What do you mean "would not be legal"? Part 61 tells you about the requirements and privileges of US pilot certificates. Where does it say you may not also hold an EASA certificate?

Part 91.703 goes on to say (my underline)Err, on the basis of the EU law already enacted, that Operators of FRA resident in the EU must comply with EASA regs.

brgds
421C

421C

The biggest flaw with what EASA are attempting is that they are trying to legislate on pilot requirements on aircraft where EASA licences have no Bearing.
I am licenced by the FAA to Fly FAA aircraft around the world there are ICAO Rights to do so and have done so to faraway places like the USA, South Africa and the far East.

Just to show you how discriminatory this is I have ferried before. I could accept employment as a European Pilot to ferry a jet from the USA to say Thailand. I would be denied that income by the fact that I could no longer fly over Europe based soley on on my nationality it could read colour or creed.

EASA are demanding that I hold licenses to fly an aircraft that they hold no jurisdiction over. Infact to use EASA licences to do so would in itself be illegal.
That begs the question what licences could they require me to hold to fly a private N reg Jet?

So it again comes down to blatant discrimination which thankfully are well covered in our European Courts.

They are in reality saying that I must hold licences which are illegal on an aircraft I am fully entitled to fly hold no bearing on that aircraft and for NO other reason than I am European My equal Brothers in America are allowed to fly in European airspace but I am not. THAT IS BLATANT DISCRIMINATION.

I then ask the question what would their arguement be in court for attempting to instigate these requirements? Think about it.

This is another flawed attempt by some EASA pen pusher in an office who hasnt really thought out what he is attempting to do.

Such a move is so flawed and riddled it would not hold up in the courts.

Pace

They do have jurisdiction over EU operators. It is not illegal to hold an EASA licence in addition to an FAA one when flying an N-reg airplane.

I haven't read my ICAO for a while, but the rights which are enshrined in treaty are relatively narrow, and many apply to CAT rather than GA, and also concern overflight and tech stops. There is nothing in ICAO which prevents a particular country imposing whatever requirements it wants on its domestic operators. In fact, (AFAIK) an ICAO country is entitled to deny its citizens the right to exercise the privileges of another countries pilot qualifications in its own airspace.

I absolutely understand your intense frustration that the profession you have been pursuing under the excellent and safe regulation of the FAA system should be burdened with this nonsense. But, I hate to say it, this "discrimination" idea is a lost cause. There are a vast number of regulations which 'discriminate' between the non-EU resident professional and the resident. The obvious example being doctors, lawyers, accountants, but also, at a more trivial level, car drivers and boat skippers. Aviation, of course, is different to the extent that it's inherent that a US pilot would operate a trip into Europe (and vice-versa) in a way that, for example, a Doctor wouldn't find himself treating patients cross-border. But the EASA regs are not regulating US pilots per se, or US operators. They are regulating EU operators, which they are legally entitled to do.

The principle that an EU operator should abide by EU regulations is not going to collapse under some human rights legal case. The entire EU system is built upon a vast edifice of EU regulations....

Vent your frustration here amongst fellow pilots by all means, but I'd be signing up for one of those JAA ATPL theory courses at the same time....

brgds
421C

My point was that an EASA license is probably not going to meet state of registry requirements i.e. 61.3.

For example an EASA license issued in Germany will be good for an N-reg in German airspace but won't be any good for the same N-reg in UK airspace. There are two FAA OCC opinions out on this already so I consider this old chestnut done and dusted.

The EU is not doing anything illegal requiring this, in the same way as it would not be illegal to require pilots to wear pink underpants while in EU airspace, but it is bizzare that licenses will have to be obtained which are simply inappropriate for the aircraft under ICAO (state of registry) requirements.

They may as well require the pilot to become a chartered accountant... it's about as relevant.

421C The obvious would be an IOM with operating company based there in some form or other?
But regulating operators is very different to requiring pilots to hold licences that bear no relevance to the aircraft being flown and which the pilot is already fully licenced to fly.
All I know is this has been attempted many times before and has fallen flat on legalities I see no reason why this should be any different.
I am NO lawyer and I presume neither are you so we are all guessing to a certain extent.
I cannot see your comparisons quoted above as an EASA licence cannot in law be relevant to an FAA aircraft but hey ho I hope you are not correct as this would be another example of NON SENSE politics. Did I read that the UK government had earmarked 130 UK quangos for obliteration pity EASA was not got rid of as nearly happened for its equally stupid attempts before.

Addendum

I have a co pilot who holds FAA licences and an SIC who joined me from meeting up in these forums and is now a very good friend.
His concen is that he went the FAA way because he failed his JAA class 1 medical on his eyesight but passed the FAA medical does anyone know what his position would be if this rubbish hits the light of day.

Pace

Nope. JAA licences were licences issued by NAA in accordance with a set of rules. If you followed the rules to the letter you were a member of the mutually recognised club but nonetheless each licence had a separate state of issue.

An EASA licence will be a single EUROPEAN licence subject to a single European equivalent of the ANO. Very much in the same was as an FAA certificate is federal certificate instead of a state certificate.

So a single EASA licence has true European coverage.

It is this very thing that is preventing the adoption of an IMCr as an example, it is either an all or nothing situation and is the reason EASA are able to mandate an EASA licence for operation in it's airspace.

IO,
Your post #125 boils down to the fact you think the EASA requirements are silly. Fair enough. I think it's silly too. Doesn't mean it's not happening.

Pace,
The point on medicals is a serious one. The answer is I don't know. It may be that your friend will need to have EASA medicals in order to work for a European operator. I would suggest he gets in touch with a top AME who is close to the process and understands the regs well. These names must float around the pro pilot community. There may be conversion options which are better done asap (again, I simply don't know).

On the plus side, EASA Part-MED has some relaxation of the worst restrictions of JAR Medical regs. However, how these may impact your friend, again, I don't know.

brgds
421C

I'm not worried, it will never happen. We'll still be flying N reg's on FAA certificates for may years to come....

Better pull your head out the sand then and take a look at what is contained in the regulation that ALREADY exists. This is not a consultation....
;)

PACE

I was in the same situation as your colleague and now hold a full JAA Class one medical.

pm me for more info if you wish...

On a lighter note, have you seen EASA's mission statement....

"We're not happy till you're not happy."

I think the phrase "We're all doomed" seems applicable :ugh:

Sir George Cayley

Is this actually true, the NAAs are going to no longer exist? Or is it that EASA defines the structure and then the States need to pass implementing legislation and operate as the local office for those specific areas EASA has competence over.

I thought it was the second. In which case, it is unlikely to change the FAA's view that the UK is a different state from Germany or from Slovinia.

It will hinge on how ICAO view EASA. At the moment each state that is a signatory to the Chicago Convention has a seat on at the Assembly. Memebers of ICAO get to be on the Air Navigation Commission.

EASA want a seat on the ANC but ICAO will only entertain this if all the AN members sub-ordinate to EASA resign.

You already know the answer don't you?

But one day EASA will get a toe hold.

Sir George Cayley

Surely the EU has the power to force them to resign?

The EU can now force any member state to adopt any law it drafts (within limits e.g. military matters are outside its remit).

Didn't the UK have a referendum on Europe? :rolleyes:

EASA sees itself solely as a rulemaking body and considers that it is the function of NAAs to implement and enforce the rules that it makes. The NAAs will, in practical terms, be simply local agencies of EASA, much as the FSDOs are the local agencies of the FAA.

Since the FCL Implementing Rules are being enacted by Regulation, rather than by Directive, there is no need for the UK provincial government to enact implementing legislation. As soon as the enabling Regulation enters into force (currently scheduled for 8 April 2012) it applies in the UK in its entirety. Some (time limited) derogation is permitted in a few areas, mainly concerning the implementation of the new licences (e.g. LAPL, BPL, SPL, etc.).

Interestingly, yesterday I received a letter via my MP about the CAA and EASA and the way GA is being affected by legislation originates from EASA.

The writer denies absolutely that they are subordinate to EASA. Actually they deny pretty much everything - GA is not suffering and all is right with the world. :ugh::ugh:

There is an awful lot of hot air being generated on this subject, whereas the focus should be on the fact that EASA are doing what the Commission told them not to do, which is reinvent the wheel.

Just to be clear, it is perfectly legal for a state to limit the privileges of a third part licence held by its own nationals. That is in the Treaty. Likewise, it is perfectly legal to apply EU/EASA rules to third country operators established in the EU. Again, I don't think there is anything novel about this. It happens already.

The current PART FCL do not limit the use of third country licences by nationals of the EU flying non EU aircraft, though such rules may appear. These rules are not yet law and there is a need for everyone to put the case as strongly as possible through their MEPs and directly. They impose unnecessary regulation and cost on an industry worth EURO millions to the economy of the EU at a time when growth is faltering. There is no demonstrable benefit from some of the changes, such as the medical requirements. The rules seem to effectively close the door on anyone from a non EU state wishing to visit Europe and fly whilst they are here, which puts them in opposition to almost every other state in the world, which has a temporary validation or conversion process in place.

Becoming a very interesting thread now, and agree with IO540 that the Bizjet forum and (some) operators just seem to be ignoring the proposals and some regulations already in force, and the private flyers seem most bothered?

Mainly a reply and follow up to post #76 to #78 (sorry, been away for a while)

@ 421C: I have to disagree with your first statement and partly with your second:
That part applies to G-registered aircraft.
Article 62 of the ANO just states "the flight crew of an aircraft" and
"paragraph (2) applies to any licence which authorises the holder to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft and is granted:
(a) under the law of a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom but which is not a JAA licence; or
(b) under the law of a relevant overseas territory.
AND:
(2) Subject to paragraph (4), for the purposes of this Part, such a licence is, unless the CAA gives a direction to the contrary, deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this Order.

"An aircraft" but not "G-registered aircraft" is mentioned and it directly refers to the licences concerned which are discussed in article 61:

Requirement for appropriate licence to act as member of flight crew of aircraft
registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom
61
A person must not act as a member of the flight crew which must by or under this Order be carried in an aircraft registered in a country other than the United Kingdom unless:
(a) in the case of an aircraft flying for the purpose of commercial air transport, public transport or aerial work, that person is the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or the State of the operator; or
(b) in the case of an aircraft on a private flight, that person is the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or under this Order, and the CAA does not give a direction to the contrary.

"There's nothing in the ANO that stops a foreign-registered aircraft operating in the UK with a paid crew that hold licences from the state of registry only"

ANO Article 223 prohibits foreign registered aircraft to be involved in operations where valuable consideration is given (with the exception of operators operating under the rules of the Chicago convention, such as airlines or AOC holders or other permission holders):

PART 29 PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND AERIAL WORK BY FOREIGN REGISTERED
AIRCRAFT
Restriction on carriage for valuable consideration in aircraft registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom:
223 (1) An aircraft registered in a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom, or in a foreign country, must not take on board or discharge any passengers or cargo in the United Kingdom where valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of such persons or cargo unless it complies with paragraph (2) or is exempt from this paragraph under paragraph (3).

(2) This paragraph is complied with if the operator or the charterer of the aircraft or the Government of the country in which the aircraft is registered has been granted a permission by the Secretary of State under this article and any conditions subject to which such permission may be subject are complied with.

(3) An aircraft is exempt from the requirement to comply with paragraph (1) if it is exercising traffic rights permitted by Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24th September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community(a).

(4) No operator or charterer of an aircraft which is required to comply with paragraph (2) may hold itself out as a person who may offer to take on board or discharge any passenger or cargo in the United Kingdom for valuable consideration except in accordance with:
(a) a permission granted under this article; and
(b) any conditions to which such a permission may be subject.

(5) Paragraph (4) does not apply to any person who reasonably believes that they will hold such a permission by the time the relevant flight is made.

I must be missing something here as there are loads of pilots/operators flying foreign reg a/c around where there is valuable consideration involved?

The CAA have this on there website. At

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/620/srg_l&...s_Sept2010.pdf

5. Non-EU licences - Validations and conversions
5.1 As proposed the Part-FCL regulation will make provision for the temporary validation of licences issued outside of the territory that is subject to EASA regulations - (i.e. outside of the EU Member States and those countries that have signed agreements to be bound by the EASA regulations and implementing rules). An example would be the holder of a licence issued by the FAA wanting to fly an aircraft registered in the UK. There are also proposed
Page 7 of 13
provisions for the conversion of such licences - i.e. their replacement with EASA licences. These proposed provisions are similar to those that have been applied under JAR-FCL. However, in the case of validations the regulation as currently proposed introduces a significant change in that a licence holder may only obtain a validation once, and it will be time limited.
5.2 The proposed validation requirements are set out in Annex III to the regulation for Part-FCL. The general requirements in that Annex that would apply to all validations according to this proposal are:
• the licence to be validated must be compliant with ICAO Annex 1;
• application may only be made to the NAA of the country where the pilot is resident, or where the operator they will fly for has its principal place of business;
• the period of validation will not exceed one year;
• no repeat validations are allowed;
• a validation can be extended once only by the competent authority (NAA) that issued it, to allow time for the pilot to obtain an EASA licence. The extension will be given if the pilot concerned has commenced training for an EASA licence. The period of the extension will not be excessive, taking into account the typical time taken by applicants to obtain the EASA licence that the pilot is training for.
At present, Article 62 of the Air Navigation Order 2009 grants a permanent general validation to all non-UK licence holders to allow them to fly UK-registered aircraft, provided that the flight is for private purposes. The European legislation will overturn this (and the ANO will be amended to avoid causing confusion). If adopted as currently proposed, Part-FCL will require the holder of a licence issued by a non-EASA country to have an individual validation issued by the appropriate EASA member NAA. However, EASA has advised that such validations should give the same privileges as an EASA licence, so that the licence holder should be entitled to fly an aircraft registered anywhere

Art 61 requires a licence from the state of registry for a public transport or aerial work flight. If the pilot has such a licence, then Art 61 is satisfied without reference to Art 62.

Art 62 describes the conditions for a foreign licence to be "deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this Order". It is not necessary for a foreign licence to be rendered valid in order to fly a foreign-registered aircraft, only to fly a G-registered aircraft.

trevs99uk

What do you think is the meaning of "Interpretation of Article 4" on page 10 of that PDF?

The CAA appears to be saying that foreign reg pilots will need EASA licenses, but then they go on about Art 62 which as Bookworm correctly says doesn't apply to foreign regs because they are already covered by the State of Registry papers... so which aircraft reg does

However, EASA has advised that such validations should give the same privileges as an EASA licence, so that the licence holder should be entitled to fly an aircraft registered anywhere

apply to?

I find this whole thing totally confusing.

The "Interpretation of Article 4" on page 10 of the PDF has nothing to do with aircraft registered in a third country - it is simply pointing out that an EASA licence is not required for Annex II aircraft unless it is a historic or ex-military aircraft or a replica thereof and is being flown for public transport or aerial work.

The only reference that I can find to Article 62 is in paragraph 5, which deals only with the validation of third country licences to fly EASA registered aircraft. There is nothing in the PDF relevant to the requirements for third country aircraft, which is hardly surprising as it will not be Licensing and Training Standards that has to enforce that aspect of the Regulation.

I can't see anything in these rules that would affect me....i.e. flying an N reg on an FAA certificate. If anything they might award me some sort of IMC replacement IR based upon my IMC which is based upon my FAA IR... ???

Clearedils,

"where valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of such persons or cargo"

This rule relate to the relationship between the operator and the pax/cargo, not the operator and the crew.


brgds
421C

It applies to all aircraft registered anywhere. But, the key point is that "validation" is a one-time process, valid for 12months and still requires some exam passes and a skills test. It is of little practical value except for someone who absolutely needs the extra time to get the EASA licences.

brgds
421C

It depends who is considered to be the operator of the aircraft and whether they have their main place of business in or are resident in the EU. If we are talking about the private owner of an 'N' reg aircraft, the assumption is that they are also the 'operator' and, therefore, assuming that they are also resident in the EU, that they will need both an FAA licence and an EASA licence in order to fly that aircraft in EU airspace.

The problem is that EASA has not defined the term 'operation'. It defines 'operator' as "any legal or natural person, operating or proposing to operate one or more aircraft", which is not a great deal of help. What EASA considers to represent 'operating' an aircraft may well differ from what you or I might think.

No, it doesn't. In the context of para 5 of the PDF it applies only to EASA aircraft.

I recall the 'operator' meaning being debated a while ago, when that doc originally came out.

We seem to have come full circle but nobody seems any wiser.

At least they have dropped the airframe maintenance oversight for SE and ME pistons.

I have a feeling that if challenged to provide a definition, EASA will say that this is up to the courts in the member states to decide!

A few years ago I recall a pilot appearing in the Stratford Court accused of "operating" an aircraft without a valid C of A. The case was thrown out because there was no definition of "operator". Was it the owner, the club who rented it from him or the person they rented it to who was flying it?

Para 5 describes the EASA FCL Annex III "Validation" of 3rd country licences. Validations can be used to fly any aircraft requiring compliance with EASA FCL - ie. a UK one, as in the example in para 5, any EU registered one as you say, but also any FRA operated by an EU resident who needs to comply with EASA FCL. At least that's how I read it.

Put another way, I think the (formal or informal?) definition of "EASA aircraft" (as opposed to "EASA-registered aircraft") includes 3rd country aircraft operated within the EU by an EU resident?

brgds
421C

See Article 4 of 216/2008 - 'EASA aircraft' though not mentoned as such, but the scope is there.

"any legal or natural person, operating or proposing to operate one or more aircraft"

Even the definition seems at odds with the operator being the pilot. The pilot can only be a natural person whereas the definition clearly envisages the operator being a trust or a company and also a trust or a company that owns more than one aircraft.

I still struggle with 421Cs concept that where a trust owns the aircraft, contracts for its maintenance, pays for its parking and insurance (and perhaps lays down conditions governing it use) EASA would argue that anyone piloting the aircraft becomes the operator.

It seems an attempt at a clever bit of word crafting to leave out commercial operators that are based overseas but use crew that are domiciled in the EU but capture private pilots who are domiciled in the EU and operate their aircraft through a trust company. If the trust is properly established, operated and is off shore I suspect EASA will have a job to break the trust and convince a court that the trust is a complete sham with its strings being entirely "pulled" by the "owner" who is also the pilot. However I suspect this is the best they could come up with. Not only would it be unpopular, but possibly illegal to legislate against off shore commercial operators, so you are left with trying to find some "artificial" way of distingusiging these from UK residents who own their aircraft via an off shore trust.

You miss an important nuance. I am not, as I have said before, saying that the pilot of an aircraft is automatically the operator under all and any circumstances. Obvioulsy not.

However, when the trust owns the aircraft BUT
1. the beneficiary owner is a EU resident pilot (or group)
2. the trust 'contracts for maintanance..blah blah' but, ultimately, the aircraft operation is paid for by that EU resident pilot or group
3. the EU resident pilot (or group) decide when and where to fly it (within whatever constraints they have put into the trust, plus the normal insurance and operational constraints)

...then the EU resident pilot or group are likely to be deemed the operators of the aircraft, irrespective of what administration is off-shored to a trust or shell company OR the trust/company will be deemed to be EU resident in practice with its off-shore status simply an avoidance mechanism. Either way, the pilots need EASA licences.


It's not a "clever bit of word crafting". It's EASA exercising its powers to regulate EU operators but not 3rd country ones. There is an obvious and legitimate difference, however much one disagrees with their intent.

brgds
421C

Can somebody please assemble a clear bit of text, with URLs and supporting logic, which proves that regulations currently proposed or passed into law state that EASA licenses will be required for EU resident N-reg private pilots?

Once I have this, I can pass it by an aviation lawyer.

I think what is happening here is that people are reading little bits of proposals.

421C I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant, but I'm pretty sure that you can set up a structure whereby the 'operational control' resides with some non-EU based trust or company. The problem I can see is the closer you get to a watertight structure, the closer you also get to an AOC or other CAT situation.

If this type of rule did become law, it is certain (as bookworm says) that the interpretation would be with the local courts. After all, EASA won't prosecute anybody; it will be up to each local CAA.

The tough bit would not be ramp checks (which will always be meaningless, due to the obvious impossibility of on the spot verification of "residence" etc). It would be validity of one's insurance.

I don't see how one's insurance would be invalid if one were say flying an N reg using an FAA ticket which is a perfectly legal combo....as per United 935 from LHR to LAX.

What happens if United employed a Brit? I have quite often heard foreign nationals piloting their 777's....