Byebye EASA hello FAA
 

As result of the current attacks on the last remaining bit of general aviation in Europe:
I honestly believe that this dispute between pilots and the FAA and between pilots and EASA is bad publicity for the current rules of EASA and actually promotes FAA. I am really irritated buy the fact that easa is killing general aviation in Europe with their burocratic mentality.
Because of this I will out of protest de-register from the European register! I will not be grounded because of these incompetent non aviation-minded ....have no words for it! so,
This summer yet another N-registered beech will soar the european skies!

Bye-bye EASA! Hello FAA!

Then I can finally have my European licenses lapse, and save some money for fuel!............and ACTUALLY FLY MY BEECH!!!!!

Who joins this new political party

I think there are plenty of limitations on FAA pilots coming their way, thanks to EASA.

What is needed is common sense in Brussels as to the self fulfilling prophecy of EASA and the self centeredness of the organization.

They are an undisputed disgrace to the EU

(this is coming from a pro EU person)

The day one embraces the FAA for simplicity and function is a sad day, indeed.

The second greatest lie ever told was "Hello! I'm from the FAA, and I'm here to help you!'

(The first involves a vacuum cleaner. I'm not really sure how it goes, but it sucks).

When we find EASA hiding in the wings, waiting for the crew to show up, spying on the preflight and writing people up for their stupid hunter-orange glow-in-the-dark, we-can-see-you-from-space suit, who can't tell a drain-hole from a bullet hole, and who grade people on a ramp check based on their manner of dress, they begin to compete with the FAA for confusion and professionalism.

How can you tell the person approaching you on the ramp is FAA? Look for mismatched socks.

I think you'll have a very long wait!

This from a very non pro EU person.

If you think the FAA are bad, I'd like to see how you Americans would react to EASA.

You have lower maintenance costs, lower flying costs, vastly more accessible licensing, common-sense thinking combined with a can-do spirit in most areas and sensible and safe airspace structuring.

We in the United States of EASA-land don't have any of those things.

So appreciate what you've got :suspect:

Smithy

Proletariat
Aviation Republique Socialist EASA - United Peasants (ARSE-UP)

Miroku

We have an elected body in Europe.

What has failed miserably are the bodies who claim to represent us (like AOPA). They may have shouted and screamed perhaps within subcommittees and on forums, but they have most certainly failed to wake up the legislators in Brussels and that should have been their task, full stop.

Now I ll go and hide under my blue gold-star studded spread and await all AOPA-ists and the like coming here to proclaim how well they fought EASA and how the failure to win the battle was not their fault....

Perhaps it s not surprising many pilots are not a member

AfricanBP,

A few moments reflection before you start painting the N number on your tail is advised.

I'm no expert, but reading Martin Robinson's words in the AOPA mag I get the sense that Europe won't permit alien registry a/c to be domiciled in Europe.

Others will either confirm or deny the notion but I'd check out if your paint can be easily removed.

Sir George Cayley

What really failed was when some prat was allowed out his padded cell to sign us up to this horrendous mess in the first place.

His name was Edward Heath. He later confessed he had to lie to the public (~1973) because they would have never voted Yes if they were told the truth. It was obvious to anybody with intelligence that a "common market" would eventually lead to a central European government, simply because there was a number of countries with poor working conditions (Spain, etc) who would "unfairly" compete with the high labour cost ones like Germany.

On current EASA proposals you can be N-reg and based in the EU but you will still need to have valid EASA papers, unless you (the operator) live outside the EU (e.g. Jersey, Croatia, etc). So if you fly just VFR, keep your EU license+medical valid.

van Horck, don't know you, don't want to offend you but you are talking !!!!E. Why the hell should AOPA have to fight an organisation that purports to represent European air safety? There is nothing good about the EU and EASA is the crowning !!!! in the woodpile. Britain needs to tell both to f**k off and start undoing the damage that's already been done.

Io 540
 

Heath had me absolutely conned.

I voted for free trade in Europe and we were totally stuffed.

I've mostly voted left of right or middle but start to believe I was seriously wrong.

We ony see it when it's too late:(

Thread drift.......
 

My second favourite American.



The first is here.

Prince William County - Government / Police Department / About Us

Hi mr van horck,

I see you live in the land of limitations, I live in a land of opportunities!

I like to see people fly. You like to see people grounded!

You chose what is best for you and I will chose mine.

If easa wants me to keep my easa license....while I fly my n-registered plane...isn't this against ICAO rules! I don't live in Europe but I do have a plane stationed there...what are they going to do....honestly...you tell me how easa is going to control this...they can't even get they own affairs straight!

Easa will never touch FAA....never! They like shout...that's all!

In Belgium there used to be about 3500 OO- registered aircraft back in the nineties, now it's down to about 1200....do you really think these aircraft have vanished? They are still there...just flying under a different register.

If you don't live in Europe, I can't see how EASA will get you.

They cannot stop foreigners flying in and out of Europe.

This leads to the obvious question as to how do you define somebody resident or not. Clearly there are clear cases, but there are many people on the margins, who just move around. If you have a house in Jersey or Croatia and have documents from there, it will be impossible to show you are EU resident - especially within the very limited framework which will exist for policing this utter crap.

The real issue will be insurance. That would be my #1 #2 and #3 issue to get 100% confirmed. If the insurer is happy, you are good to go regardless of anything else, because IMHO there will be no policing unless you go out of your way to p*ss somebody off.

Of course, every insurance policy will stipulate that the flight must be "legal" etc. I think any grey areas on this one are dealt with by making a very full disclosure to the insurer.

vanHorck, IAOPA do now have a representative who sits on the latest EASA invention, the EASA part-FCL Partner Group. The chief aim of the group will be to highlight existing problems inflicted by FCL.001 and to propose solutions which FCL.002 will then have to turn into actions.

The part-FCL PG is chaired not by EASA, but by a representative from a national aviation authority....

Yours, in fact. Matthieu Burgers. A breath of fresh air with liberal views, who seeks 'creative solutions' and is very well aware of the problems caused by many aspects of FCL.001.

IO5.. I don't think I made my point clear.

The residency refers to the a/c not the person owning it.

Not sure of the criteria, but it'll be something like " if it's operating in Europe for x many days...."

Remember how assiduously the French chased visitors for VAT payments evidence a few years ago?

Sir George Cayley

Actually I think you'll find EASA are going the other way as IO says - Aircraft registration not a problem, but EU resident must hold an EU licence to operate it.

No one is up to that task. You need to understand how governments work. Most legislation is secondary, i.e. regulations drafted by ministers, government departments, organisations like EASA. Most has to go before parliament but is subject to a negative resolution procedure, which means that it becomes law unless parliament votes against it. The parliament has no power to amend: it can either let it through or block it completely. The UK and European parliaments are much the same in this respect.

Politicians are for the most part not interested in the detail of legislation. They could not care less unless it affects their ability to pursue their own political agendas and to get re-elected, these two things being closely connected. Politicians become interested when their hold on power is weakened by events around them. So, a large migration of companies out of the EU, with consequent job losses due to a piece of legislation, would cause them to wake up. France might actually take an interest if EADS Socata told their govenrment that the sale of their flagship aircraft would be adversely affected by the proposals regarding N reg in PART FCL. They would be even more concerned if they thought that this might give the US an economic advantage. Politicians facing business closures and job losses in their constituencies will alway wake up. Subject to this though, the removal of the ability of EU residents to fly N reg is not even on their radar.

Fundamentally though there is a difference in ethos between the bulk of europe and the Anglo Saxon countries. In europe, the rule is that things are only permitted to the extent that regulations say they are. In the UK things are allowed unless they are specifically prohibited. European politicians see their god given role as being the generation of more rules to regulate the public's lives and generally the response to failed rules is not to remove them but to create even more rules. In general the public support this since regulation removes from them the responsibility for their own actions. That is why there are riots in France when the government tries to raise the state retirement age to 62! In Europe for years the legal professions have been concerned at the inroads made by large UK and US law firms, which have fewer restrictions on the way that they practice and which have increased their market share in international company, corporate and transactional busines. The European response is not to remove rules on their national professions so that they can compete but to try and restrict the competition.

It is easy to see why the aviation community feels singled out, but in fact this process is the result of a democratic deficit which affects the whole of Europe and everything it does. The reality is that the rule making process of people like EASA and the Commission is very difficult to stop or even control because the structures are just not there. Remember, the parliament contains politicians who still think it is important to legislate on the shape of a banana :ugh:

I am 100.000% certain this has happened already, because I know Socata top management are fully aware of the details. Which is a very puzzling thing. They are quite casual about it, overtly. Yet there is no way France will allow Daher/EADS TBM850 and various Dassault jet sales to be crippled by EASA. What they are going to do about it will be a very interesting thing to watch, over the next few years!

I can only assume France has received under the table assurances from EASA and EU officials that this whole thing is no more than a charade to drive the FAA to sign a BASA covering a pile of airline related matters, and will be dropped regardless at the end. Everything I hear from the EU, and what I have heard from a top EASA official, points to such a policy.
There is no such "long term parking limit" (which is the only way to define it) in any of the proposals. That was tried by the French in 2004 and by the Brits in 2005, and abandoned like hot potatoes. There are several easy work-arounds for any possible such proposal; some obvious and some less obvious (and I am not writing about any of them, just in case ;) ).

Basically, a parking limit cannot be implemented in any civilised law-respecting country. In other countries (which make up the majority of countries around the world) they are implemented by harrassment of the operator, requiring him to pay "fines" and generally pay bigger and bigger bribes to local officials, give longer and longer notice to fly somewhere, and after a while he gets the message.

Of course if you heard it, then you can be damn sure that the FAA and US government have heard it too, which means that the threat that EASA is making is nullified and this is a pointless exercise.

A thread is of no use, unless the other party believes that you intend to carry it out.

Of course :)

But my opinion, or a belief that I heard something, or even me saying that a top EASA official told me something, is worth only what you are paying for it.

What matters is the overt posture of the EU as seen by US politicians. Most of them look only at "major vote swaying" issues (same as here).

Which does not mean I will just sit there. As of today I am 20kg heavier and £1000 lighter ;)

Nope, still not right. My understanding is that if the OPERATOR is EU resident or established in the EU then the CREW must hold an EU licence or a foreign licence that has been rendered valid. The proposal is that this "rendering valid" will have a max duration of one year. No-one gives a monkey's what the nationality or residence of the pilot is and of course there is no requirement for the operator to hold any sort of licence (except perhaps an AOC).

Quite how you define "operator", "resident" and "established" is still a mystery and I suspect the lawyers are utterly clueless. Having been welcomed on board "This AAA Airways flight to ABC operated by BBB Airways on behalf of CCC Airways" it's clear to me that the whole thing resembles the entance to an old coaching inn, designed to allow the passage of a coach and horses.

Any N Reg is by definition US owned (typically by a trust). Quite how they propose to prevent that trust being the operator is something I don't quite follow.

Of course for an AOC flight they have no problem, the "operator" will be the holder of the AOC under which the flight is being operated.

I agree with Mike above.

It really does hang on the definitions, and we haven't seen those at all. Not a hint, not a clue (that I have heard).

And as I have written, it isn't going to be easy to come up with clear definitions which catch any significant part of the foreign reg fleet - not least because it will be trivial to set up a 100% bona fide non EU operator for much of it (though not for ordinary private owners like myself).

Assuming the EU is driving this to genuinely screw the FRA fleet (rather than to p1ss off the USA into signing some treaty; a tactic which might work with Upper Volta but is unlikely to work with the USA) they will fail in screwing the most provocative part of it which is the upper end of it.

I have this great moneymaking idea for nations:

Talk to the people at the registry in Isle Of Man for instance, make them accept all aircrafts as registrants regardless of where they live. Let the aircrafts on the registry be serviced to both EASA and FAA and or any ICAO compliant standard. Let them be flown by anyone with an ICAO standard pilots license. Charge $1000 a year for it. Make billions.

I wish Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino, jersey, Gibraltar, monaco would do such thing and accept all ICAO licenses (mechanics and pilots).
The pity of the isle of man is that they don't accept small aircraft, and it would have to be at least a king-air size aircraft. I think it will also be more than a thousand euros a year!

Still for me only FAA works out.

N-Registration cost 5 usd!
Trust 200 euro/ year.
Insurance 560 euro/ year.

FAA doesn't charge you like the EU. How much does is cost anyway to register nowadays in Europe? Surely it's more that 5 euros.

M-reg would not protect a straightforward private owner unless he actually lives on the IOM.

San Marino is a new registry which, like the IOM, accepts FAA certification and FCL, but I don't think this helps. I can't see they can issue JAR-FCL papers. Also they are pricey - 15k euros initial charge. But it does give you a Denmark-like VAT advantage, although at the 15k up front hit it is even more expensive than that Danish lawyer :)

However, all it will take is for one EU country to convert ICAO papers into its own, post-2012, and that will solve the problem. It will p1ss off EASA but whether anything happens will depend on what sanctions they can apply. Also they won't find out for a while. Ireland used to convert FAA ATPLs into Irish JAR-FCL ones, for (I am told) about 3 years before that was shut down.