N Reg FAA IR threat from EASA
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can bet that all the Europeans who have N reg aircraft and have FAA certificates are very thankful that every time you put a litre of fuel in your aircraft you are paying for their ability to fly round Europe.
) etc.....So you see it works both ways. If I didn't have a US certificate I may not go there as much, spend as much (that is for sure!). I fly "carbon neutral" aeroplanes if anyone gives a sh*t (which I don't but to apease the whingers).....and end up supporting out flagging airlines (I normally fly BA).
Maybe we should try to attract people to come on flying holidays in the UK?....Nah, it'd never work, we'd be criticising them too much and slagging them off all the time......probably
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC - could you be a little bitter and twisted?
"You can bet that all the Europeans who have N reg aircraft and have FAA certificates are very thankful that every time you put a litre of fuel in your aircraft you are paying for their ability to fly round Europe."
Doesn't everybody contribute equally through fuel taxation if the fuel is bought in the EU?
Also FYI a UK Gallon is bigger than a US one -
.
SB
"You can bet that all the Europeans who have N reg aircraft and have FAA certificates are very thankful that every time you put a litre of fuel in your aircraft you are paying for their ability to fly round Europe."
Doesn't everybody contribute equally through fuel taxation if the fuel is bought in the EU?
Also FYI a UK Gallon is bigger than a US one -
.SB
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry BEagle, you are correct. More reasons to stick with litres! 
Scooterboy,
No.
Pilots in the US pay for the system through tax on avgas as one example.
Thus there is no fee at the point of issue for obtaining a PPL certificate or ratings etc
European pilots use US PPLs that they get for free and use N registered aircraft while paying no taxes towards the system that provides all the regulatory back-up etc etc. The cost of issuing certificates to European (and elsewhere in the world) pilots is borne by the US pilot population.
It is probably a very small percentage but it is the case that for every dollar in Avgas tax paid by a US PPL filling up their aircraft in california, some of that tax is used to provide European pilots with free certificates and the ability to fly European aircraft in European airspace.
European Enroute charges are ploughed back into the system However, they only kick in for IFR flights above 2000kg.
The tax on Avgas in most European countries is just a general taxation and there is no direct link with paying that tax and aviation support.
Having everyone in Europe on FAA certificates and N reg aircraft would be great - free certificates etc and the governments could save the costs of the NAAs and simply use the tax from avgas for other things. Oh sorry they already do use it for other things!
Regards,
DFC
Scooterboy,
No.
Pilots in the US pay for the system through tax on avgas as one example.
Thus there is no fee at the point of issue for obtaining a PPL certificate or ratings etc
European pilots use US PPLs that they get for free and use N registered aircraft while paying no taxes towards the system that provides all the regulatory back-up etc etc. The cost of issuing certificates to European (and elsewhere in the world) pilots is borne by the US pilot population.
It is probably a very small percentage but it is the case that for every dollar in Avgas tax paid by a US PPL filling up their aircraft in california, some of that tax is used to provide European pilots with free certificates and the ability to fly European aircraft in European airspace.
European Enroute charges are ploughed back into the system However, they only kick in for IFR flights above 2000kg.
The tax on Avgas in most European countries is just a general taxation and there is no direct link with paying that tax and aviation support.
Having everyone in Europe on FAA certificates and N reg aircraft would be great - free certificates etc and the governments could save the costs of the NAAs and simply use the tax from avgas for other things. Oh sorry they already do use it for other things!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: nowhere
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
taxes.....
Lets quantify taxes. What does one pay when paying for avgas in the US vs UK?
"Crude Oil = 44% ($0.6864)
Refining Costs and Profits = 15% ($0.234)
Distribution and Marketing Cost = 14% ($0.2184)
Federal and State Taxes = 27% ($0.4212)
The first three costs are mildly variable and can really be considered more of a constant no matter where you are in the world (probably lower in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia when compared to Europe and North America, however they will probably vary no more than say ±$0.50 per USG.) The true variable pricing factor that causes such a major disparage between the global prices that you pay for fuel, nation-by-nation is the amount that is charged as tax. This is illustrated by the total amount of tax levied on a US gallon of AVGAS delivered by fuel truck to a FAR Part 91 (equivalent) owner/operator on the ramp at one of the airports surrounding London in the UK. The tax charged there is approximately $3.80, while the taxes charged on the same specification and measure of AVGAS delivered on the ramp at a rural airport in Kansas is only $0.203. This type of tax disparage is prevalent all-through-out the world. According to the ' CIA World Statistical Handbook', out of a total of 212 countries in the world, only 98 of them are actually oil producing nations. Interestingly virtually all of the 212 countries elect to charge a fuel use or consumption tax."
The problem with many is that they have a narrow view as to the long reaching aspects of GA. It isn't just about user taxes, and who pays for a TR. It is an industry. The easier a government makes it for those who are able, and make it 'able' to as many as possible, the more is spent. The more is spent the better the economy......and the higher the overall taxes paid to the government. See the following:
Wages & Salaries
Employment
"Crude Oil = 44% ($0.6864)
Refining Costs and Profits = 15% ($0.234)
Distribution and Marketing Cost = 14% ($0.2184)
Federal and State Taxes = 27% ($0.4212)
The first three costs are mildly variable and can really be considered more of a constant no matter where you are in the world (probably lower in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia when compared to Europe and North America, however they will probably vary no more than say ±$0.50 per USG.) The true variable pricing factor that causes such a major disparage between the global prices that you pay for fuel, nation-by-nation is the amount that is charged as tax. This is illustrated by the total amount of tax levied on a US gallon of AVGAS delivered by fuel truck to a FAR Part 91 (equivalent) owner/operator on the ramp at one of the airports surrounding London in the UK. The tax charged there is approximately $3.80, while the taxes charged on the same specification and measure of AVGAS delivered on the ramp at a rural airport in Kansas is only $0.203. This type of tax disparage is prevalent all-through-out the world. According to the ' CIA World Statistical Handbook', out of a total of 212 countries in the world, only 98 of them are actually oil producing nations. Interestingly virtually all of the 212 countries elect to charge a fuel use or consumption tax."
The problem with many is that they have a narrow view as to the long reaching aspects of GA. It isn't just about user taxes, and who pays for a TR. It is an industry. The easier a government makes it for those who are able, and make it 'able' to as many as possible, the more is spent. The more is spent the better the economy......and the higher the overall taxes paid to the government. See the following:
"The GA sector contributed at least $150 billion to national output in 2005 and, directly or indirectly, employed more
than 1,265,000 people whose collective earnings exceeded $53 billion. It should be noted that these figures are very
conservative, first, because they reflect only the economic
output that likely would not have been generated if GA did not exist and, second, because the analysis was restricted
to those portions of GA’s contribution for which MergeGlobal found sufficiently detailed and reliable data. As will be
discussed later in this report, the estimates of GA’s economic contributions do not, by any means, include all of GA’s
significant net benefits to the U.S. economy.
General Aviation contributes to the U.S. economy by creating output, employment, and earnings that would not
otherwise occur. Direct impacts, such as the purchase of a new aircraft, multiply as they trigger transactions and
create jobs elsewhere in the economy (e.g., sales of aluminum, plastic, rubber, electronics, and the wide range of other
materials and components required to make an airplane). To capture these ripple effects, MergeGlobal estimated GA’s
“direct”, “indirect”, and “induced” contributions to the U.S. economy as summarized below:
than 1,265,000 people whose collective earnings exceeded $53 billion. It should be noted that these figures are very
conservative, first, because they reflect only the economic
output that likely would not have been generated if GA did not exist and, second, because the analysis was restricted
to those portions of GA’s contribution for which MergeGlobal found sufficiently detailed and reliable data. As will be
discussed later in this report, the estimates of GA’s economic contributions do not, by any means, include all of GA’s
significant net benefits to the U.S. economy.
General Aviation contributes to the U.S. economy by creating output, employment, and earnings that would not
otherwise occur. Direct impacts, such as the purchase of a new aircraft, multiply as they trigger transactions and
create jobs elsewhere in the economy (e.g., sales of aluminum, plastic, rubber, electronics, and the wide range of other
materials and components required to make an airplane). To capture these ripple effects, MergeGlobal estimated GA’s
“direct”, “indirect”, and “induced” contributions to the U.S. economy as summarized below:
General Aviation’s Contribution to the U.S. Economy In 2005
(All data except employment in $ billions)
(All data except employment in $ billions)
General Aviation benefits people and communities throughout the United States, and its economic contribution is significant in all regions of the country, as shown on the following page
4:
Direct Indirect Induced Total GA % of U.S.
Output $39.8 $49.9 $60.6 $150.3 0.66% 2
Wages & Salaries
$14.5 $20.9 $17.8 $53.2 0.76% 3
Employment
225,000 560,000 480,000 1,265,000 0.90% 3
Apologies for a poor cut and paste. See for yourself at the following link:
http://www.nasao.org/Publications/pd...ct%20Study.pdf
http://www.nasao.org/Publications/pd...ct%20Study.pdf
So, as long as the EU sees GA as a bad word that should be taxed to the hilt, they will continue to loose the economic advantages, and the increased tax revenue from all those who choose to go the US and leave their hard earned Sterling in the economy of the US. I think the price of a TR is chump change compared to the effects on the economy.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the fact that the FAA IR is an ICAO recognised instrument rating may stand for quite a lot. It will be a really hard regulation to police also. But like IO540 said, these are just disucssions at the moment
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC,
Not quite for FREE......I happily paid the US FTO for my CPL, my SE rating, my ME rating, my IR rating and numerous endorsements. They in turn paid taes on my "purchases" and their income generated from my purchase. I paid the FAA DPE thousands of dollars over time to examine me for these ratings. He in turn pays tax on what I pay him. I have paid tax on jet fuel and Avgas, I pay state taxes on my purchases while there, I pay city taxes on my hotel rooms, I pay airport taxes for my flights over. I pay city taxes for the rental car...I pay federal taxes on the petrol for the hire car. The instructors that I pay pay federal and state taxes, they pay taxes on the simulator time I have used......
But I am happy to do so, because I think it is VALUE FOR MONEY....which is something sadly lacking in Europe now we are one big happy euro-family.
Not quite for FREE......I happily paid the US FTO for my CPL, my SE rating, my ME rating, my IR rating and numerous endorsements. They in turn paid taes on my "purchases" and their income generated from my purchase. I paid the FAA DPE thousands of dollars over time to examine me for these ratings. He in turn pays tax on what I pay him. I have paid tax on jet fuel and Avgas, I pay state taxes on my purchases while there, I pay city taxes on my hotel rooms, I pay airport taxes for my flights over. I pay city taxes for the rental car...I pay federal taxes on the petrol for the hire car. The instructors that I pay pay federal and state taxes, they pay taxes on the simulator time I have used......
But I am happy to do so, because I think it is VALUE FOR MONEY....which is something sadly lacking in Europe now we are one big happy euro-family.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
European pilots use US PPLs that they get for free and use N registered aircraft while paying no taxes towards the system that provides all the regulatory back-up etc etc
Europe has gone the other direction. The result is plain for all to see, with many European countries having little in the way of GA left.
Thread Starter
This is the current information I have:
1. To operate any aircraft registered within the EU (+Switzerland, Norway and Iceland) you must hold at least the required JAA/EASA licence and ratings.
2. Aircraft operated on other Registers must comply with ICAO licence requirements and hold a licence and ratings with the state of registry of the aircraft.
3. However, aircraft registered outside the EU (+Switzerland, Iceland and Norway) which have their base within that region can only be flown by pilots holding the appropriate JAA/EASA licences and Ratings.
Thus (for example):
Sorry to be the bearer of such news.....
1. To operate any aircraft registered within the EU (+Switzerland, Norway and Iceland) you must hold at least the required JAA/EASA licence and ratings.
2. Aircraft operated on other Registers must comply with ICAO licence requirements and hold a licence and ratings with the state of registry of the aircraft.
3. However, aircraft registered outside the EU (+Switzerland, Iceland and Norway) which have their base within that region can only be flown by pilots holding the appropriate JAA/EASA licences and Ratings.
Thus (for example):
- You cannot operate a 'N' registered aircraft on a JAA/EASA licence.
- You cannot operate a 'G' registered aircraft using FAA Ratings and licences.
- If you currently own and operate, for example, a 'N' registered PA28 which you base at a UK aerodrome, you hold an FAA licence and IR - then you will have also to hold JAA/EASA licences and ratings to meet the law.
Sorry to be the bearer of such news.....
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone have a timetable (however tenuous) on implementation of EASA FCL 1 (if that's what it's going to be called!)?
EASA FCL 3 (medical stuff) is due to come to fruition in Spetember 2009 and I was informed (and kindly confirmed by bose-x in another thread - you don't happen to have the reference document, perchance?) that EASA medical regulations will prevent anyone flying a foreign registered aircraft based in EASA member states with anything but an EASA medical certificate.
That may have some implications in itself for those operating corporate N reg in the EU, even before EASA implements the rules mentioned above by BEagle.
Anyone know the way to the IOM?
EASA FCL 3 (medical stuff) is due to come to fruition in Spetember 2009 and I was informed (and kindly confirmed by bose-x in another thread - you don't happen to have the reference document, perchance?) that EASA medical regulations will prevent anyone flying a foreign registered aircraft based in EASA member states with anything but an EASA medical certificate.
That may have some implications in itself for those operating corporate N reg in the EU, even before EASA implements the rules mentioned above by BEagle.
Anyone know the way to the IOM?
I think O-P-M was making a general observation on his current feelings towards aviation, frankly I'm feeling the same way!
On a different note, there is so written on here about EASA that is pure rumour and speculation (I guess this is PPRuNE). It's hard to separate on here from those who would love to see FAA rated pilots forced out/change licence from those actually in the know and with anything actually constructive to add. All this is doing is upsetting pilots for no good reason. EASA may well spell the end for faa in europe but this will likely take years and be met with very strong political opposition. Lets just wait for some hard facts, then make an informed decision...
On a different note, there is so written on here about EASA that is pure rumour and speculation (I guess this is PPRuNE). It's hard to separate on here from those who would love to see FAA rated pilots forced out/change licence from those actually in the know and with anything actually constructive to add. All this is doing is upsetting pilots for no good reason. EASA may well spell the end for faa in europe but this will likely take years and be met with very strong political opposition. Lets just wait for some hard facts, then make an informed decision...
Last edited by youngskywalker; 22nd Dec 2007 at 14:47.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In theory it doesn't seem unreasonable, until you remember that most people with small light aircraft ONLY go N Reg to get a realistic IR for PPL use. Others won't be affected because they're on other registers for approvals reasons (e.g Socata TBM and YAKS)
The big argument still to be fixed in the context of IMCR and N Reg is a proper PPL/IR. I believe that if that is forthcoming the issues will be OK. If it's not forthcoming look for civil disobedience on a considerable scale, or maybe a commercial opportunity for the Channel Islands, Isle of Man or various places in North Africa
The big argument still to be fixed in the context of IMCR and N Reg is a proper PPL/IR. I believe that if that is forthcoming the issues will be OK. If it's not forthcoming look for civil disobedience on a considerable scale, or maybe a commercial opportunity for the Channel Islands, Isle of Man or various places in North Africa
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. To operate any aircraft registered within the EU (+Switzerland, Norway and Iceland) you must hold at least the required JAA/EASA licence and ratings.
dp