EU proposals for 3rd country operators
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: coventry, uk
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU proposals for 3rd country operators
EU proposals for 3rd country operators
The EU has published an NPA which, if enacted, would require 'third country operators' of aircraft engaging in CAT to be authorised by EASA prior to operating in EU airspace. It also intends to publish another NPA later introducing similar proposals for 'third country operators' which use 'complex motor powered aircraft' (CMPA).
EASA defines CMPA as "an aeroplane: -with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5,700 kg, or -certificated for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nineteen, or -certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or -equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine, or (ii) a helicopter certificated: -for a maximum take-off mass exceeding 3,175 kg, or -for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nine, or -for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or (iii) a tilt rotor aircraft".
Although EASA's priority appears to be CAT operations, many private and corporate Territory aircraft operating offshore will fall within the definition of CMPA and so would be subject to these requirements. There are also implications for local operators flying into or over French territories in the Caribbean as they are part of the EU.
In order to develop an OT response to this NPA please submit any comments to [email protected] by 31st May. Responses may also be made directly to EASA in accordance with the instruction given in the NPA document.
http://www.airsafety.aero/assets/upl...NPA2011-05.pdf
The EU has published an NPA which, if enacted, would require 'third country operators' of aircraft engaging in CAT to be authorised by EASA prior to operating in EU airspace. It also intends to publish another NPA later introducing similar proposals for 'third country operators' which use 'complex motor powered aircraft' (CMPA).
EASA defines CMPA as "an aeroplane: -with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5,700 kg, or -certificated for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nineteen, or -certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or -equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine, or (ii) a helicopter certificated: -for a maximum take-off mass exceeding 3,175 kg, or -for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nine, or -for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or (iii) a tilt rotor aircraft".
Although EASA's priority appears to be CAT operations, many private and corporate Territory aircraft operating offshore will fall within the definition of CMPA and so would be subject to these requirements. There are also implications for local operators flying into or over French territories in the Caribbean as they are part of the EU.
In order to develop an OT response to this NPA please submit any comments to [email protected] by 31st May. Responses may also be made directly to EASA in accordance with the instruction given in the NPA document.
http://www.airsafety.aero/assets/upl...NPA2011-05.pdf
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU Proposal
This is something that must be stopped in its tracks. Every country outside the EU will bring in retalitory legislation, meaning it will take us 3 months to get apprval to operate anywhere. EU must stop meddling
This is something that must be stopped in its tracks. Every country outside the EU will bring in retalitory legislation, meaning it will take us 3 months to get apprval to operate anywhere. EU must stop meddling
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The interesting stuff revolves around crew licencing and medicals. Basically foreign registered aircraft will require dual licences and medicals to operate permanantly inside Europe.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Bout time. Flying and working in Europe from state to state should be done by EU licensed crew's and a/c.
Have one question for you WHY???
This world is fast going mad.
With the estimated massive shortage of experienced pilots forecast worldwide as China and developing third world countries take up more and more pilots and pilots coming into the profession can no longer afford to do so isnt it about time that all this willy waving and expensive burocratic nonsense and protectionism stopped and licence regognition is put into place so that pilots can move freely to where they are needed and that will include Europe.
That would be common sense but sadly EASA doesnt know what common sense means.
'Bout time. Flying and working in Europe from state to state should be done by EU licensed crew's and a/c.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 27th Apr 2011 at 17:34.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an addendum of course EASA as publicly stated have NO desire to enact any of this rubbish ! Their main aim is for a Bilateral agreement hence why they have extended the deadline from 2012 to 2014.
EASA have also publicly stated that they are working HARD for such an agreement.
Statements as the one above are purely sabre rattling by EASA for an effect of their main goal to get a Bilateral agreement.
Of course EASA would never lie or mislead the EC parliament about their real intentions would they ?
As such we surely must take the above as a piece of meaningless show directed at the FAA to get an effect and no more.
Pace
EASA have also publicly stated that they are working HARD for such an agreement.
Statements as the one above are purely sabre rattling by EASA for an effect of their main goal to get a Bilateral agreement.
Of course EASA would never lie or mislead the EC parliament about their real intentions would they ?
As such we surely must take the above as a piece of meaningless show directed at the FAA to get an effect and no more.
Pace
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair, I've not read the NPA, but it seems that the aim is to protect the cabotage rules, and simplify the bilateral arrangements. ie, if you want to operate A to B flights within the EU, then be EU registered. That being the case, it seems reasonable.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Helsinki
Age: 50
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This sounds like joke.
What about triangle flights or ferry flights for example?
Just imagine.VQ-reg Plane comes from Moscow to Plama, then do positioning to barcelona and then goes back to Moscow.Palma-Barcelona will be considered like EU internal flight? and crew should be licenced by EASA?
or Turkish charter operators doing triangle flights Antalya-City A-city B-Antalya?
What's next? Let's stop all traffic and use trains!
Euroburocracy will kill this Union once, started as union for freedom it's becomes more and more paradise for people who can do nothing but paper work for huge money from OUR pocket!
What about if Russia or CIS countries will do same?
Will you able to got russian licences for flying houndreds of EU reg bizjets between points inside Russia, as it's happens to be now?
I doubt not.
What about triangle flights or ferry flights for example?
Just imagine.VQ-reg Plane comes from Moscow to Plama, then do positioning to barcelona and then goes back to Moscow.Palma-Barcelona will be considered like EU internal flight? and crew should be licenced by EASA?
or Turkish charter operators doing triangle flights Antalya-City A-city B-Antalya?
What's next? Let's stop all traffic and use trains!
Euroburocracy will kill this Union once, started as union for freedom it's becomes more and more paradise for people who can do nothing but paper work for huge money from OUR pocket!
What about if Russia or CIS countries will do same?
Will you able to got russian licences for flying houndreds of EU reg bizjets between points inside Russia, as it's happens to be now?
I doubt not.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you want to operate A to B flights within the EU, then be EU registered. That being the case, it seems reasonable.
That is not the point! The point is that N reg is so established and prolific in Europe and has been for far longer than the EU has been in existance that many will be heavely damaged financially should these changes be made.
What EASA is not addressing is that damage or the reasons WHY N reg is so prolific within the EU.
In UK law established practice over a considerable period of time gains legal rights on its own merits.
N reg has been an established practice and legal practice for more than 30 years what are EASA doing to eliminate the costs that will hit those pilots who will be forced to comply with EASAs Latest meddling?
Pace
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N reg has been an established practice and legal practice for more than 30 years what are EASA doing to eliminate the costs that will hit those pilots who will be forced to comply with EASAs Latest meddling?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an addendum of course EASA as publicly stated have NO desire to enact any of this rubbish ! Their main aim is for a Bilateral agreement hence why they have extended the deadline from 2012 to 2014.
EASA have also publicly stated that they are working HARD for such an agreement.
Statements as the one above are purely sabre rattling by EASA for an effect of their main goal to get a Bilateral agreement.
Of course EASA would never lie or mislead the EC parliament about their real intentions would they ?
As such we surely must take the above as a piece of meaningless show directed at the FAA to get an effect and no more.
EASA have also publicly stated that they are working HARD for such an agreement.
Statements as the one above are purely sabre rattling by EASA for an effect of their main goal to get a Bilateral agreement.
Of course EASA would never lie or mislead the EC parliament about their real intentions would they ?
As such we surely must take the above as a piece of meaningless show directed at the FAA to get an effect and no more.
The problem is what happens if the FAA does not sign a bilateral FCL treaty...?
And in the meantime the 15hr IR conversion route gets stopped so you are forced to blow away 55hrs in a knackered Duchess flying holds around Bournemouth...?
EASA has published a timetable for screwing foreign reg plane pilots (if the "operator" is established (etc) in the EC) into having to get EASA licenses and ratings, in addition to the State of Registry ones they already have.
EASA is not going to climb down from this; they play 100% hardball and have never climbed down from any proposal and they plough on as if they are inside some bomb-proof bunker with unlimited food inside (which is probably true). The only check on EASA is possibly after they are done with a proposal and it comes up for a vote in comitology or the EU parliament.
That's why I have started on the JAA IR. I hate the bent crooks in EASA and the EU who are responsible for this policy but I don't want to end up flying uninsured (due to not complying with paper requirements) while these cynical anti-American a*holes are playing their high stakes political game. 4 exams done, 3 to go, and then off to somewhere to do the 15hrs. Never seen so much dross in my life (the relevance to aviation is well under 10% and it amazes me this sham-exam scandal has been allowed to go on for so many years) but at least intellectually it is drivel on the level of a Grade 6 CSE so anybody can pass it if they put the time into it. There is hardly any IFR knowledge involved; the syllabus only touches on what an approach plate is
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a fundamental legal/political disconnect in all of this that ought to be addressed before EASA throw their weight around properly........
The EU (EEC, call it what you will) is not a "country", nor is it a "state". The USA (and hence, FAA) do not recognise it as a country (particularly in matters of licence issue) and probably do not feel obligated to negotiate national matters with EASA.
The EC could file differences to ICAO but it isn't a signatory..........their actions are undermining the foundations of ICAO and they risk opening a huge can of worms if other countries (with legal staus and appropriate rights) take similar actions. There are very good reasons why ICAO was signed and those reasons are even more relevant now that air travel is more necessary to our current way of life.
If the EC wants the rule of law then it ought to abide by those laws already enacted by its members - unless and until those laws are changed. They cannot change them.
The EU (EEC, call it what you will) is not a "country", nor is it a "state". The USA (and hence, FAA) do not recognise it as a country (particularly in matters of licence issue) and probably do not feel obligated to negotiate national matters with EASA.
The EC could file differences to ICAO but it isn't a signatory..........their actions are undermining the foundations of ICAO and they risk opening a huge can of worms if other countries (with legal staus and appropriate rights) take similar actions. There are very good reasons why ICAO was signed and those reasons are even more relevant now that air travel is more necessary to our current way of life.
If the EC wants the rule of law then it ought to abide by those laws already enacted by its members - unless and until those laws are changed. They cannot change them.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EC cannot file differences to ICAO but it can probably force member states to file individual ones.
It will be very interesting to see how this stuff pans out, say 5 years hence.
It will be very interesting to see how this stuff pans out, say 5 years hence.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA is not going to climb down from this; they play 100% hardball and have never climbed down from any proposal and they plough on as if they are inside some bomb-proof bunker with unlimited food inside (which is probably true). The only check on EASA is possibly after they are done with a proposal and it comes up for a vote in comitology or the EU parliament.
- stop the European Commission from abusing the legislative process as a negotiation technique with the United States.
- "divest"* EASA by curtailing their rulemaking mandate, saving about 20% of their budget (which currently stands at just under € 110 Mio).
- have them advocate a replacement of Patrick Goudou and Jules Kneepens by people who see the benefits of General Aviation and who are overall more cost conscious.
Indeed,
There's a fundamental legal/political disconnect in all of this
)https://erecruitment.easa.europa.eu/default.aspx
If sufficient members of the Aviation community complain, it is going to have an effect, in fact it already has...
*wording comes from Jackie Foster MEP - see "The Video" for more highlights, including Goudou's "little test" quote.
