MJ,

Why do you believe the FAA does not want an FCL bilateral agreement? The current JAA->FAA process is pretty simple and the Canadian bilateral seems even more straight forward. The previous Congress was very protectionist in certain areas, but the FAA (who needs to do the agreeing of any annex) had come up with a sensible BASA. Which was approved as soon as a more pro business Congress came into power. The issue of FCL has very little downside from the FAA perspective.

I can understand why Europe might want a complex process as they seem to have an economically uncompetitive training environment and protection rather than reform could logically be the strategy of choice.

One thing I am sure of is that what we have on the plate now will not be what we have on the plate by 2014.
Reasons for that?

One my contact on the EASA negotiating team advices me to do nothing re licence conversion.

The FAA are putting Big names into negotiations in June and both sides are active in adding a FCL Bi Lateral to the existing Bi lateral signed up months back.

What will that Bi Lateral Be? I am equally sure it will NOT be give me your licence here is mine ;(

Should all that hit a brick wall EASA are still faced with Laws which they know are flawed (fact)and will not take testing in the EC courts.

If they still want the existing to work they will have to make some pretty big allowances or scrap the whole dual licencing thing.

The sad fact is that EASA had a chance of bringing both systems much closer than they are now but inisted on clinging onto a complex and expensive way.
They could have copied the FAA system with a few changes and saved the tax payers a fortune but instead have regulated to strangle the industry.
There is No evidence that Pilots trained in Europe are any better than those trained under the FAA system so why?
Partly the eastern influence of control and wanting people to fly in people carriers not GA. That part AOC OPS have missed EASA are not their friend either.

But lets give them the benefit of the doubt and see if they really are true to their word before part 2 the courts!

Pace

MJ I generally like your posts, and you are highly experienced, obviously, but I agree with Peter here and I believe you are way off beam on this one.

Individuals do not flock to the FAA system to dodge rules or manoeuvre a safety issue. My experience is the opposite where I have encountered more safety related issues under EASA/CAA, than I have ever under FAR.

The FAA system, whilst not perfect, is logical, structured, user friendly, and most importantly of all, customer focused. My recent experience.

The current shift change at EASA is utter bollox. You know it, we all know it. Digging at N reg is not helpful, clever, not warranted.

My view on it.

max at no point recently have I had a dig at N reg for either mait standards or pilot quality. There are just as many crap JAR pilots as there are FAA percentage wise.

And I don't have a problem at all with a bi-lateral 1 for 1 agreement on the FCL side of things. But with 12 month IR checks on multi engined aircraft.

The thing I argue about is that it is going to happen whatever people think and say about legal cases etc etc.

The reason why I don't think any thing will happen is two fold. They won't want to give a 1 to 1 with the licenses. And that will be very hard to get a compromise.

The second reason if they do compromise is that all the changes are going to be lumped in with a deal on annex 7 rights. Now even if they do get this sort once it gets into the realms of senate and the like the american lobbyists will have already kicked into gear. The none transatlantic airlines will not want annnex 7 rights for european carriers or for that matter any none american carrier and will try and scupper it.

If they did a seperate FCL/Engineering bi-lateral they might have a chance of getting it through, but only a small chance if the shall we say more nationalistic politicians don't get a wiff that america had to compromise in any shape or form. If they do it will crash as well. Add in annex 7 and its going to have a very rough trip through senate which I don't think it will survive. The FAA and EASA may be both all in favour with the deal but it won't get past.

To be honest there is nothing in it for the amercians to keep the european N scene going. Why should they compromise?

PS I might have got my annex 7 and annex 9 muddled up.

The BASA is there, ratified, and the politicians have had their say (which is why it took so long). It's now up to the FAA and EASA to agree an Annex on licensing.

Is that in both Eu and the US bookworm or does it still have to be ratified in the US?

To change the FAR's which would be required for the deal to go through wouldn't it have to go through both houses in the US?

... with "input" from vested interests on both sides :)

As already mentioned, the FAA has little to lose by supporting this. The USA already has a very good system, and it allows anybody to fly an N-reg plane, worldwide, on any foreign license/rating, so long as it was issued by the owner of the airspace (FAR 61.3). It also allows all foreign training, in any certified aircraft, with any correctly rated instructor, towards any US license or a rating, right up to the ATP (with some trivial exceptions). This is an extremely generous policy which has made it much easier for non-US pilots to get US papers because their European training has been fully utilised.

But Europe has a lot to lose. The pilot training and component / airframe / modification certifications systems hang largely on protectionist and job-creating practices. The FTOs are scared of hordes of highly cost-sensitive ATP cadets clearing off to do FAA CPL/IRs in the USA. So it is at this end one can expect big trouble.

I could be wrong, but only if the EU gets a big enough prize elsewhere. But I can't see any prize to be had in these areas.

If we do get a bilateral agreement then, as I've said before, it won't be anything like a straight paper swap. It may be stuff like acceptance of US training logbook entries...

yes your right Peter especially as the US has absolutely no reason to compromise in regards to FCL. And why should it?

The EU negotiating team may think they are in a good position because they have a huge remit to offer but if the US says thanks but no thanks we are quite happy with things as they are they are stumped. And they can't go back if they haven't actually recieved any compromise in return because they will be accused of taking one where the sun don't shine from uncle sam yet again.

There is no need to change 14 CFR, it is already ready for a FCL BASA


§ 61.71 Graduates of an approved training program other than under this part: Special rules.
...

(c) A person who holds a foreign pilot license and is applying for an equivalent U.S. pilot certificate on the basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement and associated Implementation Procedures for Licensing is considered to have met the applicable aeronautical experience, aeronautical knowledge, and areas of operation requirements of this part.


Regards,

Frac

Peter

I dont disagree with you on much but you are wrong here it has already happened!!!

Our most famous flight school at Oxford no longer flight trains it pilots they all go to Arizona and have done for some time.

Cranfield has gone bust!!

All that happens now in the UK is ground and sim training and sim is mostly US owned.
We have already priced ourselves out of the market! Dead, Capput GONE!!!

They do JAA and or FAA in the states.
Even sims are based on good old dollar price structures

Pace

What is the 'painfull' compromise on FCL the US needs to make?

If the deal in the EU negotiators mind is - We will let your pilots get our licences if you let our airlines provide domestic US service, then I would agree. But that is a much much broader negotiation than an FCL Annex (and quite a pish take as well).

Pace

You can build hours in the USA and you can train the CPL out there too, but you cannot train any of the 55+hrs (or whatever it actually takes under the CBM IR, if that ever comes) towards the IR in the USA. This prevents one doing the full ATPL package out there.

Cabair going bust is not relevant because it won't reduce the demand. The extra students (plus those who can recover from having lost 5 figures to the shysters) will go to other FTOs who are obviously rubbing their hands.

Silvaire1
Well that's very true :)

But I think the FAA does need to talk to EASA.

One reason is that while the FAA has happily sat there for decades, looking after the domestic US scene, and implicitly exporting its regime around the world, EASA has been very busy selling its gold plated job-creating system all over the place, to some far away places which are now adopting Part M (believe it or not).

I was at a Eurocontrol seminar a few years ago and the speaker cleared off very quickly afterwards, for 2 reasons: 1) to avoid answering questions and 2) because he was off the Venezuela to "show them how to do it". I have no idea if he was successful but clearly the Eurocrats are nibbling around the edges of the traditional FAA territory.

mm_flynn

I reckon it is something like that... a bit like the "Saddam Hussein extra mile" :) EASA will ensure that the FAA cannot agree to it, and they can then pretend to claim the moral high ground and shaft everybody.

Like I keep saying, just looking at the politics (forget aviation) I cannot see EASA giving up the present gold plated system unless they can get a massive prize in return and I can't see what that might be, and still fall within what can be stuffed into the current BASA annex.

You are collecting those oil filters for subsequent ingestion, Peter, right? You need a choice of filter. I'd want it to be a clean one with no serious particulates. Metal chips and teeth just don't mix. ;)

But ok if wrapped in Pink Underpants...;)

My oil filters are spotless.

I have my own proper tool for cutting them open and I do it myself. Never seen a single particle of metal - not even ally :)

I know you are privy to a certain level of inside info, bookworm, but we shall see :)

Peter


Bookworm Has more inside info than me but I have some:O
We both appear to be singing roughly the same tune!
But as they say the show is not over till the fat lady sings and there is plenty of singing still to go !
My advice do nothing on conversion yet !
If it all goes Pear shaped there is always a solid option of a legal challenge but I don't think it will ever have to come to that !

Pace

I have no "inside info" at all. I know that the FAA and EASA are in discussion on the topic, and I know there's the 2012 US/Europe International Aviation Safety Conference in June. I suspect we'll find out more after that.

Given that the 15hr conversion route does not appear to be disappearing now, or (in the UK) after July, I would concur.

The factors which would make me suggest people buy their anti-EASA insurance sooner would be

1) Ending of the 15hr conversion route

2) New exam TK with no QB :eek: :eek: :eek:

3) Some other nasty like a ban on IR training or IRTs in an N-reg (possible currently only in the UK and, I gather, in Belgium, from vague memory of some very recent info). There are multiple scenarios here which I won't go into (don't want to give the usual idiots any ideas) but suffice to say it would result in every owner simply going to Spain or Greece, which is probably a sufficient regulatory disincentive :)

Currently we have known derogations in UK (2yrs), Germany (1yr), France (2yrs) and the Netherlands one I am waiting for a "CAA" URL on.

I have rarely known such heartfelt predictions to be made on PPRuNe with Pace and perhaps Bookie and Peterh337 on one side of the fence, BoseX and 421C on the other.

Potentially the next few months will prove interesting in terms of seeing just how this mess unfolds. If I were to make a prediction it would only be that I dont think we will see an end any time soon - yet more evidence that the whole process is terribly flawed.

Germany seems to have gone for the 1-year horizontal derogation for all of EASA FCL and MED.

That takes care of perhaps the majority of European "higher end" (i.e. potentially N-reg) GA community.

or much later for that matter, IMHO. The structural issue is not easily solved.

I assure you that you can't squeeze a piece of paper between my and C421's thoughts on the issue, let alone a fence. :)

And what are they?

Are we all going to get arrested at 0915Z tomorrow?

Fuji, could you tell me what my prediction is that puts me on whatever side of the fence you say I am on?
421C

For eating an oil filter? No, it's a bit weird but AFAIK it's not against the law. ;)

So, the legal stance seems to be this.

1. Check with your local CAA as to what they specify in terms of the regs, conversion procedures or grandfather rights. You will need this in writing from them.

2. As per point 1 if they are not giving a straightforward conversion FAA to EASA such as a one time differences exam, then you need to work out your loss of earnings for the rest of your career.

3. When financial loss is calculated you would apparantly have a very strong case to take forwards to the ECHR, especially if you have been working for many years on a non european licence (law of precedent )

I would suggest if this is the case then we should get as many affected Pilots / Businesses involved as possible. Let's work together and win !

Thomas,

It is a little early for that, given no NAA seems to know what is going on for the medium term and more generally, the NAA's have until several months into the future to decide if they have or have not implementing any of these now. So it is impossible to know the law of the land applicable Today in most EU countries (with respect to this specific subject).

In a few months we will have a much clearer picture of who is doing what, when and may well have some visible progress/or lack of progress on resolving some of the many loose ends.

IANAL, but with regard to loss in any damages case you need to take action to mitigate the loss. For the vast majority of pilots this can 'easily' be done simply through the expenditure of less than several 10s of thousands of Euros and a year or two of training and testing.

I believe strongly in licence recognition as nothing else makes any sense.
Aviation knows no boundaries and pilots should be able to work freely worldwide.
It is absolute madness that I can fly across Europe as a Captain in a jet at present but all of a sudden because of some regulators who are not regulating to their mandate of safety I would be required to hold licences which have no bearing or relevance to the aircraft I am flying.
This is protectionism of the worst kind and should have no bearing in a modern world.

Licence recognition HAS to come and the only way that can happen is by convergence of licencing standards.

Hear EASA have failed our industry massively as they had the opportunity of regulating to bringing European standards in line with the FAA but instead went off trying to reinvent the wheel.
Mad Jock inadvertently hit on a point that it was not right that so many foreign registered aircraft should be Europe based yet controlled from 2000 miles away!
That point has some merit!

In a free market society which we are supposed to be although I am starting to doubt that! The normal way to compete is to offer something which is more attractive than your competitor.
There are reasons why so many N reg are Europe based.

EASA could have got rid of N reg by putting something equally or more attractive in place.

This is nothing I know but a bi lateral could be dual control over 3rd country aircraft which are foreign based.

The FAA could give EASA control rights over foreign based aircraft which in itself would negate the need for dual licences.

I wonder if a Bi Lateral may be something along those lines rather than licence convergence and acceptance.

Sadly licence convergence and acceptance should be the way forward but EASA have missed their chance unless there is some real give and take with the FAA.

As for a legal challenge should all fail I would imagine this would be brought by AOPA and not financed by an individual.

Pace

As an AOPA member I would be veyr unhappy if my membership fees were used to fight a court case on behalf of people who have had over five years to convert licences to meet the regulations of their home country and refuse to do so because it is inconvenient or to much like hard work.

I am dual licenced so happy to take over any of the job vacancies that will arise from those who refuse to comply.......:p:p:p

What happened to the N-Flyers group: http://www.november.aero/ ?
No update on their site since Sep '11?

Of course, but this has been known to everybody and their dog for much longer than EASA has been around.

JAA officials openly admitted (in presentations etc) that they knew this, and let's face it everybody knows this :ugh:

But protectionism rules in Europe, and that's the end of it. JAA never had any legal authority. EASA (via EU directives) does have the authority but they blew it (again, because of protectionism at various levels; not just FCL but certification) and instead brought in a weird vague legal framework which merely increases the FUD element which for all the preceeding years has been the principal lid on the expansion of the N-reg community.

FUD does work pretty well and costs very little. There is a blog out there of a Bonanza owner who went N-reg and started on the FAA IR, then read about the 2005 DfT proposal and got scared and blew away some 4 or 5 digits to go back on G and gave up on the IR. He could have had 7 years of priceless IFR mission capability and enhanced safety, with at least 2 more to go....

EASA (as every other EU agency) is carefully set up to resist traditional industry pressure (which is how they managed to bring in crap like ROHS, despite protests from multi billion electronics manufacturers) but it remains vulnerable lower down because all the committees are stuffed with the same people who run national CAAs and training operations. That's why I am pessimistic on the good stuff; it is vulnerable to sufficient gold plating to make it all but worthless.

As an AOPA member with the same rights as you I maybe unhappy with my fees defending you in a court case should one ever arise :E
AOPA should defend the interests of all it members regardless of colour or creed.
We have NOT had five years to meet the regulations of this country.
Remember what is on the plate now is NOT EASAs preferred route and is only the route they threaten to take should a Bi Lateral fail.
I also repeat the regulations on the plate at present are legally flawed which EASA realise.
I am equally sure Bi Lateral or no Bi Lateral what will be on the plate in 2014 will not be whats on the plate now.

Bose you maybe lucky enough to be dual licensed but did you do the conventional route to your European licences or jump through an existing loophole? I have nothing against that other than those people who did taking a holier than thou attitude!
I was so close to going through the Irish loophole which many did myself!


Pace

Quite true; also some people don't have to work for a living since they got paid off from a nice IT project ;)

Bose

I most certainly was not trying to discredit you and thanks for clearing that point up.
As stated even if you had jumped through a loophole which many have I have nothing against that neither would I have considered you a lesser pilot.
A lot with me is the principal which I do not agree with so it would be a bitter pill to chew getting licences which hold no practical relevance to the aircraft I fly and will add needless costs to me in money and time to do what I already do.
It maybe that by the end of this year I have to go the EASA way but the right way even if it does not happen now has to be global recognition and standardisation of licences and that is my principal.
EASA had a golden opportunity of doing just that while saving the industry a fortune and failed to do so.


Pace

But I think thats where the problem lies. Your principal is flawed in my humble opinion.

You chose what was perceived and easier and cheaper system. Cheaper because it is paid for by tax payers in another country. A system that you only take from. European philosophy is to protect its citizens and that includes the flight training and regulatory industry. So they are well within their rights to insist that as a European resident and tax payer you participate in the regime over here.

This is nothing to do with safety or recognition of licences, it is about protectionism. EASA are not saying that they don't recognise your licence, just that they want you to have one of theirs as well so that you have passed through the same system as everyone else. This is no different from what any other country does. Everywhere I have worked I have had to convert my licence to that countries. The complexity of conversion has been different every time. EASA have chosen to make it appear to be more difficult than it needs to be, but that is their choice and European law. So you are faced with either complying, leaving or giving up. Or if you really think your human rights are being abused take them to court. Personally I think you would only be able to claim that if you were prevented from working, which you are not, you are just being told to comply like the rest of us......

There is an even more fundamental European philosophy, which is that we are a democracy and we are entitled to due process when decisions are made. If there had been a process to determine whether the interests of the "regulatory industry" and flight training outweighed those of the pilots, operators and thousands of people in the airport, aircraft, maintenance and parts industries who depend on FRA operators, and that process decided to ban FRA, then fair enough.

But there wasn't. You are just spouting some ex-post justification. I thought the purpose of regulations was to benefit flight safety. Isn't it a bit circular to argue that regulations should benefit the "regulatory industry"!

I might have known that Bose would have put together an ill worded response such as taking the jobs of fellow European pilots who are no longer able to work. A four letter word springs to mind, beginning with s, ending in b and having ca in the middle. Do you get my drift ?

As for having 5 years to convert before this, then I find that comment absolutely ludicrous, I have never had 5 years before now in which to convert. As for trying to convert whilst working this is simply not possibly due to the demands of corporate flying. I would have to leave my job in order to convert my licence, upon passing the multi guess dross 14 written exams etc would find that my job has been taken by someone like Bose.

As for going to court, yes, I would. If it's alone then so be it at least I have had a go at the stupid legal system that now envelopes Europe. Maybe the next law from the EU will affect you Bose, perhaps you won't think it as funny then.

As I have a young family to support I do indeed believe that this would be against my human rights if enforced. Why, pray tell do I need an EASA licence to fly a plane with a big 'N' on the tail. I don't recall seeing that in the FAR's.

As for residency of operator/ pilot I also don't recall seeing that in the FAR's either. I am a legally licenced pilot that has been flying 'N' reg for years, law of precedent, and this is discrimination against european citizens at its worst.

Bose

The way you talk is as if N reg in Europe is something which has just been discovered and must be closed off.

N reg in Europe had grown and established itself as an industry in its own rights over decades.

In most walks of law established practice has legal rights of protection in itself.

N reg in Europe has been there legally for longer than the EU itself.
If all of a sudden EASA want to remove it in my eyes they have a moral obligation to protect those involved from financial hardship or loss of income and employment which THEIR legislation incurs on innocent European Citizens going about their legitimate business.
I think you will find that those protections are inherent in EU law.

Pace

421, I AM NOT, Saying that at all. You of all people should know better.

I am saying the way it has happened. If you read what I have said constantly, I do not think that there is any benefit to this at all. It does not promote flight safety in any way.

I am just saying it as it stands at the moment and I why I think we are where we are now.

Do you really think I would not jump on the chance for EASA to just vanish and the FAA system fill the void. Lets put it in perspective on how I and the company would benefit by that.

FTO/TRTO Approvals just over £3k every time they are issued. Don't even start me on our CAMO and Part M approvals.

My own approvals. FI(A) requires renewing by test and seminar. CRI SE & ME now have to be renewed by test. My IRI needs renewing by test. My Examiner Approval needs renewing by test. I have turbine type and class ratings required to be renewed annually and biannually by test, my IR and MEP need an annual test.

Have you any idea how much that lot costs? It's all a complete crock.

However, it is where we are. If we are such a democracy, how did we get here in the first place? It is all about protectionism, pure and simple.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger......

It's your current attitude Bose towards fellow European Pilots that I find troubling. It's sad that you think there would be more jobs available so that you could just walk into them. It won't be the case, that I can promise.

In fact we will be looking for a freelancer over the next few months, FAA Certs only, resident in Europe please.........