EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft

[BackPacker]

I don't know what goes on behind the scenes of course, so I'm not judging any actions by the moderators, but I did get word that Alexandra has just been banned from this thread.

[dublinpilot]

I don't know what goes on behind the scenes of course, so I'm not judging any actions by the moderators, but I did get word that Alexandra has just been banned from this thread.

Wow!

I'm not so sure that this is the same place that I joined over 8 years ago.

BRL's moderation was never like this.

I think that it would be most appropriate for SD (or higher up Pprune mgt if he isn't in a position to do it) to explain what is going on here.

Is there some part of this that we aren't aware of? Nothing else makes much sense right now....there must be more to this than is obvious from this thread, or pprune has become a very strange place for GA.

Looks like pace can forget his idea of Pprune ever becoming a place to represent GA's views on a wider scale

dp

[DLT1939]

Oh dear. Looks as if some one travelling in First Class on the EASA gravy train has become invovled!

[Turban]

A few years ago I had a little chat with people at Orbifly in France, and eventhough I didn't went in byzness with them (I left Europe), at that time they (i.e be a N-flyer) seemed to be the only nice spot to fly in a dark sky..
The JAA course was waayyyy to expensive...and not it seems that it is going to be the one and only way...

Anyway...
Welcome to a safe and secure society...
Welcome to the dark side of burocratism..
Welcome to Europe !

[172driver]

Looks like pace can forget his idea of PPRuNe ever becoming a place to represent GA's views on a wider scale

Indeed - this is a joke. Here we are discussing writing to MEPs, setting up a petition to No 10 and then someone sets up a little questionnaire cum petition and gets banned ????? C'mon guys, at the very least you gotta explain yourselves. Not a good day for Pprune

[IO540]

Just doing some research...

What is the simplest route for a commercial bizjet pilot with an FAA CPL/IR to get a JAA CPL/IR?

With the non-CPL (private pilot) version of the above, he obviously has to do a separate JAA PPL first, to attach the IR to when he gets that.

Can one go direct to a JAA CPL/IR without doing a PPL, then a CPL, then the IR?

I do know that under current EASA proposals an ICAO Type Rating will carry over to an EASA CPL/IR, so he won't have to re-do his TR as well... got to be grateful for small mercies

[Pace]

Disturbing letter

I had a letter which was very disturbing concerning messages being removed and anti N reg element within pprune itself.

We are all guests at PPRUNE it is their site and basically we are here under their rules.

It would not be fair or right of me to copy these letters to this site but I think we should have some sort of official response from PPRUNE on what their policy is especially regarding N reg.

I have taken some time thinking whether I should post this or not but if this thread goes or I go you have your answer.

Pace

[BackPacker]

At the risk of being banned, just like Pace...

I've been copied the same letters as Pace. I find it disturbing that PPRuNe, in this particular case, is not just wielding their "editorial policy" to protect their legitimate, commercial interests, but is now also using it to actively take a stand against N-reg flying within the EU.

As I said before, I'm all for an editorial policy that protects the commercial interests of PPRuNe. After all, it must cost a small fortune to run the site in bandwidth, servers and so forth. If the editorial policy forbids advertising in posts, and instead asks advertisers to take out a paid ad, fine with me. Equally that we're not allowed to post links here that might lure the audience away to a competing site, fair enough.

But if PPRuNe thinks it's got an axe to grind with some of the parties that are involved or mentioned in this thread, let's get it out in the open.

As far as the original issue is concerned, I've always find it very odd that you're allowed to operate an N-reg in the EU indefinitely. If you import a car or other transportation device, you've got a grace period and then need to bring it onto the local register. Why would the same thing not be true for an aircraft? I can understand that the EU wants to do something about that, but...
a. Let's first take a look at the root issues why people are operating N-regs here indefinitely, and do something about that to level the playing field (accessible IR for PPL, more flexible maintenance/licensing schemes for aircraft that are flow privately, mutual acceptance of STCs etc.) instead of trying to gold-plate everything.
b. And then find a way of discouraging N-regs to be permanently based over here that's actually in line with, at the very least, the spirit of ICAO.

[bookworm]

b. And then find a way of discouraging N-regs to be permanently based over here that's actually in line with, at the very least, the spirit of ICAO.

While I sympathise with almost everything else you write above, I find it strange that you find the EU/Commission's actions contrary to the "spirit of ICAO".

The Chicago Convention was constructed more than 60 years ago in the days when international aviation was still very difficult because there was no recognition of the certificates and licences of another state for any purpose whatsoever. It conveys a right of non-scheduled flight for the purpose of international air navigation:

"Each contracting State agrees that all aircraft of the other contracting States, being aircraft not engaged in scheduled international air services shall have the right, subject to the observance of the terms of this Convention, to make flights into or in transit non-stop across its territory and to make stops for non-traffic purposes without the necessity of obtaining prior permission, and subject to the right of the State flown over to require landing."

The "spirit of ICAO" was to enable aircraft to make bona fide international journeys, not to allow the flying of flags of convenience for domestic flying and thus to evade the regulations of the state in whose territory the aircraft and pilot was based.

[Pace]

Backpacker and all.

Yes I had the same letters. I have had a great time in PPRUNE and learnt a lot from a great deal of very knowledgable people in that time.

This is making me feel very uncomfortable as it feels wrong.

For me this thing with EASA has little to do with N reg but something much bigger and more dangerous to our love which is aviation.

I also appreciate there are two camps. The camp who thinks that they have European licences and are far superior to anybody Else and want that percieved superiority to protect them and the N reg Brigade.

A lot of that barrier between us comes from private jets. AOC OPS are sadly so badly overregulated so laden with costs that they struggle badly in selling their services.

Those who need those services either go their own way and operate their own jets or try and get cheaper deals through legitimate dry leasing arrangements.

There are a small minority who are involved in illegal charter.
The AOC ops like black taxis shout unfair as they see their small markets reduced further by N reg.

Some of the moderators here fit that bracket and hoped that these new EASA regs would banish N reg for good.

Now they see a growing backlash and they realise that maybe the N reg may infact remain.

That is my guess and I maybe wrong. But the Glee displayed in the jet forum and the threats to some of us made me realise how bitter feelings are.

Sadly they are misplaced as the real threat to all of us is overregulation , burocracy and self indulgent Quangos.

Flying regulations should be guided by one thing only and that is safety.

FAA part 135 ops safer than JAA AOC OPS? afraid so even with the 14 exams overregulation and the rest that we enjoy with ever increasing levels in Europe.

Yes EASA could look at why N reg is so popular over here and learn from it.
IE deregulate not increase regulations.

But then what would all these regulators do to fill their days and justify their salaries.

The problem is we all pay and the biggest payer of all is the health of all aviation in Europe especially GA.

Pace

[Contacttower]

Yes I had the same letters.

Were these actual physical letters delivered by post or PMs?

[Pace]

The "spirit of ICAO" was to enable aircraft to make bona fide international journeys, not to allow the flying of flags of convenience for domestic flying and thus to evade the regulations of the state in whose territory the aircraft and pilot was based.

What are flags of convenience? why are they needed? This is a flowery excuse used for the ridiculous over regulations stifling our industry in Europe.

Sadly it is a Cancer eating through a lot of our freedoms in Europe and a costly one.

This is not about N reg or flags of convenience but why they are so popular and why pilots have been forced in that direction.

GA is dying not being encouraged! Soon it will be too difficult and too expensive for anyone to fly GA in Europe.

The powers that be should be regulating to make aviation flourish not as they are strangling it to death.

That sadly is the truth not the flowery quote above

Pace

[Pace]

PMs

But the replies from the mods here were copied in. For that reason they "could" be questionable and I hope not authentic or true.

Again for that reason my responses are a concern not an accusation.

Pace

[bookworm]

What are flags of convenience? why are they needed?

You're right to ask that question, Pace, and perhaps it would be fair to say that in terms of what it says about your attitude to safety regulation, choosing to put an N on your tail is a little different from a ship owner choosing a Panamanian or Liberian flag.

But I would argue that there is a third 'camp'.

The camp who thinks that they have European licences and are far superior to anybody Else and want that percieved superiority to protect them and the N reg Brigade.

There's also a camp that thinks that regulation of EU aviation must remain in EU hands, and that allowing a foreign state to regulate our aviation, while it might seem appealing in the short term, is naive in the long term. The US has written, and will continue to write, regulation that favours US companies and citizens. It's not because Americans are evil, nor even xenophobic. It's just the way the international trade game is played.

That said, I'm sorry that a lot of good pilots are caught in the crossfire on this one, and will continue to hope for a satisfactory outcome for all.

[BackPacker]

The "spirit of ICAO" was to enable aircraft to make bona fide international journeys, not to allow the flying of flags of convenience for domestic flying and thus to evade the regulations of the state in whose territory the aircraft and pilot was based

Actually what I meant was that, under ICAO regulations, if you fly a plane registered in state X, all you need is a license issued by state X (subject to certain minimum requirements) and this is accepted for worldwide flight. In other words it's the state of registry of the aircraft that determines the qualifications that the commander has to have, and a few other things that are internal to the aircraft.

EASA is now meddling with that principle, requiring pilots of N-regs that are permanently based over here, to also hold a JAA license of some sort.

Of course this is not the only issue that's at play here, but it's the one I object to.

[IO540]

ICAO allows each member state to prevent its "nationals" (citizens) flying on foreign licenses or medicals in its airspace.

EASA's proposal uses the word "residents" which is a very different concept, especially when applied to the "operator".

In this case, each EU country will have to file a difference to ICAO. Presumably, the EU can force each EU country to do that.

Nobody says it cannot be done. It is just a bit dirty for "civilised Europe", especially after it has been 100.000% legal to operate non-EU reg aircraft over here, for longer than anybody can remember, which has lead to countless people to set up operations and businesses on that assumption.

N-reg is not by any stretch of imagination a "flag of convenience" comparable to Liberia for ships. Liberia is a meaningless registry and you could starve the crews to death, and not maintain the ships for decades, and nobody would care.

Aviation is far distant from that; the local CAAs can enforce dangerous operations, can prosecute locally for transgressions in foreign airspace, and maintenance is done to the state of registry standard (Part 91 etc) to at least the same level of compliance as it is done on the local EU registry (which itself is never checked by the local CAA anyway). In fact even the most cursory look at a few airports' parked contents shows that N-reg are maintained way better than the local hardware.

But we all know the above. These EASA measures are driven by politics of envy, various axe grinders (e.g. FTOs) and some EU-US brinkmanship thrown in for good measure. Nobody has ever shown it is anything to do with safety, and nobody would try since everybody with a brain knows there is no safety case.

[BackPacker]

ICAO allows each member state to prevent its "nationals" (citizens) flying on foreign licenses or medicals in its airspace.

How many ICAO states actually do this?

[BillieBob]

These EASA measures are driven by politics of envy, various axe grinders (e.g. FTOs) and some EU-US brinkmanship thrown in for good measure. Nobody has ever shown it is anything to do with safety, and nobody would try since everybody with a brain knows there is no safety case.

Not quite. The reason that all this is going on is quite simple - there was a bilateral air safety agreement (BASA), agreed after years of negotiation, that was signed in good faith by representatives of the EU and the US. Subsequently, and before the agreement was ratified by the US government, a member of the US House of Representatives who was trying to curry favour with the US aircraft maintenance industry, sought, in the guise of an amendment to routine legislation to re-authorise the FAA, to introduce added requirements for the approval of foreign repair stations that were not compliant with the previously agreed BASA and not acceptable to the EU. His arrogance in the House debates was such as to incense certain influential members of the EU and, as a bargaining counter, the Implementing Rules for Pilot Licensing were (mis)used to introduce new requirements for third country operated aircraft that would disadvantage US manufacturers and the US flight training industry. To this extent, the accusation of EU/US brinkmanship is valid and, if you are looking for the one person responsible for this whole mess, you need look no further than Jim Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

However, what appears not to be understood is that the various individuals affected by this childish inter-governmental one-upmanship, whether corporate operators or owner-operators of third country aircraft, count for nothing. Irrespective of how much anger is generated in this or other forums (fora?), no matter what representations are made by industry, no matter what letters and petitions are generated by AOPA, this remains nothing more than a political face-off between the EU and the US Congress. The EU bureaucrats do not care one jot whether N-reg aircraft continue to be based in the EU or how many pilots lose their jobs - it is winning the game that counts, not who gets hurt in the process and, until you understand the rules of the game (and the various AOPAs clearly do not) you have no chance of taking a meaningful part in it.

On a separate but allied subject, we also need to remember that this is private website and that if Danny, or the moderators that work on his behalf, decide that a subject may not be discussed, that is their absolute right. The suggestion that any moderator needs to justify his or her decisions to the rest of us is entirely without merit.

[IO540]

How many ICAO states actually do this?

The majority of police states / dictatorships / African "peoples' republics", most operators of Russian-made SAMs, and apparently Denmark

The UK CAA has used it against selected individuals who have p1ssed it off, usually by flying on FAA medicals alone, and not keeping a low profile.

Not quite. The reason that all this is going on is quite simple - there was a bilateral air safety agreement (BASA), agreed after years of negotiation, that was signed in good faith by representatives of the EU and the US.

That may be an explanation of a part of the current situation but it is a bit like saying to a 5 year old kid "NO you can't have that ice cream because me and your mum are divorcing".

The Eurocrats love knocking together treaties. It seems like the ultimate sexual achievement for a full time Eurocrat / diplomatic posting to be associated with some big treaty. Hence the stream of treaties coming out of Brussels. They just love them and all the 1st class travelling, lunches, dinners, parties and p1ssups which go along with getting them signed. It's what life is about.

Of course The Peoples' Republic of Belgian Congo is delighted to sign a bilateral treaty with the EU... they probably get a lot out of it and they do love the parties too. And domestic dissent is not a problem...

Things get a bit more complicated with important countries, like the USA.

On FCL, there was no need for the EU to lump this in into some treaty. They could have just left it alone. What the EU did is it wrapped up a lot of issues (which were a thorn in the side of the Euro intellectually superior ruling classes) into a treaty, and then they complain that the USA is not happy about some bits of it, and they then pretend that the USA is being a bad boy.

I am amazed the EU did not throw the unconditional withdrawal of MacDonalds from the EU into this treaty. That would save far more EU lives than anything you could possibly do in aviation, and would be only marginally less relevant to any real safety issue than bilateral FCL recognition, for which the USA has no need and which was a totally one-sided lever for the EU to push against, to win some other unrelated stuff.

In GA terms, the European equipment market is around 1/10 of the US market so the USA has no need for a treaty on certification, either, especially as the big US makers can get EASA approvals easily enough, using the FAA TCs or STCs as Approved Data to get started.

The EU has been disingenuous in the way they have thrown in a load of unrelated stuff into one treaty, betting the whole shop on getting it signed. It's pure brinkmanship but pointless in the real world.

Edit: Denmark, according to a recent thread here, seems to put a time limit on foreign reg airframe long term parking. I don't know if they ban Danish citizens from using foreign FCL as such, but that would be a second order issue if you ban long term parking.

[bookworm]

Actually what I meant was that, under ICAO regulations, if you fly a plane registered in state X, all you need is a license issued by state X (subject to certain minimum requirements) and this is accepted for worldwide flight

Yes, and that's (with various reservations) the letter of ICAO as applied today, not the spirit of ICAO.