N Reg Ops EU domiciled pilots
 

Are the above affected pilots all grounded next week, if EASA lic not held. Has EASA dictat not been delayed another year?

Nope.

Lots of talk about it being extended, but no action.

The regulations have been there since 2011 EASA write regulations the Commision validate and make those laws
Member states then approve
The Commission voted to extend a further year it is then for member states to enact that decision!
It is strange that nothing has been said since the commission vote
Will try to find out more tomorrow

Pace

Is this of any help.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...18443451,d.ZWU

Regulation has been extended to 8 April 2017. Euro Parliament approved

Does anybody have a list of the EASA countries following the opt to do another year? Is it the same not following already, or did some join the this is the end crowd? I hate to check each countries regs ...

From JetBlu's link:

So at the time of writing the change was still an aspiration, not a done deal. Once the change is through then the individual CAAs need to implement it if they so wish. AFAIK the UK CAA have not yet issued an extension to the 8th September 2016 deadline.

The extension was voted through by the commission that cannot be changed anymore than a vote in parliament

Pace

Even though the Third Country opt-out extension was voted for by the commission does not mean it is immediate law in all subsequent countries. Given the current publication, it looks as if it follows last years "optional" process and has to be enrolled to by the countries willing to opt-out.

According to the list published by AOPA, even last years prolongation was already not enacted by Estonia, Italy, Croatia, Latvia, Lithunia, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Slowenia, Czeck Republic, Hungary and Cyprus. Strictly speaking, authorities in these countries may follow formal belief N-regs can only be flown by EU domiciled pilots if they hold an EASA license and that, since April 2015. It appears that nobody controlled it, yet, but it may only be a matter of time.

What happens if - say, Ramp Check: (1) N-reg flown by a FAA-PPLonly Italian (no opt-out) in Austria (opt-out)? Maybe the Austrian authorities don't care, but the other way around: (2) N-reg flown by a FAA-PPLonly Austrian (opt-out) in Italy (no opt-out)? Is it legal or not? I heard rumors pilots do cross borders, don't you think?

I do find that procedure pretty much confusing and the EU papers won't help much. There even is the possibility some countries did not enact opt-out, because they thought they don't have to - who the hack knows? Or even worse, they have some strange paragraph enacting automatically - how should a pilot know, if this is hidden somewhere on page x-thousend and written only in i.e. Estonian local language? If in doubt assume the negative, is not a good way to deal with things like that, or?

Isn't it time to declare EU a state for aviation purposes?

What the commission pass is EU law so I am not sure where a country not opting out stands legally as its based on EASA regulations enacted or otherwise by the Commission so I am not surprised that so many were lax last year yet we had no trouble flying into or out of those countries

Pace

Has the commission passed the law? I'm not saying it hasn't, but I've not seen it (not that I have looked very hard).

The good folks at EASA don't seem to think so:

https://www.easa.europa.eu/faq/20075

As the EU is not a state, there is no "EU law", there is regulations and directives *pennypickingOUT*. The rules how the regulations and directives feed into each countries law systems are partly set on contract/treaty, as a secondary law, level, are quite complex and many times even the actors are not sure what they built. The law systems are indeed quite different in the EU. In the end it is still the authority of a country to enact or not a setting from EU and many times they deny. How many treaty violation proceedings are discussed in the EU? I recently heard that Germany alone has something like 80 proceedings similar to "EU court hearings" for violations.

And no, as far as I know the opt-out 2016 is not published yet.

Sorry, but that is not correct, there is plenty of EU law directly applicable...

EUR-Lex - l14547 - EN - EUR-Lex

EC Law - directly applicable and the doctrine of direct effect

And, yes, the extension has been adopted:
Texts adopted - Wednesday, 9 March 2016 - Non-objection to an implementing measure: pilot training, testing and periodic checking for performance-based navigation - P8_TA-PROV(2016)0074

So - have fun for at least another year
:-)

Ok don't worry about it as nothing will happen until April 2017 The BASA and EASA regulations on third country licenses are linked and a legal minefield one cannot happen without the other. By 2017 it is likely that an agreement will be made with the FAA which is a needed process. I should get more clarification by Friday but your not breaking any laws flying after April 8

A lot of what I have been told lost me as it is highly complex but I don't think EASA the Commission or the member states are clear themselves, hopefully by Friday I may get more

Pace

EU "law" is very complicated and even if regulations may be originally thought of "directly applicable", reality often proves this to be wrong or ignored by certain, but not always the same, EU countries.

I still don't get why the EASA system does not issue EASA-piggyback-validations to FAA license holder, the same as backwards - inner-EASA cross approval of validations shouldn't be a problem, or?

We now have two threads in parallel, the OP started another one here. Maybe the admin can merge them?

Copied from the other thread:
The actual list of countries and their willingness to enact opt-out is documented in an Excel sheet to be found here: opt-out-from-regulations - scroll down to downloads and get "Derogations from Regulation (EU) 1178/2011 as amended" (explanation for active enact opt-out inside the file).

It might suit the Commission to point to PPL and not Commercial and let that slip away as again there are legal problems which a wealthy guy deciding to challenge the regs is likely to win

Pace

You are quoting some language on DIRECTIVES, the issue at hand is covered in a REGULATION. Different regime, different rules.
;)

Sorry - countries can only actively opt-out. Like in the examples provided in the link (pretty limited as far as we see)

Unless that happened explicitly, the regulations can be referred to directly in/by national courts and, if applied inappropriately, the issues can be challenged in the European Court.

AOPA confirm that implementation delayed to 4/17.

I think the whole third country license thing is crazy
2011 the regs were in place and delayed every year now till 2017! This indicates that they have major problems with the regulations!
My guess without an agreement with mainly the USA they cannot legally do it but the delays certainly are not because of consideration to us pilots

Pace

I agree!

These stupid regulations are supposed to be justified on safety grounds. I wonder if anyone in EASA can tell me how many accidents / fatalities have resulted from pilots with an FAA IR not having converted to an EASA IR? If it's OK to keep postponing the introduction, then the status quo must be providing an adequate level of safety?

While they are at it, I'd be interested to know how many VFR pilots have had VMC into IMC accidents because of the difficulty in getting and maintaining an IR.

Surely it would be simpler and more effective if they just agreed to mutual recognition of licences and, at the same time, adopted the FAA IR syllabus, currency and test requirements. That would clear away the administrative mess they have created, enhance flight safety and save the administration and the pilots a bundle of money as well as a lot of wasted time.