Koran

Who in their right minds would want to fly and base an EASA regulated aircraft out of Europe? That says it all!

Pace

What kind of stuff have you been smokin?

Captain "koi" . . .
 

. . . Gee, after 15,000+ hours of flying heavy airframes into Euroland with a non-JAA license. . . I must have been flying on "borrowed time" without possessing the magic of EASA expertise! :rolleyes:

GlueBall

If you did fly EASA Licences you would be so stressed out with all the extra paperwork and regs and burocratic nonsense you would have to deal with you would probably crash through that stress ?

Hmmm i wonder if thats why the AOC ops accident stats are so bad compared to the inferior FAA part 135 :eek:

Even our N Reg private jets are better in the accident stats but probably because we relax around the beach :)

On safety grounds which is EASAs Mandate maybe they should scrap the lot and copy the FAA system?

Pace

GlueBall, you got it all wrong! You will feel the magic after you see your bank account drying up. Trust me! :E

Then you hold a piece of paper in your hand, worth a few grand! Talk about magic! :{

As I worked at quite a large middle east airline (SV) for a long time, one that required all their pilots to have FAA licenses, it was interesting to see just which foreign pilots failed their initial type ratings, the first time 'round.
Yup, you guessed it....Eurolanders, with original European licenses, without exception.
I had to laugh at all this, as these failures really got up the Eurolanders collective noses, big time.;)

And on top of it, Glueball, you will know the amount of molecules inside your windshield!

Highly useful during a decompression :}

So as the holder of both a JAA and FAA licence I'm 'laughing' am I? Wrong!
 

It costs me over £1,000 a year just to keep a JAA MEP/IR that I have by default under FAA. The reason I have never applied a type to my JAA is the ridiculous cost of regulation but if this lunacy comes to fruition then I'll be saddled with that - oh and I can't alternate types anymore. Not to mention the guys I've been able to start on turbines from non jobs Before the EASA union of bed-wetters get on their high horses, let us not forget there is no safety case!

The responses here seem to be broadly split between entirely reasonable opposition and unbelievably opinionated, and occasionally racist hearsay (KOI!) which is probably indicative of the mentality of the loons driving this.

I support the posters indicating the lack of a safety case, the fact that the FAA system is practical (not easier) and the EASA theoretical (to the point of lunacy). I would also point out that having observed their girth (as you suggest) the most beautiful woman I have ever observed with my 20/20 vision is an American.

Jeff

That's a separate issue...about which you have our sympathy.

FAA PPL to JAA PPL has never been much of an issue. The UK has the 100hr route where you do 2 or 3 exams and a flight test.

The issue is with the IR, and for bigger hardware you have the CPL/IR and ATPs to convert. This much more work.
Not under current proposals. See table on page 9. SE and ME pistons, and SE turboprops will be able to stay on e.g. N-reg and be maintained to FAA Part 91 as at present. ME turboprops and jets will have some extra hassle, but foreign reg airframes as such are not being evicted as such. One thing is that to park in the EU long term the airframe will need to have an EASA type certificate; this does rule out a few types but not many.

nonsense.
 

Koi,

I normally am not inclined to waste time refuting absurd arguments, because they usually do not even require refuting. But you need to be brought down from your high horse. You seem to think US pilots inferior in skill and in radiotelephony. Based on what? Your experience? Let's compare experience if you dare. This is an absolutely specious and absurd opinion. Piloting and communication skills vary with the individual, and are not endemic to any particular licensing authority or country.

True, in Europe you have to slog through 14,000 questions on 14 exams full of mostly trivial matters to pass the ATPL theory. But that does not a great pilot make. Personally I forgot 80% of that nonsense immediately after I passed the JAR-FCL ATPL exams, because I figured that after 29 years and about ten thousand hours of flying into over 80 countries on all continents before I sat those exams, if I didn't need to know about Decca navigation and figuring out the wavelengths of an NDB signal to fly safely as an FAA ATP, then I wouldn't need to know it flying safely as a JAR-ATPL.

As far as radiotelephony superiority is concerned, you are even more delusional. Go to LAX or JFK or ORD or ATL and marvel at how American pilots and controllers can shoe horn three times the amount of airplanes (and thus radio chatter) onto a given runway in any hour. And it works. In Europe, you have slots, so all the people on both sides of the microphone are not overwhelmed. In America, we don't need no stinkin' slots, we can talk as fast as cattle auctioneers if needed.

Bureaucratic fiefdoms in Europe make it even worse. ENAC, LBA, ACG, FOCA and the rest of the alphabet soup of organizations that have all invented aviation all over again and better than their neighbor of course, when one EU-FAA would do fine. And on your point of "Federal", that is not strictly an American word. How about Federal Republic of Germany for example.

And EASA? A bureaucrat's dream, but not much use to pilots. Try Googling any FAR and you will find what you need. Try even finding a current copy of EU-Ops online, and it isn't easy. It certainly isn't indexed either.

I know European pilots with superb communication skills, and some that I can barely understand in or out of the cockpit. And I speak 4 languages, so don't come back with any smart "you Americans only speak English anyway" nonsense. Likewise I know some American aviators with absolutely flawless diction on the microphone, and some who are just sloppy like anywhere else.

Usually, the person with the most xenophobic and self righteous opinion is the one who has no firsthand experience with the other side of the matter they are proposing to debate. What makes you so qualified to make the observations you make and to draw the conclusions you do?

Pilot training as well as the quality of aviation phraseology on both sides of the pond can be equally excellent, it all depends on the caliber of the pilot and the school. As a dual FAA and JAR ATP/L certificated/licensed (however you want the correct terms) pilot who has worked extensively on both sides of the pond in almost every facet of aviation, I feel qualified to shoot down your statement.

DC10

You said it and so well! As a pilot flying FAA jets this side of the pond EASA is a joke, a burocratic nonsense. EASA regard My FAA ATP as zero if I wanted to covert to their EASA licences I would be regarded as a basic PPL although I fly as a captain, have ferried all over the world and have 1000s of hours flight time.

That means nothing in EASA land. Now for no reason they are trying to ban N reg in Europe. If they had any sense they may just ask why so many N reg are in Europe? But they dont have any sense and dont address the real reasons.

E xterminate
A viation
S trangle
A viators

Pace

I did not mean to hit a nerve or insult any pilot. I held 7 different ATP licences, including UK and US. I currently use only my US license. I was only pointing out that the US has always discriminated against foreign licence holders and has always required full training and testing before a US license can be issued, no matter what the individual might already hold. They recognise only the hours in your logbook or the type of experience such as instructor time, but even then you still need the ground and flight training and checking before you can be issued the rating.
For example I had the 737 with many thousands of hours in my UK licence but could not get that rating on my new US ATP. The ground school was given to me by Singapore so it did not count; I would have had to do it all again. I would have had to do the written type rating and the flight test as well. Many thousands of dollars. Obviously I no longer fly the 747.
By contrast I got my UK licence on the basis of a NZ ATPL, and all I had to do was the medical, law exam and a flight test in a multi (basically an instrument rating test) to get a full, no restrictions UKATPL.
Now it looks as if the European authorities are going to do the same thing to the US that the US does to them.
Hence my remark that is seemed funny that the US should complain. I realise that many of my colleagues are threatened by the changes, and hope they can manage to do what is necessaryto remain flying.

boofhead,

I have a Canadian ATPL. I just got my FAA ATP Airmen's Certificate including the 3 type ratings I have for a/c I flew in Canada...by passing a Class 1 FAA medical and doing a 40 question multiple choice conversion exam (for which I studied for about 10 days). Period, end of story.

On the other hand, with my 7000+ hours (including over 3000 hours multi-turbine PIC time with a few hundred hours B737 F/O time thrown in)...to get the EASA or JAA ATP FCL or whatever the hell you call it, I need to do these ridiculous 14 exams.

This makes less than no sense; it's idiotic.

Wrong.
I will give an example.
When a foreign airline leases a US-registered airplane, for use in their scheduled services, the FAA (normally) issues, to the pilots that will fly these US-registered airplanes, a US license (no testing required), and these FAA licenses are restricted to only these specific airplanes, by registration number.
Been this way for well over twenty years.
Fact.

Hi!

Euro training is not better than US, just different.

There was a big discussion on this area in the ME forums.

Based on my observations of FAA/CAA, and, more so, from pilots much more experienced than myself in FAA/JAA/CAA observations, the training is different.

The JAA/CAA pilots are better at Met and subjects like Aerodynamics. The FAA pilots are better at handling the aircraft manually and flying visual approaches.

Also, heard the FAA pilots understand their aircraft better initially, as the PIC and SICs have to pass an oral exam (I understand the JAA/CAA pilots only have to pass a multiple choice writte exam on the aircraft???). The FAA Oral Exam is like this:
Weight and Balance charts, performance charts, checklists memory items (the first turboprop I had an Oral Exam on had 27 :-O!!! checklists with memory items), limitations, and systems questions, such as: How many/what kind of fire extinguishers are on the aircraft/where are they? When does that light come on? What does this switch do? What are the 9 modes that the outflow valves can be in? If you see a "Flap Drive" message, what does it mean, and what will you have to do?

Neither way is better, overall, just different.

Oh, and someone mentioned the 14,000 potential exam questions. The question bank I studied from was about 22-24,000 questions!!!

Correct! Some of my friends at MXA who are awaiting their uncertain fate have FAA and JAA licenses (or better validations) for N- and F-OXXX registered planes. The only thing I don't know is whether the FAA calls it a license or a validation, but I'll leave that detail for to the bureaucratically gifted...

Usually leased airplanes will keep the registration of the lessor's country, so that it is easier to repo the plane in case the airline defaults on its payments. MXA's F100s were PH- registered for a long time, before they were finally purchased.

There is also an airline in the US (Ryan International I believe) that flies EI- registered (Ireland) 737s. Not sure if they still do, and if those were leased from the (in)famous Irish carrier Ryanair (FR).

I think this is about Power. FAA registered aircraft operating and based in Europe has probably upset some idiot in power. As they have no control over them and they do not conform to some of the more stupid Euro regs.
Also there is the question of licencing fees, all much more expensive in Euroland than the US.

Fresh from AOPA USA

SunBird

I totally agree with you BUT EASA does have the power but not in the way you may think?

In a free world we have freedom of choice. BMW build cars and sell those cars in competition to other car makers.

If you make something attractive in price quality etc customers will flock to buy them.

EASA with their power could have sat down and built a licencing product that was so attractive that no one would want to operate an N reg in Europe.
They have that power to do so but choose not too.

Instead they shout about UNFAIR N reg based in Europe. They could be clever and ask WHY ? and maybe for the good of aviation all round not just the N Reg issue start to do something really constructive to help aviation grow and flourish within Europe.

Instead they take out their big stick and beat aviation into submission bend it to their wish no matter how much they strangle the life out of it.

EASA is supposed to be a safety organisation and rightfully so. They know by all the statistics at hand to them that this is not a SAFETY issue so why do they not use their mandate and regulate on safety NOT politics.

EASA has the power why do they not use that power wisely?

Pace