one to ten, some will be at 10 and consider the rules and derogations allow a pilot to fly on a FAA PPL/IR until 2014 anywhere in EU. Others will be at one and consider no further flight in N registered is allowed in EU.
Bookworm has a good agreement but so does Cathar.
Where are the authorities on the scale of one to ten? Maybe Germany is at one and will soon arrest pilots flying IR on FAA licence? UK must be at 10??
We are in a crazy situation but at least we can still fly N registered aircraft in EU if we have the correct licenses so it is not as bad as it could have been. Maybe we should be thankful for that?

EASA have promised a list "soon" :)

I suspect it is embarrasingly short.

There are two possibilities here.

1) They got good legal advice, and did this for a clever reason. One could speculate on what that reason might be. If they followed ICAO provisions and hung this on the "nationality" (citizenship) of the pilot, it would push corporate operators into firing their EU-passport holding crews and replacing them with crews holding non EU passports, which would be a massive own-goal. It is easier to understand why EASA did not propose long term parking limits: this was tried by France (2004) and the UK (2005) and both were hastily abandoned when somebody with a brain realised it would be unworkable (and easy to get around for the big boys). Hanging this on the "operator" is more subtle but leads to easy work-arounds for the bigger boys. It does capture the small private owner quite well though, IMHO, and whose only option would be to syndicate-out the aircraft to a non-EU operating company which then runs a booking website and effectively controls the aircraft.

2) They didn't get good legal advice and developed this in the committee. I think that option is more likely. The wording is far too vague to have come from a lawyer.
UK is definitely at 10 - a top level contact told me the other day they have no clue how to interpret this.

Perhaps a useful way to see this is to examine each country's previous attitude to N-regs.

Germany was easy with them, as were most others. One well known exception was Denmark which imposed vague long term parking controls and did sporadic fines. The well known "zero VAT" lawyer got fined a few hundred euros. I think Norway is similar. But I see no reason why most of Europe should suddenly want to do anything.

I would be more concerned about the Dft thinking that it would come under thier remit than the CAA.

The CAA don't seem to bother doing that many spot checks. And don't have that many teams roving about unlike some countrys.

Dft turn up in all sorts of places, have alot more inspections and are alot more anal retentive compared to the CAA teams.

Bob Upanddown
 

Easy to say 'if you have the correct licences' but what are the correct licences at the moment?
Not being a lawyer I recently rang the CAA for guidance, the answer I received- this is an EASA matter ask them!!

The DfT have for years been very straight over the N-reg (and related FRA) community.

Sure the person at the CAA responsible for prosecutions (Ian Weston, until fairly recently) is/was actually on the DfT payroll, but I don't see a problem here.

The UK has filed for the 2 year derogation anyway...

Germany, I hear from a German pilot, has also done similarly but apparently not for everything. I don't have any details, and while I have asked a number of foreign pilots about this, most of them don't know where to look, and those that do have been told by their their CAA that they don't know what to do. France (DGAC) has told people they don't know what to do about this and frankly I don't think France gives a flying **** what EASA does.

I have had a lengthy call with the CAA this morning regarding who adopted what on the 8th April and they have absolutely no idea!! There is no EASA list saying who has adopted Part FCL and who has applied for derogations. They have told me that they understand the vast majority of member states have adopted with effect from the 8th without derogation but are awaiting confirmation.

The ones that seem to have adopted Part FCL immediately seem to be those that struggled with mutual recognition audits in the past as there is no concept of mutual recognition. If you issue a Part FCL licence or state as the UK did that your JAA licence is a Part FCL licence then it has to be accepted.

It would seem that the derogation to give a transition period for the dual licensing was to low down on the list. Speaking to the Spanish DGAC as well today, as far as they are concerned they have no plans to apply for a derogation at this time so expect N Reg pilots to be compliant.

I have dropped mails to the other NAA's that I deal with at work to ask opinion.

But it does strike me that this has become somewhat of a beggars muddle..

the info for Germany is here, but only in German unfortunately.

personally I think the UK CAA has played a blinder by doing that.

Its going to let all the others sort the mess out.

They won't have to commit any resources to it and when ever people ask them about matters they can just point them towards the other NAA's.

By the time 2014 comes along folk will have either got there EASA tickets or the aircraft will have gone due to the whole thing being a pain in the arse.

Germany looks as if its going for 1 year.