EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft

[IO540]

Can we, should the hated regulation get adopted, challenge such a decision before the Court of First Instance (preferably by speedy procedure) ?

There are a number of people who have had legal advice saying the proposals are indeed vulnerable to a challenge, on various grounds.

I won't say any more, even if I find out more. There would not be a useful purpose. If these proposals do become law, we obviously want any vulnerabilities to remain.

I have been told by an aviation lawyer that EASA quite possibly did not get legal advice while drafting this garbage. This suprised me... I was sure they were politically naive but I did not think they were that stupid.

We shall see.

[Cathar]

- 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" ?

According to Article 65 of the EASA Regualtion (216/2008) the procedure to be followed in this case is Article 5(a) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC. If the Committee votes in favour, the Commission is obliged to adopt the Regulation unless with three months the Parliament or the Council oppose it on the grounds that it exceeds "the implementing powers provided for in the basic instrument or that the draft is not compatible with the aim or the content of the basic instrument or does not respect the principles of subsidiarity or proportionality."

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)

The power for the Commission to make the Regualtions with the assistance of the EASA Committee is in the EASA Regulation. The Regulation would need to be changed to remove this power from the Commission. Of course, only the Commission can bring forward draft legislation. The Regulation is made under the co-decision procedure so the power to change it rests equally with the Council and the Parliament who must agree.

[IO540]

Here is a useful summary of the present situation from PPL/IR Europe.

It was written before the very recent developments of the 15th October; rumours purporting to be from that meeting suggest that certain elements of EASA FCL were chucked out.

[BillieBob]

rumours purporting to be from that meeting suggest that certain elements of EASA FCL were chucked out.

My information is that the Basic LAPL and the LAFI were removed but no action was taken on the third country licensing issue.

Let us not forget that the requirement for pilots of third country aircraft whose operators are based in the EU to comply with Part-FCL is already in force, being included in Article 4 of the Basic Regulation. The point at issue is that Part-FCL does not include a simple way for third country licence holders to convert those licences, other than the procedures detailed in Annex III to the Cover Regulation. If this bit of Part FCL were 'chucked out', it would only make things worse by removing what minimal concessions have been proposed.

What is required is either a fundamental re-write of Annex III to provide a sensible option for conversion of third-country licences (unlikely as it would have to apply equally to all third country licences) or ratification of the pre-existing EU/FAA Bilateral Agreement, which depends, as Pace has discovered, on the FAA Re-authorisation Act (now passed by the the House of Representatives) failing to make it into law.

Since it has now become clear that this is little more than an unseemly pi$$ing contest between the EU and the US Congress, it is unlikley that any sensible, safety-based intervention is going to make a great deal of difference.

[IO540]

However, it is EASA which has made the otherwise rather meaningless connection between the pi$$ing contest and pilot licensing.

They could just as well tie this FCL initiative to whether the USA lets Toyota open a factory in some US town; it would be about as relevant.

The existing legislation (already passed) is very vague on the FRA issue and IMHO meaningless in practice.

[proudprivate]

They could just as well tie this FCL initiative to whether the USA lets Toyota open a factory in some US town; it would be about as relevant.

Invariably it made me think of a hostage type situation, in which we are taken hostage.

In international negotiations, it is quite common to bargain with relatively unrelated matters. A textbook example is France denying the late Pulkovo charter slots at French airports in order to obtain a more reasonable Russian stance on Siberia overflight issues for Air France. So I'm not surprised that Europe wants to retaliate if the US deny European workshops some of the Jet maintenance business (or whatever the issue at hand could be).

What is new here, is that EASA and by extension the European Commission now seem willingly and knowingly hurt a significant number of EU pilots and businesses in order to obtain their goal. Chances for a "Stockholm-syndrome" are rather remote, in this case.

In addition, fighting this powerplay through legislative proposals that are very rigid to adapt once enacted is inefficient. The vertical relationships are too stretched and the stakeholder community too diverse to obtain an acceptable outcome. It horrifies me to hear that committee members wanted too "keep up the pressure on the US regarding Annex III".

[IO540]

In international negotiations, it is quite common to bargain with relatively unrelated matters.

Indeed; a bit like Town & Country Planning, where different applications fronted by the same planning consultant are traded...

In a perverse way this is a good thing in this case because there is no real connection between the FRA issue and all the other US v. EU stuff (see the other thread).

So the EU could simply climb down on the FRA stuff (which IMHO has to happen one way or the other anyway otherwise a massive amount of s**t is going to hit the fan in the light jet business) and find some other issue to bother the Americans with.

[much2much]

The bureaucracy astonishes (well not really) me i just asked about converting my life ppl ,and told i need to retake rt,i held CAA cpl/ir for 20 years(expired but well used)and hold FAA comm /inst ,
So i thought i might just fly on that, if they really feel in the interest of safety after years in/out H/row and on the Atlantic i need a RT retest they are capable of any s88t
May be a petition as said or fly illegally, trouble is while i think there is a lot to learn from the FAA/US we have also caught the litigation/sue bug so not sure about doing that
**** !!??? And for the bigger picture where can i find the relevent information on these proposals now it,s gained my intrest???

[Mike Cross]

**** !!??? And for the bigger picture where can i find the relevent information on these proposals now it,s gained my intrest???

Draft Regulation on FCL

and also read the other news items on that site.

[IO540]

It's important to appreciate that only the Basic Reg is law at present.

This is a very vague document which (as far as the N-reg issue goes) is essentially meaningless by itself. It was written in the "we support world peace and an end to all poverty" style in order to get everybody to vote for it (the Eurocrats aren't stupid). Additional detailed regs will then be loaded on top of it, and it is these that will (or may) do the damage.

[Saab Dastard]

Orbifly's posts have been removed because PPRuNe does not wish to be seen to provide support to the particular campaign.


SD

[Orbifly]

May I know why you do not support a campaign which :

- is a non profit campaign
- worked hard to make the EASA text not approved in october
- is working hard to make it rejected next december
- is supported by : AOPA and especially AOPA France, AOPA Switzerland and AOPA Italy, working in partnership with us
- is supported by several FAA schools in Europe
- is supported by several GA magazines such as Flyer and Aviation&Pilote
- is supported by thousands of pilots
- is exactly at the right place on that forum

I really do not see any reason why, except if you are, personally, pro-EASA and anti-FAA.

You have to give more explanation. Juste deleting all my messages, one after the other, is an easy answer but does not make you right.

When I came here to explain our project, it was so obvious to me that we would have the full support of the PPRune team...

Not only they don't support that action, but I also discovered PPRune concept of "free expression".
That's interesting.
For sure you did not rise high in my esteem today.

Alexandra
N-Flyers of Europe

[Saab Dastard]

You have to give more explanation

It's called editorial policy.

I am sorry to appear brusque, but that, unfortunately, is that.

SD

[IO540]

I agree with Orbifly in this case; this EASA proposal has the potential to decimate (or worse) the European IFR pilot community, do much more damage than that to the livelihoods of may bizjet pilots, and do substantial economic damage to the higher end of GA whose spending is keeping a lot of facilities (used mainly by lower end GA) afloat.

If pprune cannot support this, what does it stand for?

This is the biggest negative factor to have hit GA since I started flying in 2000.

[dublinpilot]

I too agree with Orbifly, and am absolutely dismayed at SD's post. I presume it's pprune mgt's decision rather than an individual moderator's decision, but none the less it seems wrong wrong wrong.

There was no problem with previous surveys. eg the IMCR campaign survey being posted on here.

Why would a post on here directing people to a survey that they may wish to complete or not (I chose not too, as I felt some of the questions were ambiguous) in any way be seen as pprune supporting the campaign? A survey is a survey, not an endorsement.

No wonder pprune Private Flying is getting quieter and quieter over the years, or we aren't even allowed to talk about issues that affect us all.

dp

[BackPacker]

I also valued Orbifly's post and was surprised to see it moved from being a standalone thread (which should have been made a sticky, and possibly locked, for a while, AFAIC) into the depths of this 200+ post thread.

I have visited Orbifly's website due to the announcement here, and I have even forwarded the URL to some of my fellow aviators. In the end I decided not to participate in the survey because I have no vested interest whatsoever (no FAA PPL, no access to N-reg) but I do find the the way EASA is trying to control N-reg operations in the EU appaling and at the very least against the spirit of ICAO, if not against the letter.

I agree that PPRuNe has to have an editorial policy to protect its interests. But this is no blatant advertising for a commercial service, nor is it a referral to a competing site, so I see no harm in an individual member posting these kinds of surveys. PPRuNe as an organization does not take a stand on the issue, as far as I'm concerned, by allowing such posts.

[deefer dog]

I also agree with Orbifly, unless it is PpRune editorial policy NOT to permit a fair and balanced argument on this matter.

And as for..

I am sorry to appear brusque, but that, unfortunately, is that.

...are we to assume that means you won't (or can't) even explain the reason behind this mysterious editorial policy?

[Saab Dastard]

...are we to assume that means you won't (or can't) even explain the reason behind this mysterious editorial policy?

Assume what you like, I'm just the messenger.

SD

[IO540]

I wonder who got heavy with the owners of the server then?

[davidemm]

AOPA France and other national AOPA's support the N Flyer initiative.
The reason is simple:
EASA wants to change the rules on its own. Why not? But they have to accept that pilots impacted or not by their "opinions" will try to safeguard their privileges.
This is not about November licenses alone. Any third country license will be impacted.
As debated many times in this forum and many others across Europe, EASA has not played by the rule book that is theirs. They have not given the European commission any study of the possible impact of their NPA on the pilot population, the industry (maintenance organizations, companies selling planes etc.)
There was not study on safety. In fact one can argue that this text, if adopted will impact safety negatively.

One of the reasons that EASA could get away with it is the inability of the agency to provide these studies. They do not have the budget or the resources to produce these studies.

All of us are concerned by this. The nationality of our license or licenses is, at this point, irrelevant.
This text has serious flaws in it, flaws that we cannot accept. EASA would like to appear as the nice guys trying to protect Europe against foreign hoodlums. That is not the case. EASA brings nothing to the table but vague promises about possible future bilateral agreements. They want us to believe that they are taking a firm stance to force the US to sign these agreements. But let's face it: why would the US FAA and industry need to heel? Because EASA refuses to simplify the acceptance of STC's that have been around for years in the US? Some aircraft manufacturers have abandoned the idea of applying for a TC because of the costs and complexity of the operations involved. (Beech G36, B58)

Again if we lose this one, everybody will be impacted. This very project buries the IMCR for good. There has been no proposal to integrate it or to make the IR accessible in Europe. If this project passes, we are giving EASA all the power over our licenses. Not even our countries will have the power to go back to basics, like we already had to do during the JAA years with the NPPL.

Is that what we really need?

The N-Flyers is probably badly named. It should read European pilots.
What really counts for us who launched that initiative is to gather numbers, facts, and statistics. EASA has not done it, that why we have to do it. How can they petition the commission to adopt a law such as the one they have written when they have no facts, no safety case?

That's why we are urging all pilots to answer the poll. You only have a JAA license, that's fine, you are a pilot you are entitled to make your opinion known to EAA. You can write, you can answer survey that will establish the real scope of the problem. You are JA IR rated and happy with the system, that's fine to! You have gotten foreign licenses, help yourself, and defend them.

Emmanuel S. Davidson
Executive Vice-President AOPA France