EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would to that add about the shear cost not only to commercial pilots who would loose their work
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The No 10 petition has been suspended pending the Tweedles sorting themselves out. I did think about the petitioning our PM but arguably this is already out of our Government's hands.
The wording of the petition would need careful thought. However petitons to the EU Parliament can be fully supported. I would suggest the headline petition should be short and sweet with the more reasoned argument consigned to the supporting document.
With regards to directing the petition to the Commission I dont see there is a facility to do so - although I guess you can do what you like.
Are you suggesting the Commission can ignore a petition from a minority Group?
Whether anyone wants to run with this is another matter.
The wording of the petition would need careful thought. However petitons to the EU Parliament can be fully supported. I would suggest the headline petition should be short and sweet with the more reasoned argument consigned to the supporting document.
With regards to directing the petition to the Commission I dont see there is a facility to do so - although I guess you can do what you like.
The Lisbon Treaty forces the EC to make a legislative proposal, but only after 1,000,000 signatures. It has to investigate the applicability from 100,000 signatures or so...
Whether anyone wants to run with this is another matter.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cirencester UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Repeat of my post 'elsewhere':
Firstly, the EASA Opinion on FCL has gone to the Commission for consideration by the EASA committee (of member state official representatives - in UK case, the DfT) at a meeting on 13th and 14th October. The European Parliament is not involved at this stage. Once the EASA committee at the Commission has adopted the FCL implementing rules then the Parliament has the right to scrutinise them. This is one of the additional powers granted to the Parliament under the Lisbon Treaty. This is not an automatic process. The Parliament needs to be alerted to take an interest 'in the file'. I understand from a source close to the process that many letters have arrived with MEPs over the FRA issue, but the MEPs have been very confused by the authors of some of the letters in which it is suggested that the Parliament was about to vote on FCL. Which is not the case. An example of people firing off without knowledge of the process.
Before we wind up MEPs we need to see what the EASA committee at the Commission has adopted first and then we know what to ask MEPs to argue for, alerting them in advance to the forthcoming need to scrutinise the proposals.
Anyway, the EASA committee has this week deferred any vote on FCL until its December meeting. My source tells me there are likely to be some structural changes on the LAPL and Basic LAPL, but no changes are expected to Annex III (FRA issues).
The results of this meeting this week should be published on the EU website in the next week or two.
'Angry' petitions are all very well, but from my experience the more effective method is a well constructed case submitted to MEPs at the right time, preferably through a representative body such as IAOPA / AOPA / EAS, or similar, with advance notice of an upcoming opportunity to scrutinise a Commission proposal. Which is what we do regularly in EAS with the help of professional lobbyist in Brussels. Representing hundreds of thousands of pilots.
Firstly, the EASA Opinion on FCL has gone to the Commission for consideration by the EASA committee (of member state official representatives - in UK case, the DfT) at a meeting on 13th and 14th October. The European Parliament is not involved at this stage. Once the EASA committee at the Commission has adopted the FCL implementing rules then the Parliament has the right to scrutinise them. This is one of the additional powers granted to the Parliament under the Lisbon Treaty. This is not an automatic process. The Parliament needs to be alerted to take an interest 'in the file'. I understand from a source close to the process that many letters have arrived with MEPs over the FRA issue, but the MEPs have been very confused by the authors of some of the letters in which it is suggested that the Parliament was about to vote on FCL. Which is not the case. An example of people firing off without knowledge of the process.
Before we wind up MEPs we need to see what the EASA committee at the Commission has adopted first and then we know what to ask MEPs to argue for, alerting them in advance to the forthcoming need to scrutinise the proposals.
Anyway, the EASA committee has this week deferred any vote on FCL until its December meeting. My source tells me there are likely to be some structural changes on the LAPL and Basic LAPL, but no changes are expected to Annex III (FRA issues).
The results of this meeting this week should be published on the EU website in the next week or two.
'Angry' petitions are all very well, but from my experience the more effective method is a well constructed case submitted to MEPs at the right time, preferably through a representative body such as IAOPA / AOPA / EAS, or similar, with advance notice of an upcoming opportunity to scrutinise a Commission proposal. Which is what we do regularly in EAS with the help of professional lobbyist in Brussels. Representing hundreds of thousands of pilots.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no changes are expected to Annex III (FRA issues).
It is also very different to what has been reported elsewhere.
I think this article by Bruce Landsberg explains some of what is happening behind the scenes.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that that is a part of it. But a bigger part has been US legislation which was passed to restrict the authorisation of FAA Repair Stations outside the USA; this came in following a lot of these setting up in South America which caused a lot of business to be lost to US based ones. The side effect of this law has been a restriction on FAA RSs in Europe. And while FAA Repair Stations are not relevant to light GA (except for the 2-yearly altimeter check) they are mandatory for jet ops, and this is high value business. And US labour is a big issue over there.
What EASA has been trying to do is just plain illogical. The USA is a big country with a big and largely self sufficient economy. They have nothing to gain from a bilateral treaty - especially one with a bullying outfit which openly dislikes US aviation and whose terms of reference run counter to everything which America's founders fought for. Never underestimate the emotional impact of this stuff.
The Eurocrats are a bunch of self proclaimed stuck-up intellectually superior creatures who hate everything American and make no secret of it. But you cannot go spitting in somebody's soup and then expect them to sign a treaty especially one which doesn't bring them anything worthwhile.
Peoples' Republic of Congo would have loads to gain from a bilateral aviation treaty with the EU, but not the USA...
What EASA has been trying to do is just plain illogical. The USA is a big country with a big and largely self sufficient economy. They have nothing to gain from a bilateral treaty - especially one with a bullying outfit which openly dislikes US aviation and whose terms of reference run counter to everything which America's founders fought for. Never underestimate the emotional impact of this stuff.
The Eurocrats are a bunch of self proclaimed stuck-up intellectually superior creatures who hate everything American and make no secret of it. But you cannot go spitting in somebody's soup and then expect them to sign a treaty especially one which doesn't bring them anything worthwhile.
Peoples' Republic of Congo would have loads to gain from a bilateral aviation treaty with the EU, but not the USA...
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: LOWW
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If EU/EASA thinks they can bully the FAA into a Billateral Agreement by lashing out at their own people by means of restricting Third-Country-Aircraft and Licenses, they're delusional.
Frankly, the whole process doesn't make any sense to me.
The consequences of a FRA-ban will be borne (in order of gravity) by:
- EU-Pilots flying on a US medical: They will simply get kicked out of GA.
- Foreigners living in the EU for 1+ years: They will in practice be denied the use of their a/c
- EU-Pilots flying on a US IFR: They will have to undergo major retraining & expense or fly VFR
- Owners of US-aircraft with STCs/337s not certifiable in the EU: They will get hit in resale value, even if they can leave their a/c n-reg
- US-Flightschools: They will loose almost all business from Europe
- US-Manufacturers (Airframe & Avionics): They will loose all n-reg-only business in the EU
This is pure madness. Even if the issue hangs in limbo for another year and then some compromise is reached, the ambiguity of the situation effects personal and economic decissions right now: Should I buy the new Cirrus SR22T (n-reg-only)? Should I get my IFR-rating? Where? Should I put a glass-cockpit into my n-reg-airplane? Should I buy a C90 and maybe get hit by complex-rules or a PC12 and fly single engine?
regards,
Jan Brill
Managing Editor
Pilot und Flugzeug
Frankly, the whole process doesn't make any sense to me.
The consequences of a FRA-ban will be borne (in order of gravity) by:
- EU-Pilots flying on a US medical: They will simply get kicked out of GA.
- Foreigners living in the EU for 1+ years: They will in practice be denied the use of their a/c
- EU-Pilots flying on a US IFR: They will have to undergo major retraining & expense or fly VFR
- Owners of US-aircraft with STCs/337s not certifiable in the EU: They will get hit in resale value, even if they can leave their a/c n-reg
- US-Flightschools: They will loose almost all business from Europe
- US-Manufacturers (Airframe & Avionics): They will loose all n-reg-only business in the EU
This is pure madness. Even if the issue hangs in limbo for another year and then some compromise is reached, the ambiguity of the situation effects personal and economic decissions right now: Should I buy the new Cirrus SR22T (n-reg-only)? Should I get my IFR-rating? Where? Should I put a glass-cockpit into my n-reg-airplane? Should I buy a C90 and maybe get hit by complex-rules or a PC12 and fly single engine?
regards,
Jan Brill
Managing Editor
Pilot und Flugzeug
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- [reference to an AOPA letter] For EU residents using a non-EU licence on a non-EU registered aircraft.....the committee agreed that the pressure on the USA for a Bilateral Air Safety Agreement (BASA) should be kept up. Information from the FAA was noted that a BASA could be signed next spring. If not, until April 2013 for alternatives.
PS: the above is an excerpt of an AOPA article, referenced by Mike Cross in the other thread here.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David
Is it just me that feels sorry for them for being confused?
To be blunt it is absolutely pathetic that our elected representatives cant be bothered to understand the issues when a pile of emails land on their desks and expects the average pilot in the street to understand the inner workings of the European Parliament.
Pathetic. They clearly need a large kick up the empannage if this is really the state we have reached as a little persuasion to get off their back sides, pick up the 'phone, and ask someone what the hell this is about. It is not difficult.
of course perhaps this sorry lot need spoon feeding.
In industry they would last -- let me see, about as long as Lord Sugar takes to say you are fired.
but the MEPs have been very confused by the authors of some of the letters in which it is suggested that the Parliament was about to vote on FCL.
To be blunt it is absolutely pathetic that our elected representatives cant be bothered to understand the issues when a pile of emails land on their desks and expects the average pilot in the street to understand the inner workings of the European Parliament.
Pathetic. They clearly need a large kick up the empannage if this is really the state we have reached as a little persuasion to get off their back sides, pick up the 'phone, and ask someone what the hell this is about. It is not difficult.
of course perhaps this sorry lot need spoon feeding.
In industry they would last -- let me see, about as long as Lord Sugar takes to say you are fired.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be blunt it is absolutely pathetic that our elected representatives cant be bothered to understand the issues when a pile of emails land on their desks and expects the average pilot in the street to understand the inner workings of the European Parliament.
I do agree though that the best chance of burying this nonsense is measured response put at the highest level with the consequences being clearly spelt out, as Jan has done above.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jan's post above is bang on.
The "highest level" now means not EASA but the EU and the associated legislative processes. EASA is out of the picture now, and anyway they have shown beyond any doubt that they couldn't care less what most stakeholders think.
The "highest level" now means not EASA but the EU and the associated legislative processes. EASA is out of the picture now, and anyway they have shown beyond any doubt that they couldn't care less what most stakeholders think.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly it is a case of engaging with the political process, which EASA is not part of. I think that the EU is loosing credibility even in the more die hard parts of Europhilia and there is the beginnings of a realisation that the costs to businesses of compliance with all the EU regulations is becoming politically unacceptable.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the EU is loosing credibility even in the more die hard parts of Europhilia and there is the beginnings of a realisation that the costs to businesses of compliance with all the EU regulations is becoming politically unacceptable.
(REACH, ROHS, some other bollox which has no evidential basis when applied to electronic manufacturing and is now a 100% ar*se covering exercise passing from one company to its supplier and then to its supplier etc).
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: now in Zomerset
Age: 62
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite
We now have a government that clearly states that they will resist further handover of powers to Europe.
Personally I'll believe it when I see it, but they need to be made well aware of what is happening with EASA regulations.
But I was horrified to read in the Oct AOPA magazine about what happened when a government minister in an earlier regime was told about the much cheaper courses in the US and elsewhere. Dawn Primarolo (for it was she) said, well go there then.
I would doubt the current government is much different, but I'm willing to be convinced
We now have a government that clearly states that they will resist further handover of powers to Europe.
Personally I'll believe it when I see it, but they need to be made well aware of what is happening with EASA regulations.
But I was horrified to read in the Oct AOPA magazine about what happened when a government minister in an earlier regime was told about the much cheaper courses in the US and elsewhere. Dawn Primarolo (for it was she) said, well go there then.
I would doubt the current government is much different, but I'm willing to be convinced
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of the border
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the above link AOPA implies that the EASA Part-FCL proposal on licensing requirements for third country aircraft has been rejected by the EC - this is not my understanding. AFAIK the EC's EASA committee has simply deferred the vote on Part-FCL until its December meeting with no indication that any changes have been or will be made to Annex III. It would be wise to wait for the minutes of the meeting to be published before opening the champagne.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure it is too early to celebrate anything, but this looks like a victory for now because EASA was hoping to sneak this one in, and now the whole thing will be examined in a lot more detail. More time to lobby, too.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just joined the November-pool. If it doesn't help, it doesn't hurt.
Agree with Billiebob, looks as if this is not a won battle, just a postponement.
Also, I have confirmation of the direct link between the Annex III - thing and the (non-compliance of the Americans with) the 2008 bilateral agreement.
Some legal questions I was struggling with :
- Is a regulatory committee vote sufficient to turn this into law, or does the Commission (i.e. the College of Commissioners) have to adopt it afterwards ? Or was the parliamentary delegation given directly to an "EASA committee" ?
- Can the European Parliament Transportation Committee (or the Plenary Session of the European Parliament) revoke its earlier delegation, so that they can have another reading (with amendments) ?
- Can we, should the hated regulation get adopted, challenge such a decision before the Court of First Instance (preferably by speedy procedure) ?
Any legal light on this would be welcomed.
Agree with Billiebob, looks as if this is not a won battle, just a postponement.
Also, I have confirmation of the direct link between the Annex III - thing and the (non-compliance of the Americans with) the 2008 bilateral agreement.
Some legal questions I was struggling with :
- Is a regulatory committee vote sufficient to turn this into law, or does the Commission (i.e. the College of Commissioners) have to adopt it afterwards ? Or was the parliamentary delegation given directly to an "EASA committee" ?
- Can the European Parliament Transportation Committee (or the Plenary Session of the European Parliament) revoke its earlier delegation, so that they can have another reading (with amendments) ?
- Can we, should the hated regulation get adopted, challenge such a decision before the Court of First Instance (preferably by speedy procedure) ?
Any legal light on this would be welcomed.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am ready to give explanations on condition, however, that you first make at least some effort to find out what the issue really is about before sending us a series of false allegations. Following portion of letter removed Name of replier removed
Head-of-Unit Aviation Safety
European Commission
Head-of-Unit Aviation Safety
European Commission
I have removed the name of the of the person who replied as well as the rest of the reply letter and just posted the relevant bit! fingers crossed. At least I got a reply and may get an explanation because I am at a loss as why?
Pace