IO540

It's a fair question. But that is now how the EASA proposals stand at present.

Currently, we have no EASA interference in foreign reg pistons (SE or ME) or SE turboprops. That covers the vast majority of light GA.

But we do seem to have the requirement to get EASA licenses on top of the State of Registry ones. Do you read the FCL proposal differently, Bookworm? You of all people should be able to get your head around it.

IMHO what has happened is that EASA realised that keeping tabs on how long a bit of metal is parked somewhere in the EU was not going to work. France dropped the idea in 2004, the UK dropped it in 2005.

But requiring additional (local) pilot licences is a lot easier, and it achieves almost the same thing, i.e. indulging the European "we are superior" emotion.

Now, EASA can say that all pilots based here comply with the same "European standard"

They don't have to comply with Part M maintenance, which is something... but that would have been tricky because one cannot overlay Part M over the top of Part 91, in the same way that one can overlay EASA FCL on top of ICAO FCL.

Overlaying Part M on top of Part 91 would raise many conflicts e.g. a retrofitted MFD approved by the FAA but not approved by EASA... if the EASA MO turns a blind eye to that (and they must, otherwise a Part M overlay amounts to an eviction of all FRAs from the EU) then the whole scheme is meaningless.

EASA are not stupid and they must have realised all this, a few years ago.

I still think they have failed to think through the residence definitions. They will be easy for most people but it will be the marginals which will show up the rules as meaningless.

In militarised 3rd world countries, most of which ban FRAs, this is usually implemented by nobody caring what you do, but after some months some official starts to make life hard for you. You have to get a permit for every flight, and the permit takes longer and longer. You have to pay bigger bribes. Eventually you get the message... but one cannot do this kind of stuff under European transparency.

bookworm

I think we'll find out real soon.

IO540

I need Mystic Meg, evidently...

jez d

I couldn't agree with you more, IO540.

I would also add that the real political agenda here, IMHO, stems from European airlines' desire to be granted greater access to the US market, which they hope will be granted under a blanket bi-lateral agreement. But as you state, IO540, in the current security paranoid climate, Uncle Sam is highly unlikely to allow the next generation of FAA licensed terrorists to be trained outside of the USA - they'd far rather train them themselves.

bookworm

Well, we do have a reason now.

Opinion No 04/2010 of the European Aviation Safety Agency of 26 August 2010 for a new Commission Regulation on personnel requirements laying down Implementing Rules for Pilot Licensing.

Draft Regulation on Part-FCL

Article 1
Objective and scope
This Regulation establishes common technical requirements for:
1. the licensing, training and testing of pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation;

Article 3
Pilot licensing
Personnel referred to in Article 1 shall be qualified in accordance with the provisions of Annex I to this Regulation, hereon referred to as Part-FCL.

(Article 4(1)(c) of the BR applies to "Aircraft ... registered in a third country and ... used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community;")

IO540

Oh gawwwd not another 209 pages

OK, from the 2nd URL above... page 6 of the PDF:

Third country licences
1.
Without prejudice to Article 1, Member States may accept third country licences, including any associated ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications and medical certificates issued by or on behalf of third countries, in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to this Regulation.
2.
Applicants for Part–FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates already holding at least an equivalent licence issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 1 by a third country shall meet all the requirements of Part–FCL, except that the requirements of course duration, number of lessons and specific training hours may be reduced.
The credit given to the applicant shall be determined by the competent authority of the Member State to which the pilot applies on the basis of a recommendation from an approved training organisation.
3.
Holders of an ATPL issued by or on behalf of a third country in accordance with ICAO Annex 1 who have completed the experience requirements for the issue of an ATPL in the relevant aircraft category established in Subpart F of Part-FCL may be credited in full with the requirements to undergo a training course prior to undertaking the theoretical knowledge examinations and the skill test, if the third
EN 6 EN
country licence contains a valid type rating for the aircraft to be used for the ATPL skill test.
4.
Aeroplane or helicopter type ratings may be issued to holders of Part-FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates that comply with the requirements for the issue of those ratings established by a third country.
Such ratings will be restricted to aircraft registered in that third country.

What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that EASA has climbed down from requiring all foreign reg pilots having to get EASA licenses?

Page 205 of the PDF onwards has the old stuff about

A pilot licence issued in compliance with the requirements of ICAO Annex 1 by a third country may be validated by the competent authority of a Member State.

which is what we talked about before, which most people think is about license validation to fly EASA-reg planes. The PPL/IR conversion requirement is

4. In the case of private pilot licences with an instrument rating, or CPL and ATPL licences with an instrument rating where the pilot intends only to exercise private pilot privileges, the holder shall comply with the following requirements:
(a) complete the skill test for instrument rating and the type or class ratings relevant to the privileges of the licence held, in accordance with Appendix 7 and Appendix 9 to Part-FCL;
(b) demonstrate that he/she has acquired knowledge of Air Law, Aeronautical Weather Codes, Flight Planning and Performance (IR), and Human Performance;
(c) demonstrate that he/she has acquired knowledge of English in accordance with FCL.055;
(d) hold at least a valid Class 2 medical certificate issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 1;
(f) have a minimum experience of at least 100 hours of instrument flight time as pilot-in-command in the relevant category of aircraft.

[my bold] i.e. 4 exams to sit, plus the IR checkride.

But, on page 207, they list conversion requirements

B. CONVERSION OF LICENCES
1. A PPL/BPL/SPL, a CPL or ATPL licence issued in compliance with the requirements of ICAO Annex 1 by a third country may be converted into a Part-FCL PPL/BPL/SPL with a single-pilot class or type rating by the competent authority of a Member State.
The pilot shall apply to the competent authority of the Member State where he/she resides or is established.
2. The holder of the licence shall comply with the following minimum requirements, for the relevant aircraft category:
(a) pass a written examination in Air Law and Human Performance;
(b) pass the PPL, BPL or SPL skill test, as relevant, in accordance with Part-FCL;
(c) fulfil the requirements for the issue of the relevant class or type rating, in accordance with Subpart H;
(d) hold at least a Class 2 medical certificate, issued in accordance with Part-Medical;
(e) demonstrate that he/she has acquired language proficiency in accordance with FCL.055;
(f) have completed at least 100 hours of flight time as a pilot.

which involves just 2 exams, plus the checkride. I don't get this... validation is 4 exams but a conversion to a EASA license is 2 exams.

What am I missing?

Miroku

Mods - hope you don't mind but I've put this message on two threads, both of which are relevant.


I've been in contact with AOPA regarding the proposed LAPL and received the following reply which I have their permision to quote:

I have been in contact with Dr Ian Perry, the AOPA/IAOPA medical representative at EASA, and he has been fully briefed regarding the importance ot UK NPPL holders being able to continue under EASA with a similar medical for the LAPL. as we have currently for the NPPL.

We will keep our members informed via the magazine when we have any final proposals regarding this matter.

Currently, EASA is proposing a medical with your GP for the LAPL, but the GP concerned is required to have some additional experience or qualification to cover him/her to undertake these medicals.

Ian Perry is currently at EASA at a meeting with the Medical Department and working on the subject of the LAPL medical for us.

Private jet

IO540,
With regards professional licenses I think it says that there could be a variable reduction in training requirements, based on your current qualifications/experience but you will still have to pass the theoretical exams and flight test to get an EASA license (you will still need to get one), thats all. Don't get your hopes up i note the word "may" is used a lot, so they are really promising nothing.

IO540

Historically, it has been true that "professional" pilots (CPL/ATP) have got better grandfather treatment than mere PPLs.

This is why I have always recommended to anybody doing the FAA PPL/IR to put in a bit more work and get a CPL/IR, and I did that myself.

Plus I run both CAA and FAA Class 1 medicals, just as an insurance policy, to lock-in Demonstrated Ability for ever... done concurrently with the right AME, this costs hardly more than just one Class 2.

Some original versions of the EASA stuff did look like this might mean something, but I have lost track of it now... it would be interesting to find an FAA CPL/IR -> EASA PPL/IR (no use for an FAA CPL here anyway) easier than an FAA PPL/IR -> EASA PPL/IR.

What do you think?

BillieBob

In EASAspeak, 'accept' means either 'validate' (allow the third country licence to be used in EASA aircraft for a limited period without issuing any form of EASA licence or certificate) or 'convert' (issue an EASA licence on the basis of the third country licence).

According to Annex III to the Regulation, a third country PPL with an instrument rating may be 'validated' (for a period not exceeding 1 year) and a third country PPL without an instrument rating may be either 'validated' or 'converted'. There is, however, no method of 'converting' an IR issued by a third country.

To 'validate' a PPL/IR requires 4 exams and the IR and class/type rating skill tests

To 'validate' only a PPL requires 2 exams and the PPL and class/type rating skill tests

To 'convert' only a PPL requires 2 exams and the PPL and class/type rating skill tests

I need to study both the opinion and the draft but, at first glance, it seems as though industry's reaction to the CRD has been wholly ignored.

Private jet

All i know is that these "EASAcrats" are expert bamboozlers, and with these types of people i have learnt from experience that its often not what they say thats important, its what they DON'T say. There is definately a "witch hunt" in the planning, for a myriad of political, social & economic reasons.

IO540

BB - if I understand you correctly, all you say is for use on an EASA aircraft.

What interests me is what EASA proposes to do regarding pilots who are flying ICAO (non EASA) aircraft on ICAO licenses.

I can't work it out. In the past, this has been worked out through some complex reasoning across the various proposals. Probably this:

is the key to it all i.e. an FAA PPL/IR will have to do the whole 50/55hrs dual.

Of course they are. The whole thing is a huge expenses-driven gravy train - oddly enough employing a large number of British emigre mercenaries

I had some emails with EASA on the certification side, and it was obvious the bloke (a Brit) was making it up as he went along, when he used the phrase "the world has changed" in reply to a specific question I asked.

A colleague was recently installing a fairly big bit of avionics, and EASA required some other bit to be installed in a specified proximity to the first bit. This was a lot of work and after a few months of haggling over details this man said "I've had enough, I am abandoning this whole project". Guess what happened? Facing the loss of fees, EASA climbed down.

Justiciar

It seems to me reading the material that Conversion is very limited and is only a third country's PPL/CPL/ATPL -> PPL !! The is no conversion route for IR/CPL or ATPL, which begs the question of what a 10,000 hour ATPL does if he wants a job with an EU domicile airline or operator !! On the basis of these regulations he goes back to square one, which seems quite absurd, though I guess that is what an EU ATPL would have to do if he went to work in the US.

Nothing though in the document seems to affect the principle that FAA licence in N reg aircraft = perfectly legal, irrespective of residence, unless a regulation says differently, which at the moment it does not. I wonder though how many FAA IRs will be rushing to do the exams and 15 hours just in case ...

On a separate issue, how will anyone acquire the new aerobatic rating? To get one you have to be instructed by an FI or CRI who holds the rating. Since it is a new EASA rating no-one currently holds one so there is no one to instruct for the rating!!!

IO540

That would be taken care of in a different way. In almost every country (I have researched this a little bit) an ICAO CPL/IR can get a local CPL/IR validation, or even a conversion, provided he has a relationship with a local commercial operator of aircraft registered in that country.

I have been offered one such deal, which would get me a JAA CPL/IR, but it would involve me living there for a bit... no use.

ATPL validation works similarly.

However I doubt say Virgin will take on anybody without the full gold plated JAA 14-exam stuff, etc. It was funny to read about R. Branson publicly offering to take on Capt. Sullenberger... how would he square the paperwork on that, I have absolutely no idea S. (not a spring chicken) would have taken one look at the JAA exams and stuck 1 finger up.

A significant number I know have been recently.

The 7 exams can be swatted up from the question bank and passed in two goes (revise properly only those you failed; there is no FAA-style oral exam probing the marginal-pass area) at Gatwick, and the 15hrs flying can be done at a few places. It can even be done in an N-reg (I know of one case) with DfT permission. The ground school is no longer mandatory-residential but from my enquiries you need what is basically a bit of preparation and a signoff to sit the exams which costs about £1k, plus the exam fees. Still a pretty big project, and I gather much of the large Flyer group of a few years ago has dropped out.

I don't see the rationale for doing this at present, if you own an N-reg. Obviously if you have a G-reg (or rent one) then you need to do something...... but then why did you do the FAA IR?

bookworm

I think you're missing the bit of the cover regulation that I quoted. Article 3 requires pilots involved in the operation of aircraft that are registered in the Community (Article 4(1)(b) of the BR) or registered in a third country and ... used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community (Article 4(1)(c) of the BR).

Thus if you, as an operator, are resident in the Community, you are required to have an EASA-Part-FCL licence even if you fly a foreign-registered aircraft. BillieBob has set out the (very limited) conversion and validation options.

Justiciar

Sorry, but I don't agree. The 2008 Regulation is an enabling regulation and the devil is in the detail of the Regulations now published. If you look at Article 7 of the basic regulation it says:

The requirements of the second and third subparagraphs may be satisfied by the acceptance of licences and medical certificates issued by or on behalf of a third country as far as pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(c) are concerned.

This reflects the current position in international law. It does not seem to me that any detailed regulations have been proposed with regard to the default position under ICAO, which is that Foreign non EU registered aircraft may be flown with the appropriate (non EU) licence for the state of registry of the aircraft.

May be now, but not under the new proposals, I fear. Annex III applies and conversion is limited to getting a PPL.

Private jet

IF EASA are planning on denying EU residents the right to fly non EU registered aircraft using non EASA licenses within EU airspace, professionally or privately, based purely on where they are domiciled, what would the human rights legal eagles make of that? Fighting fire with fire is maybe the answer?

IO540

Even in the above very small text, you have managed to use two very different words: resident and domiciled.



Do you want a better indication of the difficulty in drafting meaningful law based on this crap?

If they use tax residence, that is tricky because (as any competent accountant will tell you) many people are in an ambiguous position on that. Especially paid CPL/IR pilots, living out of hotels.

The ICAO wording (allowing jurisdiction within the member's airspace) is "nationals", not "residents", IIRC, which AIUI means "citizens" which is something else again. But EASA has not used that one. They have used "residents", etc.

Justiciar

Domicile is really an English law concept which has little application in European Civil Law countries, where they use residence or nationality, so one of those terms is the more appropriate terms and the more reflective of what some eurocrats may be trying to achieve.

bookworm

Unfortunately, this is covered in the draft cover reg.

Article 7
Third country licences
1. Without prejudice to Article 1, Member States may accept third country licences, including any associated ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications and medical certificates issued by or on behalf of third countries, in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to this Regulation.
...
ANNEX III
TO THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF LICENCES ISSUED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THIRD COUNTRIES

Annex III goes on to cover validations for up to 12 months, and conversions of PPLs. There is no generic "acceptance" of foreign licences for third-country operators.

When I made my earlier posts (before the opinion was published) I was thinking along the same lines as you. But unfortunately it looks quite explicit in the IRs.