Insurance validity requires the flight to be "legal".

I agree the flight would be legal as per ICAO (State of Registry) requirements.

But if e.g. you fly your plane via an airspace which requires the carriage of an ADF (or a pair of pink underpants) but you haven't got an ADF (or pink underpants) then you are not legal in that airspace.

I am not saying that I have bought into this "N-reg threat" but this is how it could work. Each ICAO member has sovereignity within its airspace, which is how e.g. the UK CAA can require the carriage of an ADF for all IFR in CAS, and this is applicable even to an N-reg Cirrus ;)

You are missing the point re United. This is a US based company, with the majority of its business in the US, regulated as an AOC (so by definition 'the operator') by the US. It can not possibly be viewed as a shame construct to avoid a residency issue. As 421 has pointed out, it is much less clear the closer one is to a sole beneficial owner situation that a court wouldn't deem the structure as a shame to avoid this particular set of regulations.

The insurance side could be critical. Insurance companies will either be happy to underwrite EU based pilots flying Deleware Trust Company aircraft based in the EU with FAA licences or the will not be happy. It is only when one tries to get insurance that one will know the answer.

Equally, one would need some advice as to the insurer's ability to walk away from a claim even though they were in posession of all material facts based on a post accident view that you should have had an EASA licence. For an insurer that is not based in the EU I would have thought they wouldn't care, one based in the EU could well be made to care. [Note the opinion expressed is worth what you have paid for it]

172Driver,

The problem is as follows:

If genuine operational control resided in the offshore entity, then what on earth is the point of this construct? Presumably this discussion relates to people on the forum who are presently N-reg (trust beneficiary) owner-pilot-operators and their need for EASA FCL licences from 2012.

If you transfer genuine operational control to some Trust lawyer in Delaware, then you no longer have an N-reg airplane you can use in any sensibe manner the way you do presently. If you can continue to do so, then the genuine operational control does not reside with the offshore entity. It's a sham that I believe would collapse in court in minutes. Perhaps one could fraudulently create an edifice of funding and instructions and purpose by which the "offshore operator" instructs you to fly to places that (coincidentally) are where and when you want to fly, but this sort of thing is seems so self-evidently silly and transparent to me that I am surprised anyone would believe, for a moment, it would be robust.


IO, I'll repeat my previous answer to this point. The ramp check would be trivially easy. "Oh Mr Pilot, you say you don't have EASA FCL qualifications because this aircraft is operated by a non-EU resident. Fair enough, sign this declaration to this effect, and we will follow up at our leisure". It may be impossible to verify the operator and residency on the spot, but it is trivially easy for them to follow-up subsequently. How many "operators" do they have to nail this way for the message to get through? How much of a Sherlock Holmes does the ramp inspector or his back office colleague have to be?

brgds
421C

There isn't and won't be the infrastructure for checking this kind of stuff.

Airport staff and airport police are not that clever or organised.

In most of Europe, the paperwork machine hangs together just enough to ask for a declaration that you and your passengers haven't got tuberculosis.

I think that most proposals which would require a huge amount of new procedures to be deployed Europe-wide, just to catch a small # of private pilots, will be dropped because nobody will have the balls to push it through, into a system which isn't getting paid to do the extra work anyway.

Like that 2005 DfT proposal to kick out N-regs after 90 days. The detection and enforcement mechanisms would have been rather interesting. No wonder it got dropped. It also had some very easy work-arounds (which I won't publish here).

Insurance would be the principal issue.

There is already a standard ramp checking infrastructure and mechanism throughout Europe. The inspection form the CAA use I've seen posted somewhere on the web. You think the NAA staff across Europe who have less rule-making work to do won't be deployed in overseeing EASA regs?

What is the point of this discussion? Are we seriously debating that someone would ignore EASA regs on the basis they were unlikely ever to get caught?

brgds
421C

421C - well, I think your view will ultimately prevail if the legislation is enacted as curently drafted. It is interesting debating the wriggle room but I think private owner operators using a Delware trust would have to go some not to be caught by the legislation. I think a group where a real effort is made to delegate some of the operational functions to off shore trustees might stand a better chance but I know of few N reg groups, although they do exist.

If the legisaltion is enacted it leaves me wondering how many FAA IR holders will go to the effort of converting their licences and if they do convert their licences whether there will remain any good reason for operating their aircrafts on the N reg.

My guess is this one will ultimately ride on how much of a stink the N reg lobby can muster and whether the FAA has any good reason to wade into the debate.

There are a few EASA changes that come to mind that really do require us pilots to make it quite clear we are not prepared to put up with the impact they will have on GA. These include the potential loss of the IMCr, the dreadful EIR proposals, the inability of ICAO qualified IR holders to convert their licences to EASA IRs, and the loss of national lifetime licences.

Whether us pilots are up to the task I doubt so I guess we can only watch on in dismay.

I dont think any one of us supports these changes or believes they will contribute one iota to safety and in that much EASA will have failed in its prime directive. Shame on those who have more interest in political posturing that safety.

Sorry guys been out of the loop for a few days so trying to catch up. Those who think the courts are there to decide whether something is a sham misjudge what the function of the courts are.

There are many legal setups which are that (shams) already but which cannot be challenged because they tick the legal boxes.

If someone wants to operate through a delaware company by means of a phone call and by doing so the operation ticks the legal box no court is going to say "this is obviously a sham so its illegal". This happens in many other fields perfectly legally.

None of us as far as I know are aviation legal experts so a lot of what we are saying is itself suspect.

More concern is the two camps here. The I am alright jack brigade because I have the relevant licences? (Some of us know some posters especially in the professional pilot forums who fit that bill and take a holier than thou attitude but who achieved their own licenses through shams) The others are people who have spent a lot of money licencing themselves up and have quite legally worked the FAA way in Europe some for decades.

To be told for no genuine reason that sorry mate at a flick of a pen you are no longer legal please find X amount of £1000s of pounds, loose your job and take off 6 months full time study is something which is hard to chew.

As a non lawyer I am pretty sure you cannot do that without recompense or without breaking the EEC human rights laws which are so strong within the EEC.

The only law breaking is by EASA requiring licences (what licences??? That itself is not clear to fly aircraft which are not in their jurisdiction.
Who is fighting our corner against this big brother attitude?

I quote Douglas Bader

" Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" i hope there are not too many fools in our ranks?

Pace

Bookworm has helpfully done this already, see post #25 in this thread. The reference to Basic Regulation is document (EC) 216/2008 available here:
EASA - Regulations structure


brgds
421C

(corrected in line with BB's post below)

I have made a similar slip in the past - it is actually Regulation (EC) 216/2008.

One good reason...safety equipment that Europe decides needs X thousand spent generating STCs even though the FAA have allowed it for years.

I just bought an EDM-830 in the US and am having it fitted at the moment. Piece of cake. I dread to think of the hoops and fees under EASA.

(EC) 216/2008.

wasnt this lot concocted at the time EASA was almost disbanded, had its knuckes rapped and told to stop trying to re invent the wheel?

What parts are relevant, what do they actually mean legally and who is fighting to overturn this biggest SHAM of all.

Pace

Pace - I am not sure if AOPA is on the trail on this one - they certainly would appear to be with regards the IMCr and EIR.

It might be worth giving them a call and also perhaps AOPA USA would take an interest. Our Euro all things aviation MP Mr Kirkhope (Timothy Kirkhope MEP ? Working for You in the European Parliament) might also be a good bet.

An old fashion petition would also not do any harm if anyone can be bothered to kick it off. Even EASA might feel they need take note of 5,000 or 10,000 pilots opposed to their proposals.

1.a daily record of happenings, as a diary
2.a record of the transactions of a legislature, club, etc.
3.a daily newspaper: often used in newspaper titles
4.any newspaper or periodical, as one dealing with scientific or professional matters

EC/216 2008 is a journal of EASA and not a regulatory document Each page is headed EASA Journal.
( Official Journal of the European Union)

It is a daily as in Jour-nal or continuing "thought publications" NOT a regulatory document.

Can someone give a lead to the regulatory document not the journal which doesnt mean much.

Pace

Pace, I think you might find that 'Journal' can have a very official meaning indeed.

The EU Official Journal is where the EU publishes its legislation. The fact that 216/2008 is a legislative document is clear from its title if you read it:

REGULATION (EC) No 216/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive
2004/36/EC

Article 70 also gives a clue to this fact:
Article 70
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

And you will note the final sign off after Article 70:

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Strasbourg, 20 February 2008.

For the European Parliament
The President
H.-G. PÖTTERING

For the Council
The President
J. LENARČIČ

Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union
The authoritative source of EU law

That is thousands of pages. No wonder people are going around in circles.

Reading 216/2008, this doesn't say that N-reg FAA PPL/IR pilots based here will need to get EASA PPL/IRs.

You don't have to read the 1000s of pages. You have to read Bookworm's short post which quotes and describes how:

• Article 4 of the BR defines the scope of EASA regs to include FRA operated by EU residents
• Article 1 of the FCL Draft Opinion says it applies to the pilots of aircraft defined in Article 4 of the BR
• Article 3 of the FCL Draft Opinion says that pilots defined in Article 1 of the FCL Draft Opinion shall be qualified in accordance with Part FCL and Part Med.

This bundles pilots of EU-registered aircraft and pilots of EU operated FRA into the same bucket. They need EASA Part FCL and Part Med qualifications.

Bookworm posted both the simple text you wanted and the links to the original FCL source. I added the link to the BR source.

The EU law simply isn't constructed in the way you want it to speak to you. It doesn't say specifically that N-reg pilots need EASA IRs, in the same way it doesn't say pilots of EASA-registered aircraft need EASA pilot certficates. The outcome stems from the chain of references Article 4 BR - Article 1 FCL - Article 3 FCL.

Let me put it another way. How could I convince the pilot of a G-registered aircraft that he needs an EASA certificate sometime after 2012? It's exactly the same set of references. He is captured by Article 4 (1) (b) of the BR, and the N-reg guy is captured by Article 4 (1) (c) of the BR.

If you read Part FCL, nowhere does it say "pilots of EASA registered aircraft must have EASA licenses". It refers to aircraft in Article 4 of the BR and the pilots of such aircraft.

brgds
421C

I'm sorry chaps but I just have to throw my little bit in to this argument.

Over the years I have earned:

An FAA ATPR (rated for the DC10)
A CAA (National) ATPL (which keeps my IMC rating current) and
A JAR ATPL

Why don't you just bite the bullet and do your IR with the CAA and get a JAR licence?

I came out of the RAF as a training captain with a Master Green instrument rating and 9,000 hours but none of that meant anything.

I had to take myself to Kidlington and do a very expensive civilian IR in order to get my civilian licence.

If I could do that (as all of us had to) why do you guys think that you are so precious or so very special that you don't have to do what it takes?

Why do you spend so much time and effort trying to beat the system?

Are you just slightly worried about putting your expertise on the line? Who knows, as someone has already suggested, you might even learn something in the process.

I did.

I'm not worried as such about putting my expertise on the line, although my single needle work would probably be a bit rusty I'd have to admit...

It's the structure of the whole thing that annoys me the most, I've just started the JAA IR ground and I was dismayed to find out the that next exams session that can be booked is in December! Why can you only take the exams every other month at one place in the country? OK if you do ATPLs you can take them at Oxford/Glasgow etc but I don't want to take 7 extra exams that I don't need...:ugh:

I probably will take them in two sittings so that is four months from now before I can start the flight training. For the FAA written I studied for a few weeks and then went and sat the exam at Farnborough, I was told the result before I left (rather than having to wait 10 days :ugh:). It just seems absurd that the process of arranging to take an FAA exam in the UK is easier than to take a JAA one. In a sense it doesn't really matter, I'm not working to a tight timetable but when I start something I like to do it in no more time than is necessary. It's not the volume of material as such that I have a problem with, although a lot does seem irrelevant, it's all this stuff like paying for distance learning, having to pay £60 per exam to sit them plus the time scale just seems ridiculous.

The flight training on the other hand I'm actually quite looking forward to...:)

It's a fair comment, but as this is the 'private flying forum' it follows that most on here just fly for fun, and the ATPL exams just are not relevant or practical for someone who simply wants to be able to access the airways system in a single engine tourer. A more practical solution needs to be found in my opinion. The FAA system, regardless what some people here will tell you, does provide a good level of safety and knowledge for IFR flying in Europe - heck, even I managed to operate an N reg King Air and Turbo Commander in Europe using FAA tickets perfectly safely!

I for one have accepted that this route will inevitably close for European Pilots after 2012 and have started on the painful conversion process, but for a private pilot it's simply inpractical. If I were intending only flying for fun I'm pretty sure I'd probably knock it on the head after 2012 when EASA suck the life out of GA.:(

I think you are a million miles from the mark.

I dont believe it has anything to do with putting your expertise on the line. If it did as an FAA IR holder you would take an EASA IR renewal (goodness knows what it will be called) and if you pass, job done. That is sufficient to prove you have maintained the ICAO standard.

In the alternative why dont we devise a system where the typical 10,000 hour ATPL should sit ten exams if he is told by his employer to fly to some tinpot republic, and another ten exams for the republic of Windover, and while we are at it a theory test and a driving test for every country you want to drive a car in.

It is not about proving you can fly to a standard but about jumping through hoops that prove nothing and line the authorities pockets. Many people find the cost of flying privately costly enough without having to fund the regulatory industry; most of the people who post on here fly for pleasure, they dont get paid to fly and it is not their business - which seems so often forgotten.

JW411

I can answer that not as an FAA PPL IR but as a FAA ATP type rated and flying as a Captain on said aircraft for a living.

Firstly I have the licences required to fly what I do and that is FAA N reg jets.
What other licences do I actually require to fly N reg Jets? none of the EASA licences are relevant or have any legal place on a N reg Jet so obviously not EASA licences.

Will I be a better pilot for doing an EASA licence NO that is gained by flying my jet in all kinds of weather and destinations around Europe and the world (I have flown long distance ferries too as far away as the far East, south Africa and the USA)

But thats not the point my licences and experience count for almost nothing in this wonderful EASA land.

Sense would dictate at most a differences exam and flight test to convert.
The IR flight test would be fun and a piece of cake, (never failed a flight test yet!) but where does SENSE ever come into EASA land?

But in EASA land NO. 14 exams 6 months full time study and many thousands of £s to achieve what?

I dont want to fly for a European AOC and over 50 i cannot be asked to start again.

I am all for safety but frankly the latest satistics put FAA PART135 ops as safer than EASA AOC ops with FAA corporate Jets on the same safety level as Airlines with AOC a poor third. (check the figures)

So what is all this about and at what point do we in our industry say NO to this big brother organisation who regulate for the sake of regulating at everyone elses expense just to justify their own artificially constructed jobs.

Pace

JW,

You have got me agreeing with Fuji for once! On the one hand, you are right, if you have to do the JAA stuff, it's doable. But the issue many of us have is the sheer, dismal, sad pointlessness of European over-regulation as it impacts GA.

You may have been happy doing your IR as a pro, but for GA, the European IR is an irrelevance. There are probably 100,000 non-commercial IR holders in the US. How many people have knuckled down to the JAA PPL/IR? I suspect it's in the order of 1000 across all of Europe in the entire history of JAR-FCL.

Is JAA private operation any safer than the US? No. Is Europe difficult and more special? No. I believe the US has greater extremes of terrain and weather and manages a mix of GA and CAT traffic in super-busy TMAs and airports which is inconceivable in Europe. Does American safety suffer or European safety benefit? No.

The people who suffer aren't just the European (potential) pilots denied reasonable access to 'mainstream' (ie. non- light/sport) GA. The US earns billions of dollars in GA exports and sustains (?) 100,000 jobs through GA. What do we have in the UK below the level of Airbus and military hardware? Our centre of GA manufacturing I guess is the Isle of Wight, making a few Islanders a year and assembling Cirrus kits. It's not just manufacturing. Look around many provincial airports. The GA maintenance and ancilliary industries are often in a few rusting hangars amongst the airport property converted to warehouses and call centres and whatnot. Go to an equivalent US airport and you'll find FBOs and specialist GA companies employing hundreds of people in decent quality jobs.

We manage a "playing field" for CAT which enables a pretty efficient and competitive airline sector. Our lowco model seems comparable to the US - we do not seem short of airlines with funny names flying between obscure provincial towns in Europe. That's a good thing for the industry and for pax. Why can't we have a proportionate regulatory environment for GA? It's beyond me.

I've been writing on this thread to explain the EASA process and rules as best I can. Doesn't mean I like it.

(BTW, although I'm an N-reg man, I've done my JAA IR conversion and IRI. All good fun stuff and great people. But the instructors, examiners and what I learned would have been the same without the overlay of JAA cost and paperwork and approvals and other nonsense. It doesn't take £1000 of 'approved' manuals to learn the theory compared to $20 US books or the excellent handbooks the FAA publish for free. The list is endless.)

I think JW411 is completely correct.

The evidence overwhelmingly shows N-reg pilots flying trivial missions, mostly in aircraft so poorly maintained they cannot even cross the British Channel, while British-reg pilots fly the really heavy stuff. No wonder N-reg pilots are afraid of having to submit themselves to the proper and correct morally and intellectually superior European standards. Most of them can't even fly as far as Earls Colne, Wolverhampton, Wycombe, or Biggin.

I think it should be harder still, however. The 14 ATPL exams cannot possibly cover the depth of knowledge required of a pilot choosing to take up residence on British soil.

I give up.

That picture, BTW, is played out all over Europe. That is what is driving the regulation.

421C

Actually I think you will find we have agreed twice on this thread alone! :)

I am not sure whether we still disagree on the EIR, I cant remember where that debate ended.

If I wanted to fly a G registered 747 then I would indeed convert my FAA CPL/IR and add an EASA Type Rating.

However all I want to be able to do is fly my N registered Rockwell Commander to France in the cloud when I feel like it. It would be a bit rich to say the least if an American could fly his RC from England to France in the cloud, yet me being a brit couldn't.

Actually I would anyway, I have JAA PPL+IMC which may become an EIR so I think I have covered myself quite well.

Is the EIR still on the agenda? It wasn't in the Flight Crew Licencing proposals issued last month (or at least I couldn't find it). :confused::confused::confused:

When I didn't see it there, I assumed that it had been dropped? :confused::confused::confused:

The committee charged with the "new EASA IR" as well as the EIR has not quite finished yet, AIUI.

Various bits about the "IR" have come out, like a big reduction in the mandatory dual time, and a small reduction in the exam content, and no change on the medical front.

But the EIR remains a mystery (to me) as to how it will fit in with existing ATC practices and expectations. Somebody told me it would always involve a Z (VFR - IFR - VFR) flight plan, in which case I can kind-of understand it, but others close to the job did not mention that.

I'm sorry chaps if I have offended some of you. As usual, I have failed to convey exactly what I mean so let me try again.

Absolutely no one in the flying game (unless they are completely deranged) enjoys spending money and being examined.

What I was trying to explain was that we all end up having to do whatever it takes to get the job done. I did not enjoy spending a lot of money when I came out of the RAF getting an IR which did not really improve upon the skills that I had already been using for 18 years.

BUT IT HAD TO BE DONE.

Without the CAA ATPL I was not going to get a job.

A bit later in my life I was offered a job flying DC-10s in the USA (Part 121) but I had to get an FAA ATR. I did not particularly enjoy the experience.

BUT IT HAD TO BE DONE.

When I came back to flying in Europe, JARs came along and my company insisted that I had to take out a JAR ATPL. You have already guessed what is coming next.

IT HAD TO BE DONE.

I certainly do not wish to decry anyone's license or ability. The CAA license is without doubt the most difficult to get and the process undoubtedly contains more bull!!!!! than any of the others (does anyone else remember the lighting requirements of an airship moored at its mast at night with the rudder disabled?).

On the other hand, the FAA license was an absolute breeze. The bull!!!!! factor was a lot lower and the FAA attitude towards flying was much more practical.

However, all I was trying to say was that there are a lot of things in life that we have to do to tick the necessary boxes. Let us look at this from a private flyer's position in the UK.

You need to ask yourself a very basic question. Do I need (really need) to have an IR? Perhaps an IMC rating would do? Perhaps I don't really need either?

If an IR is absolutely essential to you and you want to use it on a G-registered aeroplane, then perhaps you should invest in a CAA IR. I know it costs money but that takes me back to the original question "do I really need an IR"?

PERHAPS IT HAS TO BE DONE

The bull!!!!! factor might be quite high but I would really not worry about the examiners. I only ever met one CAFU examiner that got up my nose in a major way and I only had to put up with him for one week in the "Tony Angel HS125 simulator" when I was on the IRE course.

The rest of them have been absolutely fine and supportive. (I can even remember one chap telling me not to worry about temporarily busting a limit "I can always choose when to be looking in any particular direction").

So, having parted with a fair amount of dosh, you will have your CAA IR in your hand and it is highly unlikely that you will ever have to fly with a CAFU chap ever again.

Alternatively, you could decide that it would be easier (and cheaper) to do a simpler FAA IR course and then look forward to:

1. Re-registering your machine on to a foreign register.
2. Organising a maintenance organisation to look after your aircraft on the new register.
3. Finding a foreign-qualified IR examiner to do your IR renewal every year.
4. Finding an AME who can issue FAA medicals as well as CAA ones (Mine does).
5. Face the possibility of explaining to a ramp-checker in Albania whose English is somewhat limited that your aircraft is not actually yours but is owned by a trust in Delaware.
6. Constantly trying to stay one step ahead of the inevitable outcome of EASA banning foreign registered aircraft.

To me, such an option is ridiculous and has absolutely no future for you will never beat the system in the final analysis.

SOMETIMES IT HAS TO BE DONE

I bit the bullet and got every license (and several validations) that I needed. I didn't like it but it had to be done. I am sure that it was the cheaper option in the end.

Was it Confucius who said "if rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it"!

Well, yes, right now there are very few reasons for doing the FAA IR unless you already own an N-reg plane.

But then you have powerful reasons for staying with it:

A transfer to G is going to cost between £5000 and £10000 and that is if nothing goes wrong.

Especially if it is a "nice" plane, and the majority of N-reg planes are indeed "nice" (which probably doesn't help the politics of envy angle...).

And EASA is not currently proposing kicking out N-reg airframes (it would be extremely hard to do, as others have found before) which is yet another reason why continued N-reg operation is worth examining closely.

We shall see what happens.

Whenever I have acted out of fear, I always lost money :)

There is anotherv saying which ties in with yours " Descisions made through fear are always wrong those made through your instincts are always right.
The tricky bit is working out what are your instincts and what are your fears"

JW11

The day this lot goes into law and cannot be challenged in law is the day when we can decide whether to be raped and lie back to enjoy it until then we should do everything to fight the Bast+rd off.

Pace

IO540:

But your aeroplane was already on the G-register!

I agree that getting it back on to the G-register would not be cheap for several waves (if not a sunami) will undoubtedly be made by the CAA about the time that it has been off the G-register.

I know of one chap who found his aeroplane quite worthless when he tried to revert and he could not prove that every single mod had been done, not just when it had been N-registered, but before that when it was on the CAA register.

Thus, it could be that you will have to fly the Atlantic in Tin Tac to flog it in the US of A one day but don't expect the local FAA guy to accept as "sight unseen" either.

I wish I could offer an alternative policy but, at the end of the day, you and I are going to be stuck with whatever the European Authorities decide.

"Whenever I have acted out of fear, I always LOST money".

Is this all about money Peter? I doubt it. You should have courage in your own ability for you are surely no idiot in my opinion. I know you to be a good planner and your plans usually work out well.

If you were ever to ask for my advice, I would say go for a CAA IR. I know you will have to bite your tongue on occasion but I have little doubt that you would hack it and then you would be qualified on both sides of the fence.

In the end, it would be the cheaper option.

1. no problem - FAA IA lives in the hangar opposite
2. no problem - see above
3. not applicable - rolling currency, plenty of CFIIs around
4. no problem - He does my JAR one and charges me £20 for the FAA class 2
5. not an issue if the paperwork is in order
6. that is the only problem, for no good reason.

I think we can all guess the real reasons but anyone know the official reasons given for requiring resident Europeans to hold licences which have no relevance or bearing on the aircraft being flown?

Just wondered what the "official" spin is on this?

Pace

Pace

In some ways the official spin is easy - we expect to have legislative control over our own people - in other words if you live here, then, rightly, you should be subject to our laws, not those of a country the other side of the globe.

That is not unreasonable.

However given the current status quo it is unreasonable that those already operating in the existing legislative climate do not have a realstic mechanism for converting their existing licences.

(I appreciate that if they did it still would sound the death knell for new pilots obtaining a private EASA IR unless the requirements are relaxed, but that is yet another matter)

But forcing European residents does not give legislative control as those licences have no bearing to an FAA aircraft.

If you hold an EASA ATP you cannot legally earn an income flying an N reg Jet if you as the Captain crash that N reg Jet its the FAA licences which will be checked not your EASA licences, its the FAA who will have control over their aircraft not EASA.

Yes EASA may have the power to legislate that you must hold a marine boat handling certificate to fly N reg aircraft and it might as well be a marine boat handlling cetificate but that has no bearing on flying the aircraft The EASA licences have NO bearing whatsoever. If something goes wrong the buck stops with the FAA.

So really this has no meaning other than a back door attempt at a legal move to try and curb the use of foreign reg aircraft based in Europe.
It is a loophole EASA hope they have found but gives them NO control in that sense.
If so what EASA licences do i need to fly a Business jet which in FAA land can be flown on a PPL IR? I cannot accept money using an EASA licence so in law that licence would have no meaning. Just think it through!

Various European countries have tried to stop N reg in the past and failed so I presume some clever legal Eagle has suggested this! Whether it would stand up to legal scrutiny would be up to the courts to decide.
My gut instincts are that as in the past It is flawed in a number of areas and there is a legal battle to be had if someone takes it on?

but that is the BIG question will someone take it on or have the money time and motivation to do so ?

Pace

but it would. Caught in the cockpit of a N reg without an EASA license and EASA would be able to prosecute.

And maybe thats the way to go for a challenge in the courts??? let them?

Based on the fact that purely on your colour or creed that you are not allowed to fly this aircraft! Unless you hold licences which have no relevance and are not themselves legal to use to fly an FAA reg jet. Other pilots of other nations are not expected to comply hence discrimination.

Your Honour purely based on this guys race we demand he holds a Marine boat handling licence to fly a N reg jet which he holds full licences to fly and is approved to fly by the controlling country. Our licences are totally illegal used on this aircraft and have no bearing to that aircraft but we expect him to have them anyway although they dont mean a thing on N reg and might as well be Marine boat handling licences for what they are worth! But we consider our licences to be superior although we have to admit that statistics dont back that up. Infact private op FAA corporate jet aircraft have a better safety record than our own controlled AOC aircraft :ugh:

I am not as convinced as some of us that this latest attempt isnt as legally flawed as previous attempts but if it ever hits the light of day it needs to be challenged but preferably before it hits the light of day.

Pace

Ignoring the issue of insurance, which of course is a big issue, what is the penalty for flying an aircraft without the correct easa licence. Frequently the enforcement action is suspension of your licence.