Well that's a relief for us "little Joe's" in this Private Aviation forum. Of course our own N-reg flying may be crushed but it is a great consolation to know "ATP holders with certain experience and hours will have an easier route":)

No I was not talking about PPL and IRs which could well be brought closer together but addressing an argument regarding EASA not doing anything which would allow a commercial pilot wannabe a route to sidetrack EASAs own training structure.

Pace

They always have had a quick route for experenced commercial pilots.

But always the issue has been the differences in the theoretical knowledge requirements. The JAr boys find it a piece of piss to get a FAA and the other way round there is lots of moaning thats its a pain in the arse doing the exams.

To be honest the FAA isn't quite enough theory in my opinion of working with FAA pilots. But then again the JAR stuff is to much and not actually focused to the stuff you really need.

I quite agree with Peter and PAce that alot of it is only included because some auld fud with prostate problems ex navigator thinks that pilots need to know certain things. Then some old guff engineers had an input as well then the WX man got his input etc etc.

But to be fair the longer I fly and to more different destinations the more of it I use.

Its this one set of theory must cover everything from puddle jumpers to ULH airbuses and boeings that needs sorted. But the problems is that the license and IR rating really does allow you to fly worldwide.

MadJock

Thought that was called experience which you cannot learn in the classroom ;) I am fully aware that you are an EASA supporter and me an FAA. We just hold different views.
The old hand thing! One sees a palm the other sees the back of the hand while they both see a hand they have a different picture.
Statistically while both systems are different FAA and JAA they both churn out equal quality ATPs.
I can understand your view that residents of a country should bide by the licencing in that country/state but then you have to beg the question of why there are so many N reg in Europe!
In a free society if you want to compete with another product you produce something which is cheaper, more attractive and better!
If EASA did that then N reg would have dissolved years ago.
There have been numerous studies made to prove the case for removing N reg on safety grounds but none have been found.
The problem we have in Europe is Burocracy and an unhealthy level of government produced jobs especially in the regulatory sense.
That is fine in one way but it strangles industry, loads cost and complexity as the end user has to pay for it all.
The FAA system works at far less cost to the end user.
Of course safety is paramount and we should regulate to plug shown safety holes but that is it.
I think as a relatively experienced Jet pilot and Captain I should not be required to sit and take 14 odd exams to do what I already do?
Okay Air Law or a differences exam but there is no rhyme or reason why I should be treated like an 18 year old wannabe pilot who knows nothing. That is wrong.
If I had things my way I would have a worldwide standard and recognition of licences so that pilots can move freely.
There is no sense to anything less and at sometime that has to come.
We also need to cut away all the rubbish which chokes our industry from regulators who regulate for their own jobs sake.
I agree with you that years back you could literally buy anything and the FAA system was a doddle but that has changed.

Pace

Fair enough Pace, I was only kidding. I wrote something which my browser deleted, didn't have time to retype and wrote that instead!

My point was on

This isn't right. Derogation is nothing specific to FCL. It's a general EU term for a provision within binding EU regulations that permits a Member State to delay/amend implementation. The EASA Aircrew Regulation is now binding on Member States so the only means for them to continue to permit EU residents to operate 3rd country aircraft on the basis of 3rd country licences is through the derogation to this effect until April 2014, or through the 'horizontal' derogation delaying the implementation of all Aircrew Regulation until April 2013 (after which they'd need the 3rd country derogation)

This technical point aside, I agree with your comment that it is unlikely as a practical matter that EU resident N-reg operators are illegal today, since it is likely most countries will implement one or both derogations. However, I personally would want my NAA to state the situation as clearly as the UK CAA have done.

On the BASA, I was personally somewhat sceptical and thought this might be a way EASA and the EC were brushing off the concerns of the N-reg community in Europe during the critical period they were trying to get Part FCL through the European Parliament. I have heard (but not first hand) some very encouraging signals that there is a real will to conclude this by 2014. Of course, one can't be sure that the BASA will provide terms for licence conversion that are quite as sensible as the US-Canada ones, for example.

The other problem is one of timing and risk. Of course, a knowledgeable guy like you is quite entitled to make his choices and take a risk accordingly. One would always hope the EU/EASA would find a sensible way to bridge things, but there is always the risk that
1."Good intention X" gets implemented in EU regs a few months later than "Derogation Y" expires
2. It takes a further 6 months for NAAs and ATOs to implement various new exams or whatever
3. There is then a bottleneck in training resources as hundreds of people try and qualify

I tend to think that via various means (BASA and FCL008) the outcome for an FAA pilot in Europe will be less onerous than the present conversion outcomes. But one takes a risk on all this working out and the timing working out etc etc.

I am not actually.

That is actually my view and its nothing to do with the relative merits between the tow systems.

There are so many because there is a loophole which people have used, pure and simple.

Yes of course the price is cheaper because the US tax payer funds it for you. In the EU the end user pays for it. So you have the advantage you don't pay US tax's but you use there system and you don't pay for the infrastructure in europe.


I do feel for you, but there has been set a minimum theory knowledge base requirement for the EASA license which you have to prove. The fact that you have survived without it (:p) for the last gawd knows how many years is neither here nor there.

As previous posters have mentioned its actually not that hard. It wasn't when I did them and that was when JAR first started and there wasn't any question banks. I did the whole lot in 5 months from PPL and a background in Engineering. With all your experence it should take alot less.

As for expense it will be all tax deductable and no doudt you can get the VAT back as well. With Sim check your looking at less than 4k.

421C

I too held the same view that EASA was using the idea of a Bi Lateral as a smokescreen.
Now I know for fact that they are genuine. This does not mean that the whole thing will not hit a brick wall but it is encouraging that something maybe achieved on FCL which is only right!
Advice given to me by my contact in the negotiating team who could easily have said" Knuckle down and do the 14 exams was "do nothing".
So that is what I will probably do until the end of this year or if things become clearer.
Mad Jock you dont think a bit of a lift here and a tuck there and maybe some sunglasses and removal of some hair would work? Must be worth at least 10 pints :E You can borrow my passport!



Pace

The problem is the teams are sometimes all part of the smoke and mirrors game.

They don't actually give the teams the full cunning plan otherwise that can produce fall out. And I might add thats a ploy of both sides.

And even if they do come to agreement they have to get it past the red neck senators who will not like the idea of changing anything just because someone else would like it.

It's not a loophole. It's entirely consistent with the ICAO system and the treaties all the countries in Europe signed up to in the 1940s.

In what way? An EU resident 3rd country operator pays their taxes in Europe. They pay all the Eurocontrol fees, Nav fees, Landing fees etc for all the infrastructure they use.

Can you own your aircraft personally not using a construct under N reg?

If not and you use one through a trust its a loophole.

Nobody cares if a US passport holding pilot flys a N reg. Which is the spirit that the ICAO system was put in place for.

The US tax payers fund the FAA.

In europe the end users fund thier NAA, the less people use the NAA's the more expensive it becomes for the ones that do. And the less money they have to do thier job which means they don't do them as well or can provide suitable conditions to attract suitable qualified people that could improve things.

And pace bugger off I don't have alot of hair left as it is. And I suspect it would be a bit more of a lift and a tuck and loosing half a foot of bone out of my legs is going to nip a bit. :p

No it isn't. It's a legitimate method the US seem happy with because it gives them ultimate sanction and control over the a/c. It's no more a "loophole" than saying a pilot's licence is a loophole for flying an aircraft.
Says who? I think they are mainly taxpayer funded with the exception of the UK CAA.

Firstly, how is it that small countries can possible have an NAA? The workload is scaled to the adminstrative volume of tasks - the fixed costs should be small and they are anyway an obligation the State has for which, believe me, N-reg operators pay a decent share of the burden of taxation.

Secondly, the amusing irony in your point is as follows. It is indeed the model in the UK that users fund the CAA. The taxpayer funds the NAAs of most European countries. Why do you think Ryanair jets are all EI and Netjets are all CS? Now, under the EASA system, EU residents will have much more flexibility to choose whichever country they want for pilot licensing than under JAR-FCL. Nothing to stop every UK pilot, instructor and examiner using, say, Portugal as their state of licence issue. Let's see how that helps your concern that "the less people use the NAA's the more expensive it becomes for the ones that do"

Its currently a legit loophole I will agree but its now being shut.

The US regulations state you have to be a US citizen to own a N reg, if you are not its a fiddle. I will admit its a well known about fiddle and one that nobody cares about but it is still circumventing the law. If the trust loophole wasn't there you we wouldn't have to go through all this bloody torture of changing things.

Even if the NAA's are funded partly by the local tax payer your still not paying the money into your local one. You are getting all your oversight for free from the US tax payer. Of course things are cheaper for you with Uncle sam footing the bill.

There is under both JAR and EASA a requiment for you to move your oversight NAA with your residency. BUt alot of people don't bother and nobody seems to bother about it mainly. Its one of the things that might kick off with ryan air and forcing all there pilots onto the Irish CAA.

well green card then. Its still a loophole and a fiddle for a EU resident to "own" one.

And I know in the great scheme of things its no burden what so ever having a few thousand extras tagged on to the FAA with the number of home grown that they look after.

BUt the numbers in Europe now are more than likely more than some countrys have in pilots full stop.

Wouldn't be needed if the US did not keep declaring war on everyone and there dog and dragging us into it......

:ok:

No it's not. Absolutely nothing changes about the ability of a EU citizen to be the trust beneficiary owner of an N-register airplane, based in Europe and maintained and modified to US standards.
Yawn. I won't bother arguing about words, fiddle away. You'll have to protest to the FAA and EASA, because, as I mentioned, nothing changes about who may own an N-register airplane.

And nothing changes you are still working the fiddle to get around US law.

You may continue using the fiddle but now you will have to have an EU ticket to continue. If you have a heavier than 5700kg aircraft you will also have to do both maint provisions and have the ticket unless of course you are a resident of the US.

Nothing needs to change about the owner of a N reg aircraft and why should it? Its a perfectly acceptable law. The application of it may need some looking at mind.

And where have your wild predictions led MJ ? No one arrested to my knowledge as they are not 'breaking the law'. So quick are you not to jump to conclusions about what will or won't happen. Scaremongering is what you love best on these forums.

The advice given by my national CAA is to continue flying as normal, and that a simplified transition will be worked on over the coming months, which won't include taking 14 exams.

If this doesn't occur then my few grand is chucked in the pot along with many many others to take this to the ECHR on the grounds of discrimination, breaking local employment laws and the law of precedent.

But I am hopeful that common sense prevails with a simple transfer of licence to continue flying.

Its early days yet thomas, the wheels were slow to get in motion but will eventually reach there destination have no doudt in this matter.

And to be honest as long as you fly within you NAA airspace you will be fine. Outside that its the roll of a dice. And if you have a prang will the insurance pay up? Who knows? Has anyone bothered checking?

You've had a few pints, haven't you ? Either that or a poor education. Do you really know anything about aircraft insurance ? A likely further spouting of your lack of knowledge and poor spelling. I had actually written a detailed response in relation to aircraft insurance but deleted it as it would be lost on you.

Sorry I have just done the insurance experence list for our fleet.

You are talking pish you need to be legal to be insured, it does actually state that all crew need to be legally licensed to fly the aircraft in the state of registery and area of operation. It also states that if we operate outside our area of AOC operation apart from emergency diverts we ain't insured either.

If your resorting to taking the piss out of my speeling and graamer which I am more than happy to admit are ****e and always have been after spending 10 years in remedial classes at school crack on . You can take the piss out of folk in wheel chairs as well next time you see one. But still I passed the ATPL theory first time and found it a piece of piss.

Never found my spelling and grammer have had any effect on flying a plane though.

To be honest that really doesn't bother me as long as its time is spent in the EU as a transit. Ie its truely international which is what the ICAO rules where intended for.

Its the sitting and operating for years never once leaving the area I think is wrong.

And why exactly ? What's is got to do with someone like you flying for pleb airways who openly and admittedly abuses junior FO's with you golden b*lled assumed authority.

How have I admitted abusing FO's?

Not that it doesn't happen occasionally when required or responding to a dig in my direction.

If it was the FO saying to me "sign the paper work bitch" which in my book is perfectly acceptable banter for a FO to say to the Captain after reading a thread about a flybe incident which he had mentioned.


Pelb airways :D will have to use that one. Keep the standards up even though we don't have as nice hardware as yourself.

Your short term memory is playing up again. What was it you said about your 200 or so hour new FO that you are flying with next week ? Please read your posts again, your memory loss is very worrying. Having says all that your poor FO is going to have his work cut our with HRH Captain W*nkstain.

Err that I was starting line training him. Or was it the breaking in fresh meat that you object to?

And he won't have a prob, he will work hard and enjoy himself and learn heaps.

HRH Captain W*nkstain

I will also add that I would also class being called that by the FO as banter, in fact its positively tame compare to what the Scottish and Irish FO's come out with. But next time they call me Capt Bawbag I will insist they put the HRH in first.

EASA N reg
 

Visited Aero 2012 at Friedrichshafen yesterday in a private N Reg Uk based turboprop single. We picked another pax in Germany en route.
I came across an EASA Stand in one of the exhibition halls and made a visit,
I asked one of the half a dozen or so suited gentlemen for some advice and information on the pilot license changes with reference to Third country licensing.
I was given a one page handout pretty much the same as received from our CAA.
I asked him as I had flown through France Belgium Germany en route ,which countries had delayed implementation of the Regulation on Aircrew. All he would confirm was that Gemany had delayed for one year but did not know about the other countries and if I was legal or not!! Information would be published in the coming months. I commented that was no help to me flying today, but was fobbed of with a smile and apologies that his English was not so good.
Lots of glossy brochures, one about fallout from Volcanic clouds but no concrete information from the masters of this mess.

The EASA web site offers a QandA section on the implication of the new regs....very helpful you would assume.

The section related to Third Country Operators is "under construction."

The contact us feature is useless, simply because they do not, or will not answer answer emails. (They do have an automated acknowledgement service).

Might I suggest that all those with reasonable questions contact EASA through their web site and DEMAND answers.

Going back to the original post from Peter, the article linked to has been slightly revised:
PPL/IR Europe - EASA Part FCL and Foreign-Registered Aircraft (FRA)

Main changes seem to be comment on the "horizontal" derogation and the process of states applying the various derogations.

brgds
421C

Third Country Operators (TCO) is about regulation of non-EU-based commercial air transport operators who fly into the EU. The regulation is at the CRD stage. It has nothing to do with N-reg based in the EU.

I commented that was no help to me flying today, but was fobbed of with a smile and apologies that his English was not so good.

Ah yes, that would be open and transparent then. A bit like this thread, the best aviation minds and not one of us really has any idea whats going on!

Gosh... been away for a few days and what do I find? Mad Jock spouting diatribe which is astonishing even by his normal standards :yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk:

He claims to have 4000 hours on turboprops of some sort. I feel sorry for the poor bastards who were forced to share a cockpit with this aggressive, bitter, jealous and poorly informed "pilot" who no doubt spouts the same bollox in the cockpit as he does here (people never really change).

One would have hoped that CRM would have weeded out those types not long after this. That's probably why he spends so much time on here.

That made me smile. I've just got back from there (FL200 most of the way and dodging buildups at -34C; takes me 40 mins to get there :) ) and yes EASA had a right bunch of pillocks on their stand. Young (mostly) and looking extremely smart. I walked up to one of them and suggested that they have the word "safety" everywhere but actually EASA is nothing to do with safety, it has done close to NOTHING for GA, and all we have got here is a politically motivated agenda run as a private project of a few individuals. The chap agreed (what else; that is always the correct procedure anyway) but the others looked pretty alarmed. They are obviously well aware of the comments which they had to listen to many times during the show. This chap suggested that the problem is really caused by EASA having pushed this into law but without any implementing rules having been worked out. Well, that's true for sure... It stinks.
Actually I think all of the above is close to the mark. No wonder the man is so bitter over those who have done more than he has.

yes yes everyone is bitter and twisted if they don't agree that N reg should be allowed to continue, how dare we say that it is a problem that needed solving years ago.

And of course I am aggressive because I argue back and say things you don't want hear.

And if I don't back down you slag off my professional standards because I am obviously some sort of nutter because I don't agree with you.

Funny enough there arn't huge arguments about N reg on EU national reg aircraft. It really isn't a CRM issue.

No wonder the powers that be are determined to put a stop to it. And no doudt years to come the bitching will continue.

Its pots and kettles with aggressive behaviour and attempts at bullying folk into agreeing with you.

Remember people...

Speaking as a tp/jet pilot that has been licenced for 20 years both CAA and FAA (with other validations) there is no difference between an experienced FAA pilot or an experienced JAA/CAA pilot. It's the lower timed FAA pilots that lack the knowledge of the JAA but perhaps they would not be in the seats of foreign reg TP's or Bizjets in the first place without a fair few hours of experience. Low timed JAA pilots with 200 hours are driving electric jets (you know, the ones MJ is too old to operate and never will which may explain his hang up why he's stuck on a light aircraft such as a jetstream :)) every day safely, the FAA writtens lack the in depth detail that European exams do but generally experience makes up for that by the time the pilots get to serious machinery. I feel so much safer in the knowledge that my weather radar operates at 9.375 ghz and DME utilises PON though. Hyperbolic navigation has really stood me in good stead, as has the properties of Mercator charts and other shyte.

MJ, I understand where your coming from with your FD banter. That does not make it unprofessional or unsafe, I do believe you may relax some newbie FO's with it, infact. I however also believe you are not making your point very well here.

That is very true. But it wouldn't matter how you make the point, it will be still shouted down and you will castigated for not agreeing with the pilots that use the FAA system in europe.

Its as if they think that if they can silence any one saying well actually I can see why it needs to be done and why the NAA's want it done. They will be able to say nobody wants it get lost.

When in fact there has been lobbying for years. And obviously alot of planning into getting it through. I wouldn't mind betting already there is lobbying going on in the US to ensure it doesn't go through whatever they decide at the conference even if they do actually agree for a 1 to 1 swap which I don't think will happen.

Personally I think they will get the engineering sorted out for bi-lateral with out grandfather rights on current kit and the FCL stuff will be left in limbo.

.

Yes, I challenged them on this too and I don't suppose I was the only one. I found out later that they have NO safety statistics at all and are making decisions based on "That's a good idea".

Definitely an organisation which is not fit for purpose.

Years ago, the DfT (in one of its sporadic anti-N-reg drives which some ex Oxford arts graduate there would kick off every so often) asked the CAA to come up with safety data showing N-regs to be less safe. The CAA famously replied that the accident data does not show that at all :) Which is completely unsuprising to anybody who periodically reads the AAIB reports.

The EASA initiative is purely political. But it is multi faceted and it isn't just a form of say MJ's pure-envy kind of thing. There is that, but very few people in EASA are pilots (Sivel for example told me he has a PPL and rents the odd PA28) and probably none use GA for anything serious. They pushed this through to have something to beat the FAA around the head with on other matters which I gather concern airline stuff.

Peter its not envy, N reg in europe has absolutely no effect on my life whats so ever.

In fact the majority of people who are working towards the changes it doesn't effect either.

Can you not understand that they can't allow pilots and aircraft to remain outside there oversight if they are based in a country or in a group of collective oversight countries. They just can't accept residents opting out from what they have legislated because they want to for whatever reason.

There will be people pushing it through for stated reasons

There will also be people pushing it through for political reasons.

I don't think many of them truely believe that its a bargining tool for negotiations with the US. Do you really think the US cares what happens to less than 5000 pilots and aircraft owners in the EU getting screwed over by thier own goverments.

I have updated my writeup here, near the end, with a translation of a French statement which suggests that France has gone for the 2 year derogation.

I still have yet not seen a translated German statement but I hear they have gone for a 1 year one (though that might have been a confusion with the 1 year horizontal derogation which is a separate thing).

The German LBA is English proficient. In fact, they are a higher authority in matters concerning the English language than the FAA, having refused to accept my FAA proficiency rating...

Here's their English announcement.

That's a translation error, the German original says "... will only apply from 2013. In addition, the Federal Republic of Germany will opt-out of certain annexes beyond 2013."

Isn't there a confusion there between the two types of derogation?

Which of the two is Germany going for?

The horizontal one is for one year, AIUI, always. The original one can be anywhere from zero to 2 years.