EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft

[mad_jock]

I don't have an issue with anything you have said proudprivate.

If you note on some of the wannbie threads as far as I am concerned a pilot license is a vocational course. PPL equiv to a car license and a CPL to a Lorry and I suppose ATPL to a PCV . I also Hold a Class 1 HGV.

Now the debate of what you should actually need in a PPL is open. Again WW2 comes into this as most of the coffin dodgers that used to define what should be in a pilots tool box were all ex MIL pilots and instructors from that war.

As far as I can see there is 2 seperate issues here.

1. Pilot quals and what you really need to fly in clouds

2. Foreign reg assets being based in the EU to circumvent the local laws.

Now the first point I agree there needs to be debate over and work done on it by experenced pilots but I agree the politics will screw it up. I haven't commented on that.

The second point is the point I am discussing. With all these debates the people calling foul always go back to point one and the issue that they have in the past done it and its perfectly safe. They are 2 seperate issues.

I can fully understand the bitching about pilot training I am an instructor myself. Thats the real issue that needs attacking.

[proudprivate]

As far as I can see there is 2 seperate issues here.
1. Pilot quals and what you really need to fly in clouds
2. Foreign reg assets being based in the EU to circumvent the local laws.

I agree that these are, in theory, two separate matters.

Now, do you agree with me that point 1 needs to be tackled first ? I've invested about € 10,000 in the FAA/IR under the assumption that the rules would not change. In that sense, implementing rules to abolish point 2 without any consideration for my money time and effort spent conflicts with my sense of justice. The matter of legal expectation inextricably links the points. Imagine (I'm not, but for argument's sake), I'm the trust beneficiary / owner of a € 400,000 plane that is affected by this rule ?
The fact that a particular practice is around since donkey's years cannot just be ignored.

Do you also agree that tackling point 2 is not a matter for a safety agency / committee ? Especially when some of the officials I spoke to admit that they use it as a BAFA bargaining chip. Shouldn't such a far reaching matter (10,000+ pilots affected, thousands of private aircraft affected) be debated in parliament instead ? The ranting is not just about training, it is about the sneakyness and lack of democracy involved in a comitology exercise like this too.

My suggestion would be for EASA to tackle point 1 first (plus the points 1b, 1c, 1d all comprising the reasons for the mere existence of an N-register base in Europe), get this in order using a proper ordinary legislative procedure, then come back a few years later and settle point 2 without the storm of protest that they are getting now.

What do you think ?

[flybymike]

Quote:
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.

I have a recollection that AOPA secured the present arrangements in the nineties. Someone with a better memory than mine might recall exactly when.

[mad_jock]

Mate I think the whole of the EU concept is up.

If it was up to me it would be a common market and thats it.

The whole democratic "principle" in the western world has turned into a self serving monster of career political types. We are all pawns in the political brokemanship of political gains.

You have your side of the Justice coin and the other side of the coin is the justice to the other owners and operators who have complied with the local rules and laws at great expense.

You took advantage of a loophole that was to your personal benefit and that loophole is now being closed. It happens all the time in many different areas.

Now as been said before this change isn't really targeting the PPL/IR pilots and private aircraft owners. I personally think its the biz jet market it is going for and the maintence of said jets. You PPL/IR's are just collateral damage in a huge political bun fight which although your costs personally are quite high. They are a drop in the ocean compared to getting the fleet of N reg Jet A burning aircraft onto the local national registers.

Yes I am a pro pilot, yes. Have I seen the piss taking that goes on with some of the N reg's, Yes. Am I pissed off that the N reg Pilot payed half of what I did for thier tickets, nope couldn't careless. Am I concerned that EU based operators are going out of business because of N reg operators having a lower cost base, of course I am.

[Justiciar]

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 don't think the first example is a commercial operation because in reality A has or is likely to have control over B because of its shareholding structure or commonality of directors. I think that the definition is referring to arms length relationships between customer and operator.

I don't think the comparison bewtween aircraft and cars is helpful as they are two very differnt things. There are no conventions governing taking cars from one country to the other for one thing. The real issues here are:

• The very real impact on genuine commercial operations within the EU
• The cost, complexity and irrelevance of much of the CPL/IR theoretical knowledge requirements in the EU which drives people to the N route
• The lack of an easy and repeat process for validation of non EU licences in the draft FCL
• The high cost of certain maintenance aspects of keeping GA on an EU country register

Address these issues and the ability to station N reg in the EU becomes les sof an issue.

[proudprivate]

You PPL/IR's are just collateral damage

You're obviously entitled to your opinion. Luckily so is the CFI.

"Your honour, the plaintiff happened to be collateral damage. Its all part of much bigger thing..."

[mad_jock]

"Your honour, the plaintiff happened to be collateral damage. Its all part of much bigger thing..."

I wonder how many times that has been used in court with disputes on compusory purchase orders for goverment projects. Not done them any good mind.

There is another setup Justicar which is A the owner contracts out the operation and maintence of the aircraft to B company who then turns up when told to. The company B has no control or knowledge of the status of the pax or cargo being transported.

Which is actually where I have seen most of the dodgy flights going on. All money is payed outside the EU in asia or Middle East.

[bookworm]

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.

The gold-plating of the IR has been with us for more than 20 years, but got particularly problematic after the introduction of JAR-FCL. EASA is the only regulator who has attempted to address that issue head on, by setting up FCL.008.

Do you also agree that tackling point 2 is not a matter for a safety agency / committee ? Especially when some of the officials I spoke to admit that they use it as a BAFA bargaining chip. Shouldn't such a far reaching matter (10,000+ pilots affected, thousands of private aircraft affected) be debated in parliament instead ?

It was. You can follow the legislative process for the Regulation 216/2008 here.

[Justiciar]

The company B has no control or knowledge of the status of the pax or cargo being transported.

I doubt very much if that is a valid legal position for company B to take and I suspect in that scenario A would be regarded as having control of B. "Dodgy" is probably the right description. Since those operators are likely to be outside the EU fo other reasons () I doubt that these proposals will have any impact on these type of operations.

This is an interesting statement from the committee which examined the proposed basic law (emphasis added):

In the context of additional certification for third country commercial operators, there should be clear possibilities for the Community to sign bilateral agreements with third countries on the mutual recognition of the relevant certificates. Therefore, the EESC believes that action should also be undertaken to ensure that all ICAO Member States fulfil their responsibilities, which would make such an additional certification obsolete.

and

There is a need to ensure the safety of third country aircraft operating into the Community. There is also a need to restore the level playing field with other areas of the world which impose such a requirement on EU airlines flying to those countries (i.e. USA) and have used such a requirement to give unfair competitive advantages to its own airlines to the detriment of the EU airlines. However, in the context of additional certification for third country commercial operators, there should be clear possibilities for the Community to sign bilateral agreements with third countries on the mutual recognition of the relevant certificates in order to avoid burdening the international airlines with too much additional certificates. Therefore, the EESC believes that action should also be undertaken to ensure that all ICAO Member States fulfil their responsibilities, which would make such an additional certification obsolete.

It is interesting how the EU will pray in aid the ICAO conventions when it suits them to do so but then legislate at variance with the convention also when it suits them. It undermines their attempt to take the moral high ground on this. Presumably this is a swipe at the sub ICAO nature of FAA certificates?

The sub text is: we will use ICAO issues to badger the US on these points but if they give in and sign a bilateral agreement which gives us what we want then we are happy to allow them to operate sub ICAO in the EU. Very honest.

There is nothing I can see in the legislative process where they have actually considered the practical impact of these proposals on individuals and companies operating in the EU, nor how many individuals will be affected and at what cost, which is I am afraid all too typical of EU regulation.

[proudprivate]

EASA is the only regulator who has attempted to address that issue head on

FCL 008 needs to be addressed BEFORE trying to overturn the applecart with Annex III. In view of its reponse (or lack thereof) to various comments made during the consultation period, I don't think EASA deserves a medal for addressing private pilots' FCL issues.

It was. You can follow the legislative process for the Regulation 216/2008

It was not. Basic regulation was deliberately kept vague, with real damage being done in the EASA committee. EASA is violating its own rulemaking principles. I was suggesting that Parliament, should this proposal be voted at Committee level, ought to take it back for scrutiny and, if it remains as unreasonable as it is, ditch it.

[mad_jock]

If the aircraft is under national engineering oversight and the crew have to be dual licensed the economic advantage will be greatly reduced.

Now don't get me wrong there are some genuine N reg operators the one that springs to mind is Specsavers. They tick all the boxes. They are in and out of the EU everyday only taking company traffic loads. Not an issue.

[Katamarino]

I find it depressing that some people here seem think that the "solution" for people choosing to use a superior system over an inferior one, is to force everyone onto the inferior one for NO valid reason.

N-Reg operators are on the N-Reg for a reason; if they are more competitive than EU operators, the solution is to improve the regulation of EU aviation, not to force everyone onto the inferior system. I realise this concept is alien to most politicians, however...

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by Justiciar

....
[I]There is a need to ensure the safety of third country aircraft operating into the Community. There is also a need to restore the level playing field with other areas of the world which impose such a requirement on EU airlines flying to those countries (i.e. USA) and have used such a requirement to give unfair competitive advantages to its own airlines to the detriment of the EU airlines. ...

Presumably this is a swipe at the sub ICAO nature of FAA certificates?...

No,

It is a swip at requiring US ownership of airlines operating internally in the US. Nothing to do with certificates.

[IO540]

Am I concerned that EU based operators are going out of business because of N reg operators having a lower cost base, of course I am.

Is this on AOC ops?

If not, where is the "lower cost base" and why do you call them "operators"?

If yes, where is the "lower cost base"?

[englishal]

I guess the N reg aircraft put through a trust company in Delaware and then based in the EU - doesn't participate in these US annual taxes?

Maybe not, but I know from my own personal experience, I have pumped $0000's of dollars into the US economy in the process of getting my tickets. I will continue to do so, something which I wouldn't do if I packed up flying N reg.

Speaking of Foreign cars - If I went to France or Norway and put my car on their register, they would issue me a licence for free, just like the UK would do to a French or Norwegian person.

On the subject of EU, I have flow outside the EU several times this year already. Only takes 40 minutes from here.

PS I think the letters from PPrune to Orbifly were disgustingly biased and really just go to show the true face of EU GA and those who like to participate in it.....something that I am even keener to avoid now.

[Justiciar]

It is a swip at requiring US ownership of airlines operating internally in the US. Nothing to do with certificates.

So why the reference to ".... EU Airlines flying to those countries..." as by definition if you are flying to then you are not just operating in the US?

[Pace]

Am I concerned that EU based operators are going out of business because of N reg operators having a lower cost base, of course I am.

I am not in the least bit concerned about EU based AOC OPS going out of business because N Reg ops because they are not.

If they are going out of business its because they are saddled with too many regulatory costs and too many restrictions which have to be loaded onto their customers.

That is their enemy not N reg.

That is the saddest part about all this there are AOC OPS who think that by getting rid of N reg Their problems will end. Far from it N reg is purely an indicator to them of how bad their situation has become under the Eurpean regulatory system.

Fix that and their business will become healthier without a shadow of a doubt.

There are AOC OPS who would like all business jets, private or otherwise to operate through them and their systems so that mr private jet owner has to have his private jet managed and operated through an AOC! Crazy???

The fact that their own ops with all their regulations are not as safe as the less regulated FAA part 135 is the biggest joke of all.

Maybe they may find that regulating for regulating sake equals increased costs not better safety.

I would also like to know what the background of our moderators are as a bird indicated that some are biased against N reg for wait for it self protectionism reasons.

Pace

[IO540]

This is what I am trying to get to the bottom of... the claim that N-reg AOC ops have lower costs than G-reg AOC ops.

As an owner of an aircraft which was brand new in 2002 and spent the first 3 years maintained totally by a JAR 145 company, on the Transport CofA, and then went N-reg on Part 91, with me doing the 50hr checks myself, and having been very closely involved in its maintenance including what gets done on the Annuals, I am puzzled by some of the statements here.

Not only is there sod-all difference between G-reg and N-reg scheduled maintenance but if you put an N-reg on an AOC then you won't have the boss on his back draining the oil himself There is some stuff on the DfT website about the requirements, and they don't have to allow an N-reg to go on a UK CAA AOC if other operators object to it.

I suspect that in reality the UK AOC operators are having a moan about illegal ops, but you can do those on any registry And they have always taken place, as far as I can tell. It's OK until somebody crashes.

What makes me laugh about AOC ops is that the worst maintained piston GA planes I have ever been in were owned by an AOC operator. I've already written about them so won't do so again. I have also noticed that having an AOC provides a pretty effective immunity from a prosecution by the CAA

[Pace]

10540

I am not so much talking about maintenance but the huge costs and complexity of setting up an AOC and the costs of running under their regs as well as the restrictions imposed on AOC aircraft compared with private ops.
I know of one company who spent 2 years and huge amounts of money trying to get their own AOC and then folded.

Pace

[IO540]

Pace - all agreed but we are not comparing the same operations here. "We" are comparing AOC ops on a G-reg with non-AOC ops on an N-reg, which are totally different things. Unless somebody is making the point about illegal ops, which is a different thing again.

There is no comparison between a G-reg AOC jet doing charter, and an N-reg company jet ferrying company employees around.