FAA IR instead of IMC?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal - I'd like to meet your friend who did an FAA IR over a weekend. He must have had some very recent flying, logged or not. It can't be done otherwise; the workload on the checkride is too high to just jump in from any sort of "normal flying".
He then converted to JAR and now flies Airbuses (A300 I believe....maybe he'll be along in a bit
)....
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current proposal from EASA to allow N Reg ops in Europe is that the aircraft must be maintained with European oversight to European standards and that the crews must conform to European licensing in addition to FAA licensing.
This I suspect is to keep the biz jet type operators happy and to give EASA the oversight that they claim is necessary. The cutoff being proposed is 90 days to allow the ferry flight, visitors etc to come and go as needed but ensure that based operators are inside the EASA regime.
Strikes me as being a very reasonable solution to the N Reg issue and as rustle points out holders of an FAA get significant credit towards the JAA IR.
For the record it has not been my experience or that of anyone I know for a CAAFU examiner to try any tricks on candidates. The test is carried out to a standard format identical to the 170a test the candidate already did and is carried out to extremely professional standards. You either make the grade or don't there is no trickery involved.
This I suspect is to keep the biz jet type operators happy and to give EASA the oversight that they claim is necessary. The cutoff being proposed is 90 days to allow the ferry flight, visitors etc to come and go as needed but ensure that based operators are inside the EASA regime.
Strikes me as being a very reasonable solution to the N Reg issue and as rustle points out holders of an FAA get significant credit towards the JAA IR.
For the record it has not been my experience or that of anyone I know for a CAAFU examiner to try any tricks on candidates. The test is carried out to a standard format identical to the 170a test the candidate already did and is carried out to extremely professional standards. You either make the grade or don't there is no trickery involved.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose, are you in effect saying that there will be no more N-Reg flying in Europe? If I read you right, then to all intents and purposes that's what it means: European maintenance / European licenses.
Please clarify, if I'm getting this wrong.
Please clarify, if I'm getting this wrong.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current proposal from EASA to allow N Reg ops in Europe is that the aircraft must be maintained with European oversight to European standards and that the crews must conform to European licensing in addition to FAA licensing.
Do you have a reference for that, other than the 2004 EASA document (which I can dig up in about 10 mins if I need to) which refers to EASA maintenance standards.
How would you propose to certify an N-reg aircraft as compliant under the EASA maintenance regime without EASA accepting FAA certification?
The cutoff being proposed is 90 days to allow the ferry flight, visitors etc to come and go as needed but ensure that based operators are inside the EASA regime.
Reference? Any EASA URL will do fine.
Do you have a reference for that, other than the 2004 EASA document (which I can dig up in about 10 mins if I need to) which refers to EASA maintenance standards.
How would you propose to certify an N-reg aircraft as compliant under the EASA maintenance regime without EASA accepting FAA certification?
The cutoff being proposed is 90 days to allow the ferry flight, visitors etc to come and go as needed but ensure that based operators are inside the EASA regime.
Reference? Any EASA URL will do fine.
If this is true then it effectively puts and end to the careers of pilots like me who only have FAA licences and can't convert either due to medical reasons or time/money restraints. Ah well, to be honest after 14 years of constant hassle and negativity i'm getting a bit 'scunnered' with the whole aviation industry... 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO,
Information provided to me this week for review. I am unable to share exact content with you due to non disclosure.
However feel free to write to EASA yourself.
I am sure you will come up with a dozen reasons why I am wrong just as you did last year when I told you that I thought the IMCR was going.......
The definition of oversight at the moment is bringing maintenance under the control of EASA organisation and synergy of licensing.
As I said before it strikes me that this is an effort on the part of EASA to accommodate N-Reg operations in Europe. After all the holder of an FAA IR is trained to the same high standard as a JAA IR holder so conversion should be a simple thing to achieve. Europe will continue to support ICAO and the Chicago convention by allowing foreign crews to operate with current licenses but ensure that those choosing to operate in European airspace on a permanent basis are given oversight.
There will be a transition period for all crews to achieve the correct licensing. There is nothing new here, it is just the same as happens under the FAA as I understand it.
Information provided to me this week for review. I am unable to share exact content with you due to non disclosure.
However feel free to write to EASA yourself.
I am sure you will come up with a dozen reasons why I am wrong just as you did last year when I told you that I thought the IMCR was going.......
The definition of oversight at the moment is bringing maintenance under the control of EASA organisation and synergy of licensing.
As I said before it strikes me that this is an effort on the part of EASA to accommodate N-Reg operations in Europe. After all the holder of an FAA IR is trained to the same high standard as a JAA IR holder so conversion should be a simple thing to achieve. Europe will continue to support ICAO and the Chicago convention by allowing foreign crews to operate with current licenses but ensure that those choosing to operate in European airspace on a permanent basis are given oversight.
There will be a transition period for all crews to achieve the correct licensing. There is nothing new here, it is just the same as happens under the FAA as I understand it.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the licencing requirements in the states are less "onerous". They will give you an IR if you sit the "IFP" ground exam. IN fact they will give you a certificate based upon your foreign licence, and medical, which will include all ratings and type ratings for private use with no formality and no tests other than the IFP ground exam.
If EASA would do the same, give me a PPL ME IR and SE IR based upon one ground exam then you would of course have no objection me or most people on here....
Interestingly the French WILL give a JAA IR to an FAA IR holder who is not an EU/EEA resident.
If EASA would do the same, give me a PPL ME IR and SE IR based upon one ground exam then you would of course have no objection me or most people on here....
Interestingly the French WILL give a JAA IR to an FAA IR holder who is not an EU/EEA resident.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The proposal to kick out N-reg has been around for far longer than I have been flying, according to old hands in the business.
The implementation is incredibly difficult.
Aeroplanes have a tendency to fly, so anybody operating a fleet will just rotate it via the EU. Anybody who can rent/lease will rent for 90 days and then rent another one. The commercial opportunities there are obvious.
Anybody over 5700kg can go on the IOM register, or one of the others which accept FAA certification/licensing.
Ultimately, the only people one could really screw would be small N-reg private pilots who can only just afford to do what they currently do. These are mostly FAA IR owner/pilots, and it's pretty obvious that their total number in Europe is under 1000.
Then one has to address the very basic issue of how one could subject an aircraft operated under FAA Part 91 to EASA maintenance requirements when the aircraft itself is not EASA certified, or contains equipment (e.g. TCAS) which is not EASA certified.
This has obviously not been thought through at all, but then neither was the 2005 UK DfT proposal, which was spectacularly withdrawn the instant it got anywhere near somebody with a brain who had to think about implementing it.
I am not saying the future is cast in concrete - it isn't. Everything is fluid.
There is even a possibility (very remote) of a total ban on private (i.e. non ATPL) flight in controlled airspace under IFR. There are many old farts in aviation regulation who want this.
But it's important to keep balance and not cause undue distress to pilots, by claiming such and such is just around the corner.
The implementation is incredibly difficult.
Aeroplanes have a tendency to fly, so anybody operating a fleet will just rotate it via the EU. Anybody who can rent/lease will rent for 90 days and then rent another one. The commercial opportunities there are obvious.
Anybody over 5700kg can go on the IOM register, or one of the others which accept FAA certification/licensing.
Ultimately, the only people one could really screw would be small N-reg private pilots who can only just afford to do what they currently do. These are mostly FAA IR owner/pilots, and it's pretty obvious that their total number in Europe is under 1000.
Then one has to address the very basic issue of how one could subject an aircraft operated under FAA Part 91 to EASA maintenance requirements when the aircraft itself is not EASA certified, or contains equipment (e.g. TCAS) which is not EASA certified.
This has obviously not been thought through at all, but then neither was the 2005 UK DfT proposal, which was spectacularly withdrawn the instant it got anywhere near somebody with a brain who had to think about implementing it.
I am not saying the future is cast in concrete - it isn't. Everything is fluid.
There is even a possibility (very remote) of a total ban on private (i.e. non ATPL) flight in controlled airspace under IFR. There are many old farts in aviation regulation who want this.
But it's important to keep balance and not cause undue distress to pilots, by claiming such and such is just around the corner.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Englishal, I will keep an eye on developments with the IMCR/IR and may well do as you suggest - we have friends in the US within 10 minutes' drive of a nice regional airport where they have already tried to sign me up for an IR (as I already fly with them on my FAA piggyback licence). So it would be logistically simple.
Tim
Tim
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said IO540 
It would be almost impossible to prevent 'N' reg aircraft from being operated in the UK.
To do so would open up a huge can of worms - for example, if an 'N' reg biz jet and its FAA qualified crew are deemed by some piece of ill thought out legislation to be inadequately maintained and flown by an underqualified crew, then so potentially is the United Airlines 747 that flies into Heathrow. It's a nonsense.
The threat to the UK IMC rating is altogether more real and we should all do whatever we can to prevent that from happening.
It would be almost impossible to prevent 'N' reg aircraft from being operated in the UK.
To do so would open up a huge can of worms - for example, if an 'N' reg biz jet and its FAA qualified crew are deemed by some piece of ill thought out legislation to be inadequately maintained and flown by an underqualified crew, then so potentially is the United Airlines 747 that flies into Heathrow. It's a nonsense.
The threat to the UK IMC rating is altogether more real and we should all do whatever we can to prevent that from happening.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by julian_storey
...for example, if an 'N' reg biz jet and its FAA qualified crew are deemed by some piece of ill thought out legislation to be inadequately maintained and flown by an underqualified crew, then so potentially is the United Airlines 747 that flies into Heathrow. It's a nonsense.
It is the sub 5700lb aircraft they're after, and they will eventually win.
Dual oversight of maintenance is not difficult, but I would imagine it will become expensive as there will necessarily be two sets of paperwork to complete.
A lot of you N-reg bods already maintain two logbooks, FAA and JAA, as the recording requirements are slightly different: Why such a great problem to understand dual-logging all aircraft maintenance etc?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be almost impossible to prevent 'N' reg aircraft from being operated in the UK
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No the proposal does not stop operation or basing of N Reg. In fact it merely states that EASA want oversight of the maintenance and oversight of the licensing. This is an improvement over other proposals that wanted rid of the N Reg completely.
If you want to be based in Europe for more than 90 days the EASA wants oversight. If you are visiting like the airlines then oversight is maintained by the FAA.
I have not read anywhere that EASA consider FAA maintenance or licensing inadequate just that the FAA have admitted they do not maintain oversight of non US based aircraft or crews and so EASA want oversight of aircraft permanently based in their territory.
So the N Reg guys now have what they want which is to continue operations in Europe and EASA have what they want which is oversight. What is wrong with that?
If you want to be based in Europe for more than 90 days the EASA wants oversight. If you are visiting like the airlines then oversight is maintained by the FAA.
I have not read anywhere that EASA consider FAA maintenance or licensing inadequate just that the FAA have admitted they do not maintain oversight of non US based aircraft or crews and so EASA want oversight of aircraft permanently based in their territory.
So the N Reg guys now have what they want which is to continue operations in Europe and EASA have what they want which is oversight. What is wrong with that?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, copies of the FAA release to service sent to EASA? What is wrong with that? Accompanied by a cheque for Euro 1000, perhaps.
FCL is something else of course. The majority of private N-reg owners are there for the FAA IR.
But then everybody knows that if the certification and FCL are addressed reasonably (e.g. an FAA PPL/IR swapped for an EASA PPL/IR, and FAA STCs and 337s accepted) nobody will be on the N-reg anyway.
FCL is something else of course. The majority of private N-reg owners are there for the FAA IR.
But then everybody knows that if the certification and FCL are addressed reasonably (e.g. an FAA PPL/IR swapped for an EASA PPL/IR, and FAA STCs and 337s accepted) nobody will be on the N-reg anyway.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suspect that there will be an element of compromise when it comes to the maintenance, long the lines of FAA maintenance schemes being carried out under the auspice of an EASA shop.
As for licensing, I suspect a more thorny issue, an FAA IR 'swapped' for an EASA IR having met the requirements will be the route. The jury is still out on the requirements, but our work has been submitted and is under review.
As for licensing, I suspect a more thorny issue, an FAA IR 'swapped' for an EASA IR having met the requirements will be the route. The jury is still out on the requirements, but our work has been submitted and is under review.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
As for licensing, I suspect a more thorny issue, an FAA IR 'swapped' for an EASA IR having met the requirements will be the route. The jury is still out on the requirements, but our work has been submitted and is under review.
(1) get an FAA IR (because the hours already undertaken for the IMCR count, which they wouldn't in Europe)
(2) swap this for an EASA IR?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is with the Brits always looking for an 'easy' way of doing things.......... If there was a straight road between point A and B the Brits would find the detour.
Or how about have an IMCR and go and do an EASA IR?
Rather than going through what is a vastly convoluted detour to achieve the same thing? We are only talking about losing 15 hrs for gods sake. I have done that in the last week.
There will never be a straight 'swap' you will have to meet an national requirements wherever you. I just did the same in Canada, I had to take the exams and the flight test. It is the same the world over.
The IMCR training does not count for squat in the global scheme of things. I refer you back to my previous comments on average poor standard of IMC training. It's the reason we have no support for the rating in Europe!
Going the FAA route to come back to the JAA route just reinforces the view the Europeans have. You do yourselves no favours.....
Or how about have an IMCR and go and do an EASA IR?
Rather than going through what is a vastly convoluted detour to achieve the same thing? We are only talking about losing 15 hrs for gods sake. I have done that in the last week.
There will never be a straight 'swap' you will have to meet an national requirements wherever you. I just did the same in Canada, I had to take the exams and the flight test. It is the same the world over.
The IMCR training does not count for squat in the global scheme of things. I refer you back to my previous comments on average poor standard of IMC training. It's the reason we have no support for the rating in Europe!
Going the FAA route to come back to the JAA route just reinforces the view the Europeans have. You do yourselves no favours.....