EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft

[Justiciar]

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

It is the mark of the modern partisan mentality that you can "ban" something and stop the message getting across. Usually the banner simply shows themself for what they are (particularly when they are incapable of advancing a rational explaination for their actions) and of course the debate goes on elsewhere!

[Pace]

justiciar just to clarify I was not banned or threatened with it.I am also fairly confident that there are elements in the forums who want N Reg banned and who would equally put pressure on the moderators to remove any sort of petition link. So without a clarification from the moderators i would not jump to a conclusion as WHY !

[Mike Cross]

There are number of things going on here and the suggestion that AOPAs in general do not understand the political shenanigans is hogwash.

There have long been political disputes over the right of cabotage (the right for a vessel from one state to provide domestic carriage within another state.) For example a European airline might be permitted to operate in and out of the US but if it wanted to offer internal flights within the US it would have to gain the appropriate US licenses and permissions, it wouldn't be able to do it based on it's home credentials.

Hence we have restrictions within our own ANO on what foreign registered aircraft may be used for within the UK.

Where we have a bit of a problem is that Europe is not like the US. If you fly from France to the UK you are on an International flight. If you fly from Rhode Island to New York you are not. Carrying passengers or cargo from France to the UK is not cabotage, between Rhode Island and New York it is.

EASA is trying to simultaneously introduce common rules within the EASA States and at the same time redefine cabotage.

[IO540]

Carrying passengers or cargo from France to the UK is not cabotage, between Rhode Island and New York it is.

You must mean paying passengers i.e. an AOC public transport flight.

EASA is trying to simultaneously introduce common rules within the EASA States and at the same time redefine cabotage.

How are they trying to redefine cabotage?

It has long been rumoured that the French have been going after N-reg private flights taking place within France, for cabotage. It was one of those recurring rumours which go around pilot forums, where nobody can actually vouch for it personally, and (like e.g. the notorious and totally bollox dry lease "requirement" for renting an N-reg which I personally checked out with the DfT) somebody probably just made it up on the spot and it goes from there.

Eventually, somebody obtained a letter from the head of French Customs confirming this is not an issue on private flights. I have a copy of this letter, and carry it.

Obviously, if the powers to be decided that the flight was not a private flight then they could self evidently go after you under cabotage. How could they do that? One scenario might be that you were doing the traditional UK PPL cost sharing scheme, which (not many people know this) is illegal in UK airspace except in a G-reg. For all I know, cost sharing is illegal in French airspace except in an F-reg... ?

[Justiciar]

just to clarify I was not banned or threatened with it

I am very relieved to hear it

[Mike Cross]

You must mean paying passengers i.e. an AOC public transport flight.

I agree, it relates to Public Transport (passengers or cargo)

How are they trying to redefine cabotage?

They are trying to implement a rule that has the effect of applying the rules of cabotage to flights within the EU, even though they may be International and hence fall outside the definition of cabotage. I apologise for the terminological inexactitude but I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at.

The implementation of this rule however threatens to have far wider implications since it does not differentiate between PT and Private.

It would be preferable for the regulatory requirements of the EU and the US to be more closely aligned, which is what the BASA is supposed to be about. The politicians concerned appear to have difficulty in agreeing something that is fair to all parties.

[Justiciar]

They are trying to implement a rule that has the effect of applying the rules of cabotage to flights within the EU, even though they may be International and hence fall outside the definition of cabotage. I apologise for the terminological inexactitude but I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at.

Is this not the problem with the EU believing it is a "state" whereas it is in fact an international (or trans national) organisation created by treaty, all be it one to whom national powers have been delegated in the realm of aviation regulation. ICAO treaties and conventions apply between states. I would think that for the EU to be given the status of a state for aviation purposes would require treaty amendments.

I begin to see where they are coming from though. Good old protectionism which private N reg owners and operators have been dragged into.

[IO540]

The implementation of this rule however threatens to have far wider implications since it does not differentiate between PT and Private.

That is plain stupid.

You can't have "cabotage" where the passengers are not paying, surely??

If the passengers are paying then it is an AOC operation, and cabotage will be the least of their worries. I suppose it may affect bizjet AOC ops which could currently do UK-France but not UK-UK - is this true in reality?

If they draft it badly (which is almost certain) that might outlaw PPL cost sharing (as we know it) which will kill GA, end of story. Probably the majority of PPLs will not do a long flight unless they can carry somebody who shares the cost.

Obviously one could cost share in cash, unofficially, but that is dodgy because if there is an accident, an injured passenger will have a huge incentive to spill the beans on the pilot being paid, because a criminal conviction under Aerial Work will make it a lot easier to nail the pilot for negligence, which is a pre-requisite for a payout under passenger liability.

[Mike Cross]

Are you suggesting that what I said is plain stupid or what is being proposed is plain stupid?


......... just asking

Part 29 of the ANO already restricts PT and aerial work by FRA. Trouble is the EASA proposals want to extend that restriction to priivate flights.

PART 29 PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND AERIAL WORK BY FOREIGN REGISTERED
AIRCRAFT
Restriction on carriage for valuable consideration in aircraft registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom
223 (1) An aircraft registered in a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom, or in a foreign country, must not take on board or discharge any passengers or cargo in the United Kingdom where valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of such persons or cargo unless it complies with paragraph (2) or is exempt from this paragraph under paragraph (3).
(2) This paragraph is complied with if the operator or the charterer of the aircraft or the Government of the country in which the aircraft is registered has been granted a permission by the Secretary of State under this article and any conditions subject to which such permission may be subject are complied with.
(3) An aircraft is exempt from the requirement to comply with paragraph (1) if it is exercising traffic rights permitted by Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24th September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community(a).
(4) No operator or charterer of an aircraft which is required to comply with paragraph (2) may hold itself out as a person who may offer to take on board or discharge any passenger or cargo in the United Kingdom for valuable consideration except in accordance with:
(a) a permission granted under this article; and
(b) any conditions to which such a permission may be subject.
(5) Paragraph (4) does not apply to any person who reasonably believes that they will hold such a permission by the time the relevant flight is made.

and

Restriction on aerial photography, aerial survey and aerial work in aircraft registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom
225 An aircraft registered in a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom, or in a foreign country, must not fly over the United Kingdom for the purpose of aerial photography or aerial survey (whether or not valuable consideration is given or promised for the flight or the purpose of the flight) or for the purpose of any other form of aerial work unless:
(a) it has the permission of the Secretary of State granted under this article to the operator or the charterer of the aircraft; and
(b) it complies with any conditions to which that permission may be subject.

[IO540]

The latter

However, I can't get my head around what this means. Valuable Consideration means paying passengers, which would not concern light GA because it needs an AOC (everywhere in the world, practically).

What do you think it means?

Cabotage and private flights does not compute.

[IO540]

If they really mean that business travel in a private aircraft is subject to cabotage regs, that would be truly stupid.

But I agree that

the use of means of transportation for the transport of persons or of goods for remuneration or in the framework of the economic activity of an enterprise

does mean just that.

If that is intentional, these people are complete idiots. That wording would kill all flying on business.

If it is unintentional, they need to get a better pub lawyer; preferably one who flies a plane

[David Roberts]

It would seem we are dealing here with two different definitions in the EU. In EU regulation 216/2008 the definition of 'commercial operations' is:

"commercial operation’ shall mean any operation of an aircraft, in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration, which is available to the public or, when not made available to the public, which is performed under a contract between an operator and a customer, where the latter has no control over the operator"

This definition applies to all civil aviation in the EU.

My head is too sore to sort this one out (compared to the definition in the post above)!

[IO540]

when not made available to the public, which is performed under a contract between an operator and a customer, where the latter has no control over the operator"

My head gets sore trying to work out who exactly they were aiming this at.

It seems to fit the description of standard charter ops. At least that appears to be the intention.

But it is badly worded, because if a contract exists between the operator and the customer, the customer has obviously got some control over the operator (known north-west of Brussels, across the water, as a "breach of contract" )

And charter ops are all AOC - at least the legal ones are

Taking the wording at face value, if a company A (the customer) has a wholly or partly owned associate company B (the operator) which owns a jet and provides transport services to A's employees, then this is a no-no. If OTOH A owns the jet by itself, directly, that is OK. I am sure aviation lawyers know about this stuff though. It still doesn't make sense because there are loads of planes used for business which are owned by non-trading subsidiaries, for risk limitation reasons.

What other type of operation could the wording be aimed at? Jet ops are not my area.

[mad_jock]

I think its geared to make fractional ownership of N reg more difficult to run without an AOC being present in europe.

Ie you have the owners paying someone to manage and crew the aircraft.

I don't think as such they are really after the SPA IR types I think you are just collateral damage with the who has oversight over a large proportion of the biz jet fleet based in europe.

Although I must admit I find it very strange that aircraft that don't ever travel outside the EU or very rarely get to stay on an outside EU foreign reg.

I would never consider that I would have the right to keep my car on a GB reg while keeping it in the foreign country for over 6 months. Same with my driving license I know I get a grace period then I have to get a local one.

[hum]

Yes But....

I would never consider that I would have the right to keep my car on a GB reg while keeping it in the foreign country for over 6 months. Same with my driving license I know I get a grace period then I have to get a local one.

Consider this imaginary scenario:

- you have to get the equivalent of a university degree to drive your GB-reg car in the rain or at night in the UK.

- having done this; even though you are current and proficient at driving your GB-reg car in the rain at night you have to do a test with a government examiner every year to keep the right to do so..

- It is perfectly legal to own and drive a foreign-reg car in the UK in the rain or dark having done a practical, accessible course; you don't have to jump through any more hoops unless you go out of currency...

Which would you drive - G-reg car or foreign-reg car?

[flybymike]

If they draft it badly (which is almost certain) that might outlaw PPL cost sharing (as we know it) which will kill GA,

Purely as an aside, it is only in relatively recent years that the concession of cost sharing for PPLs was allowed by the CAA

[mad_jock]

I have a University Degree and an ATPL in fact I have 3 of them now because even under wet lease regulations funny enough I have to have a valid local license to operate under the opspec of the AOC holder to be able to undertake internal flights. The conversions were done by passing an Airlaw exam, production of my last LPC paperwork or a line check and a medical. So I have been in the situation I needed to have 2 current licenses and medicals to be able to operate.

The ATPL is in no way equivalent to to my Degree. It is barely even first year standard.

I might add as well for me to practise as a Graduate Engineer in other none EU countries I need to validate my qualifications to the national body of that country. This is the same with most professions.

Persoanlly I think the rules for aircraft should be exactly the same as cars and driving. You can bring it in visit spend a bit of time then 6 months you have to register it locally, same with licenses 6 months and you need a local one. Pro licenses if your doing internal flights in the EU you have to have 2 valid licenses just the same as it works in the rest of the world when you operate like that.

You wouldn't expect to run your car on a foreign reg indefinately why should you expect to be able to operate a plane?

Edited to add you will be OK on the EU mainland with your bike but if you bring into the UK its reg will get logged on the customs computer and even if you put it in storage 6 months down the line they will get you either on the road or when you try and get it out of the country. There are of course different rules for NATO posted service mil types

[IO540]

I would never consider that I would have the right to keep my car on a GB reg while keeping it in the foreign country for over 6 months. Same with my driving license I know I get a grace period then I have to get a local one.

The differences between cars and planes are:

- no foreign offence enforcement with cars (short of extradition and you need to kill somebody for that)
- 100% foreign offence enforcement with planes (done by the local CAA on behalf of the CAA in whose airspace the offence was committed)

- cars rarely travel abroad for long periods
- planes often travel abroad for long periods (esp. the bigger ones)

- no advantage to keeping a car on a foreign reg (except camera tickets)
- significant advantages to keeping a plane on a foreign reg (due to anal and way OTT EU regulation)

- road tax is collected on cars, nationally
- no "air tax" collected on planes (except IFR enroute charges which are collected pan-EU by Eurocontrol and fed back to each airspace owner)

- foreign reg plane operation has been legal in nearly all of Europe since at least WW2 and many ops have been built on that

Anyway we are going over the same old stuff... sure it does not take a Nobel Prize in intelligence to work out that if the EU had not gone for daft job-protectionist and other gold plating policies, and built its aviation regulation on the system which runs the vast majority of the world's aviation (the FAA one), there would not be anybody based in the EU operating foreign reg planes. There simply would not be any point. The thing to have a go at is the EU, not the aircraft owners. They are merely doing what has been 100% legal for longer than anybody can remember.

Purely as an aside, it is only in relatively recent years that the concession of cost sharing for PPLs was allowed by the CAA

When did they bring it in? Most countries have similar cost sharing options; the USA has got one too, though more tightly worded than the UK one.

[mad_jock]

- no foreign offence enforcement with cars (short of extradition and you need to kill somebody for that)
- 100% foreign offence enforcement with planes (done by the local CAA on behalf of the CAA in whose airspace the offence was committed)

Yes there is for cars, as many a driver getting lifted and getting taken to a ATM and if you don't pay you get jailed, will tell you.

And there isn't actually that much enforcement in airspace terms. Our CAA writes a snot o gram to the aircrafts reg's CAA and then it usually stops there. Its the same with any safety reports UK crews file about foriegn airports. Its one of the reasons why France usually Jails the pilots while they sort everything out. They know that if they allow the aircraft/ crew leave the country nothing will happen.

- cars rarely travel abroad for long periods
- planes often travel abroad for long periods (esp. the bigger ones)

This might be the issue, quite alot don't travel outside the EU if ever. The planes mostly travelling abroad lots don't do internal flights. As for the cars yes but lorrys do as the amount of foreign regs on UK roads will prove.

- no advantage to keeping a car on a foreign reg (except camera tickets)
- significant advantages to keeping a plane on a foreign reg (due to anal and way OTT EU regulation)

Significant advantages lower if any road tax, oversight of authority reduced MOT if any over extended period if at all. Espcially lorrys there is £20 000 plus per year advantage of being external to the UK.
Yes see thats the crux of it, you want to be able to use your nice aircraft in EU air space all the time but you don't like the rules. If you don't like the rules and regs of the EU don't live in the EU.

- road tax is collected on cars, nationally
- no "air tax" collected on planes (except IFR enroute charges which are collected pan-EU by Eurocontrol and fed back to each airspace owner

Yep but this isn't about tax as such or so I thought until Solcall brought up you might be dodging tax in the US.

- foreign reg plane operation has been legal in nearly all of Europe since at least WW2 and many ops have been built on that

Special set of circumstances after WW2 which are now being stopped. As I said nowhere else in the world can you base yourself with a foreign reg permently and operate how ever you like. The rest of the world if you try and base a foriegn aircraft you have to go onto dual oversight, crew have to be dual licensed and medicals, engineering have to be audited along with your operations. Then there is usually a time limit after which either the aircraft gets imported onto the local reg or it has to leave the country. This is actually quite a common event. Aircraft come in on a wet lease they get maybe a month operating as is. After that you have to go into dual oversight. After 6 months it either stays on a local reg or it goes.

[proudprivate]

mad_jock:

The ATPL is in no way equivalent to to my Degree. It is barely even first year standard.

I might add as well for me to practise as a Graduate Engineer in other none EU countries I need to validate my qualifications to the national body of that country. This is the same with most professions.

I have a university degree too. Most people on this forum do. Heck, I even have a PhD. But I'm am NOT a professional aviator, and while travelling by private plane to visit places in Europe is my main hobby, I think comparing the licence with a degree is very much flawed. It is a licence, like a licence to drive a car or a truck or a bus. The knowledge qualifications necessary to operate such a device safely have nothing to do with an academic qualification.

I've recently passed my JAR PPL exams, because I'd love to fly some of my club's OO-registered aircraft. I can testify that preparation for the tests was cumbersome, the didactical material substandard and the overall relevance of the subject matter debatable at best. Aviation medicine at PPL level ? Get a life ! In addition, I found the question database of my CAA more resembling a silly trick quiz than a relevant test of my aeronautical competencies. In short the added value that these PPL exams bring to an FAA PPL holder are close to NIL.

By contrast, the questions I got on my bus licence theoretical exam were all very relevant, and sufficient didactical material was available for home study, ideal for an amateur like me.

The whole (mainly British) FTO lobby are the root of the current JAR FCL classroom attendance requirements, substandard teaching, irrelevant subject matter and overall excessive cost.

By no means am I advocating the lowering of licencing standards. But facilitating the free movement of goods, persons and services (on of EASA's rulemaking directorate's objectives) means just that : allowing, among other things, private individuals to travel by private plane through Europe. This implies that costs (including opportunity costs) to licence applicants of PPL/IR's need to be considered while regulating, and EASA horribly fails to do this.

It should be feasable to construct a relevant syllabus (100 pages max, including all annexes) to describe all the relevant differences to IFR flying in Europe in comparison to the FAA IR. I wouldn't mind at all studying such a document and sitting an additional exam for it, provided the questions are relevant. It would also expose some very painful differences in IFR implementation between various EASA countries, not to mention the complete mess that the European airways system is.

However an unholy alliance of (again mainly British) FTO lobbyists and Airlines, in an attempt to keep "their" airspace free, want to make the European IR or IR conversion as impractical and costly as possible. The British CAA showed its hand 3 years ago by stating that "experts" had determined that the FAA PPL/IR was insufficient to safely navigate the airways. I'd love to see that expert report. 7 theoretical exams with questions on jet engine operation ? They must really think I'm minted.

Finally, I'm disgusted by the lack of democratic debate in all this. Indeed, start off by getting approval for a "we want a better and safer world" legislation in parliament, and then doing the real damage implementing all the commercial lobbying interests in a "technical committee".