EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft

[bookworm]

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.

The issue that you identified was: "2. Foreign reg assets being based in the EU to circumvent the local laws."

The will to address that is clear in the Basic Regulation, recitals 2 and 13. The mechanism is in Article 4 para 1(c) and Article 7 para 1. The intention to work with foreign states via BASA is clear in Article 12. To claim that this was not the will of the Commission, the Council, and Parliament, but rather something cooked up in a smoke-filled room in Köln by someone with a chip on their shoulder is absurd.

[proudprivate]

To claim that this was not the will of the Commission, the Council, and Parliament, but rather something cooked up in a smoke-filled room in Köln by someone with a chip on their shoulder is absurd.

Although I have read in other forums that Jules Kneepkens does have a chip on his shoulder, I leave that comment entirely to the respective authors' responsability. I also don't think that people with a chip on their shoulder are drivers behind legislative proposals. These people are normally found at the day to day civil service level (the licencing officer refusing to validate a document because a certain stamp is failing, or the medical examiner who flunks an inordinate amount of applicants, etc...)

Neither have I claimed that EASA's task is an easy one, having to work with Council and Commission, under incessant lobbying by the Manufacturing Industry (Aircraft and Avionics), Flight Training Organisations and Airlines, supported by ad hoc demarches from member states with vested interests (notably the UK and France).

What I'm saying is that there is a serious democratic deficit between basic regulation and the concrete implementation as put forward by EASA. A far wider consultation should have taken place including

- identifying the main reasons for going on the N-register.
- proposals to address EACH of these reasons (which would include some serious re-drafting and de-regulation as well as concrete facilitation proposals)
- performing a comprehensive impact study (which, ceteris paribus, would include the € 10000 IR training cost I stand to lose personally)

BEFORE implementing restrictive action.

You reference to a smoke-filled room in Cologne is a caricature, the democratic deficit is for real. Crippling non commercial private air transport is a fundamental attack on our freedom. It turns the EU a little bit more into a P.R. of China, or as others have stated, into a Burma. This should be of particular concern to an agency of the European Commission like EASA, especially one that claims as its goals :
To facilitate the free movement of goods, persons and services;
To promote cost-efficiency in the regulatory and certification processes;

As to your claim of universal agreement between "council, parliament and the commission", surely this does not apply to Annex III. At least I'm counting on my MEP's to do their bit and demand a scrutiny of the proposals.

[bookworm]

You reference to a smoke-filled room in Cologne is a caricature, the democratic deficit is for real.

I have some sympathy for that view. There seems to be a feeling that when the Basic Regulation was proposed, and subsequently became law, there was at least an implicit promise that the N-reg issue would be "sorted out" by the time the regulation came into force for FCL and OPS. The Commission would probably claim that it could, and probably will, be sorted out via a BASA. Stakeholders might believe that they expected it to be sorted out in the IRs, via more permissive acceptance of third-country licences (Art 7 paras 2 and 6(e)).

As to your claim of universal agreement between "council, parliament and the commission", surely this does not apply to Annex III. At least I'm counting on my MEP's to do their bit and demand a scrutiny of the proposals.

I certainly agree that Annex III has not been subject to the same scrutiny as the BR, and the more permissive acceptance could still be forced into the IRs.

My preference would be for
(a) adoption of FCL.008's proposals for an achievable instrument rating to address what must surely be the most important of "the main reasons for going on the N-reg"
AND
(b) a BASA that benefits not just N-reg pilots in Europe, but a wider range of stakeholders on both sides of the Atlantic.

[proudprivate]

My preference would be for
(a) adoption of FCL.008's proposals for an achievable instrument rating to address what must surely be the most important of "the main reasons for going on the N-reg"

There is a wish list of issues that would weaken demand for an N-reg :

1. Abolish FTO / ATO requirements for private pilots; Instead develop a European-wide PPL flight training syllabus available for free online at the EASA website; Publish, maintain and update an extensive (2000-5000) question database that allows European citizens to train at leisure for a European wide administered exam. The subject matter should be pruned for relevance. Questions in the database should be pertinent to flight safety in Europe.

2. Restore the individual Flight Instructor as the authority in training the student for safe flying and preparing the student for the flight test. This will significantly reduce the costs for the student.

3. Restore/Maintain lifetime licences, with biannual checkups by individual flight instructors. Allow easy, low cost access to lifetime language requirement waivers. Harmonize all licencing requirements to minimize financial and opportunity costs.

4. Facilitate home study for the instrument rating (Same approach as for the normal PPL). Prune subject matter for relevance. Encourage people to obtain an instrument rating to upgrade their flying skills.

5. Allow for lenient medical certification for private pilots, with the possibility of motivated exceptions, soda's etc... (although I would recommend, as the FAA does, to verify those at Agency level rather than at member state level). Establish a EU-wide AME-register so that medical certification doesn't imply € 300 examination cost + travel expense + a day off, but can be sorted out in your home town in 1-2 hours' time (for something close to € 100)

6. Rigourously scrutinize the necessity of all maintenance requirements at private flight level, truly balancing costs with safety.

Undoubtedly, specialists in this forum can add some more not unreasonable demands by the private flying community.

[IO540]

The above more or less sums it up.

Add acceptance of US certification.

Add US-style field approvals. They are done here too, but mostly unofficially

But you can't have an FAA-like system, because "we" cannot have the FAA system in Europe.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by bookworm

(b) a BASA that benefits not just N-reg pilots in Europe, but a wider range of stakeholders on both sides of the Atlantic.

The un-implemented BASA seems to deal primarily with maintenance operations and expanding airline rights to operate 'local' legs outside their home territory. More particularly, there is nothing I have seen that deals with the issue of FCL, so to a great extent with regard to 2012 it is a red herring.

Originally Posted by Justiciar

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?

My understanding is that when a 'foreign' airline makes a domestic hop, they can only be carrying onward passengers (ie. they can't fill up with local traffic). Because the US is one country a LA, NY, London link can't carry any LA/NY traffic. However a Frankfurt, London, NY link can sell tickets Frankfurt-London because Frankfurt and London are in different countries. Hence why it is important for the EU to obtain this concession.

[bookworm]

More particularly, there is nothing I have seen that deals with the issue of FCL, so to a great extent with regard to 2012 it is a red herring.

I disagree. The BASA signed in 2008 couldn't deal with FCL, as EASA had no competence in that area at the time. The Commission (see Seebohm's letter to Pace in the other thread) clearly envisages a BASA as the way of dealing with this issue, and the Basic Regulation provides for that in Art 12(1).

[mad_jock]

After have a look about this point SoCal App made about the property tax on the assets not being payed.

It looks like the European N regs are just taking the part of the system they like. If the property tax which American N reg owners would have to pay was raised on the assets N reg wouldn't be as attractive as it is. In fact it would be quite expensive at 5% of capital value.

Yes the oversight costs seem high in europe because we pay them directly to the regulator or through maint costs who then pay them to the regulator. But if you think that your normal N reg owner is paying $1000 a year on a $20000 C152 suddenly the costs are comparable. And $500k a year on a GV would mean it would be cheaper on a G reg even with putting it on a G reg AOC.

So instead of this huge argument about Licenses and oversight all we need to do is get the respective tax men speaking to each other. Bobs your uncle no more N reg issue in Europe. It will not hold an advantage becuase the N reg owners will be paying the correct full oversight costs for there aircraft which they are not doing at present. If the owners want to continue using there FAA tickets they would be welcome to it they would just have to pay the full cost that any american pilot would.

[englishal]

It looks like the European N regs are just taking the part of the system they like. If the property tax which American N reg owners would have to pay was raised on the assets N reg wouldn't be as attractive as it is. In fact it would be quite expensive at 5% of capital value.

Don't forget though that in the US it is also possible to write off the value of an aircraft against income taxes depending on how you work it. This is the reason many owners actually buy brand new expensive aeroplanes before they can even fly them.

It is too simplistic to simply mention "tax".

[mad_jock]

Aye but its a way to equal things up which is going to be win win for the politicians. And If the owner is offseting they will be paying US tax's anyway.

If the aircraft is perm in the EU the reg is sent to the US and they check if there is tax being paid by the owner. If they are a US tax payer nothing more said. And I presume a cert issued so the frogs can have something to ask for and jail you if you don't have it.

If the owner is through a trust which doesn't pay tax an aircraft oversight tax of 5% of the value is raised to pay for the fedral oversight through the FAA. And then a years cert is issued.

Can't see the US political types getting upset about foreigners paying for services that they use from the fedral goverment. Its going to make them look good and get some revenue in without pissing any voters off.

European politicals are out the picture because its those nasty yanks which are raising the tax on there N reg aircraft, nout to with them they would cry.

The N reg lot can continue with the FAA system which they all dearly love while paying a realistic cost of ownership for oversight. Instead of the current case that they get all the benefits from the American tax payer without paying a penny.

In fact I might send an email to my MP and Euro MP suggesting this.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by bookworm

I disagree. The BASA signed in 2008 couldn't deal with FCL, as EASA had no competence in that area at the time. The Commission (see Seebohm's letter to Pace in the other thread) clearly envisages a BASA as the way of dealing with this issue, and the Basic Regulation provides for that in Art 12(1).

Seebohm's letter (and other comments) clearly trail the possibility of [a] BASA being part of the solution. However, it is almost 2011 and the BASA agreed in 2008 is still not implemented. It seems remarkably improbable that the FCL negotiation will commence, be concluded, ratified by the EU and the US and be implemented by 2012. In addition, this will only deal with the US aspect of the issues (which is relevant to this thread), however, it still leaves other foreign pilots in the position of being able to fly as a visitor in the EU only once (for the year).


RE TAX

Personal property tax only exists in some states (and in some it is a use tax). In Delaware, where most EU jets are actually owned there is no personal property tax (I wonder why so many US based aircraft and boats are owned in Delaware? ). Also, this is a state tax, so doesn't go to the FAA or any of the infrastructure.

[Katamarino]

With "friends" like mad jock in aviation, who needs enemies! Nice to see people like him actively working against pilots...

[proudprivate]

The Commission (see Seebohm's letter to Pace in the other thread) clearly envisages a BASA as the way of dealing with this issue, and the Basic Regulation provides for that in Art 12(1).

I think dragging the BASA into the FCL issue is intellectually debatable. Seebohm's letter appears like a standard Commission draft reply. BASA clearly mainly deals with maintenance issues. I agree with mm_flynn here.

It is really a shame, and contrary to EASA's founding goals, to abuse a regulatory committee as a negotiating tool, as the Commission and its agency seem to do here (using Seebohm's letter in evidence). In addition, it is a very inefficient negotiation tool, in view of the extensive vertical relationships, the rigidity of the process, and the interconnectedness of stakeholders, like trying to weed a garden with a forklift. I would be so much better to bother the US with something else.

With "friends" like mad jock in aviation, who needs enemies!

I think the main frustrations of mad_jock are caused by the irregularities in the UK taxation system. The Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, The Cayman Islands, Bermuda,... It seems as if the UK have dedicated an island to each tax issue they face, making them almost as competitive as the Swiss. It would be good if the UK could sort out their own mess without polluting the European Aviation regulatory environment.

In empathy with mad_jock, one shouldn't forget the obstacles he faces in getting his preferred employment, with aviation, after being hit by 9/11, now gets the credit crisis to deal with. But as an economist, I can clearly testify that overregulation is his biggest enemy. To make Europe more competitive, we need to simplify regulation and cut regulatory cost whenever we have the opportunity. This is why we need an EASA ruthlessly axing regulatory burdens on Europe's aviation businesses.

Bookworm, I'm very interested in your opinion on the 6 facilitation suggestions for private flying that I have made above. My guess is you work for, or are directly related to EASA, and I would like to hear the personal opinion of an insider.

[flyingfemme]

Yes the oversight costs seem high in europe because we pay them directly to the regulator or through maint costs who then pay them to the regulator.

No, the oversight costs are high in Europe. The FAA is funded through taxes on aviation fuels...........much less than we pay here but enough to do the job. We pay the fuel taxes and the oversight costs.....many of which are so far over the top as to be comical. In Europe we pay DARs to do most of the things that the FAA do for "free" inside the USA; the US pilot is not subsidising us.
And don't forget the VAT - due on all aircraft resident in the EU regardless of register. Tell an American they will have to pay 20% sales tax and watch the revolution.
Europe don't want the FAA system until it comes time to actually draft a few basic rules.....see how much of their book is copied from the FAA. Not even retyped in many cases. They are only interested in the bells and whistles that add "value" (read charges) for owners and pilots.
The US government are happy that people buy their products - they couldn't keep their aviation industry (manufacture, training, after market etc) going without the rest of the world chipping in. The Americans are the keystone that holds the whole global aviation thing together.
Bookworm's wish list is a good start and would go a long way to keeping many private pilots happy and flying.
The "uncommercial" commercial side of flying (ie not airline or AOC) needs more than that. Business cannot afford the time and money to deal with the pointless paperwork and posturing and people who run businesses will take their money out of aviation if it all gets too painful. Maybe even take their business (and taxes) out of the EU.

[bookworm]

In addition, it is a very inefficient negotiation tool, in view of the extensive vertical relationships, the rigidity of the process, and the interconnectedness of stakeholders, like trying to weed a garden with a forklift. I would be so much better to bother the US with something else.

Well, we'll find out in a few days whether the BASA is likely to rise from the ashes, and in the first half of 2011 whether it actually gets ratified. You're entitled to your opinion on the negotiating strategy -- I'll reserve judgment until then.

Bookworm, I'm very interested in your opinion on the 6 facilitation suggestions for private flying that I have made above. My guess is you work for, or are directly related to EASA, and I would like to hear the personal opinion of an insider.

You guess wrong. I do interact with EASA more frequently than most here, but I have no inside track on anything to do with FRA, and the opinions I've expressed are based on what public-domain info I've managed to dig up regarding the topic.

As a private G-reg operator, I support the facilitation of private flying, and I'd rather see that done by making EU regulation sensible and proportionate than by enabling a significant subset of operators to persist in playing by different rules by selecting a flag of convenience, by twisting the intention of the Chicago Convention. Forgive me if it seems selfish, but I'd rather have the entire cohort of EU private aviation on the same side in the fight against overregulation than to have that subset standing on the sidelines saying "I'm all right Jack".

To address your suggestions:

1 and 2 are clearly interrelated. The ATO is the foundation stone of the EU training regime, which differs from the US regime of individual instructors. I am not an instructor, and I don't have a clue as to whether the more structured (and more easily overseen) ATO approach actually delivers better pilots or just protects the interests of the training industry by erecting significant barriers to entry. My gut feel is that it probably produces better right-seat recruits for the airlines and is an unnecessary and irrelevant source of cost for private pilots.

On point 3, I can see nothing in Part FCL that suggests that licences will expire a la JAR-FCL. I don't know what other specifics you had in mind.

Point 4 I've already addressed. I believe strongly in the safety benefits of IFR flight, and that the overregulation of that area of FCL is killing more pilots than anything else. And EASA is the only regulator that has ever taken steps to address that.

On 5, I’m no expert on medical certification, but I have never seen the quantitative case put for the level of safety applied, and have doubts as to whether the levels demanded are proportionate. I suspect vested interests play a significant role.

On 6, I’ve seen little benefit from the increased role of management in private flying maintenance as demanded by Part M. I’m a fan of the principle, though I have a feeling that it may suffer in the same way as UK H&S does: progressive and flexible legislation in principle, with the implementation dragged down by petty bureaucrats who seek protection from liability at the expense of the end-user. So as with the medical, I'd like to see it reviewed for its cost-benefit.

[mad_jock]

Nope I work with FAA pilots intial licensed pilots don't have a problem with them apart from some of thier unusual attitude and stall recovery ideas which gets trained out of them. We all do have the same local license to operate our aircraft on the local register. Tech knowledge is sometimes a bit weak in my opinion but then again some of the JAR rated pilots its just as bad. (note the sometimes)

I have zero problem with US passport holders flying a US registered aircraft which is owned by by a US company or Person. I don't have any particular issue them doing none commercial internal EU flights either. But if they are operating for any length of time in a country they can do what I did and get there license converted to a local one and run dual licenses. If the aircraft is based long term it gets put on the local reg.

Personally if had to do it all over again I wouldn't do my PPL in Florida or my hour building (The hour building might have been done in Alaska though). But that is with hindsight of issues arising during my CPL and also what I learned during my FIC. But then again it was done with that well known school near Daytona. And I wouldn't like to think you could tar every school in the USA with the same brush as the JAR FL schools. I doudt I am unique saying this.

At no point have I been critical of the safety standards or the piloting standards. I have only commented on the fact that it is the use of a loophole which has a history dating back to WW2 which can be used nowhere else in the world to bypass local regulations. Actually thats un-true there is a fleet of N reg aircraft in Saudi, anywhere else?

So

So, Mad Jock if you are so against FAA rated Pilots / registered Aircraft then why did you train in Florida yourself ?

Is completely incorrect I really don't mind where or how you got your license. And if someone wanted me to I would jump on a plane go to the states and get an ATP. And be quite happy flying an N reg aircraft. But realistically it would be used for type rating exports for license conversions.

I to used to be a IR35 company director, which I might add is how I payed to become a pilot. The loophole got closed and a load of us went back to paying National Insurance, PAYEE and all the other things 99% of the other tax payers of the UK did. Quite a few directors had a nasty suprise up to 7 years later where all the processes we had been assured were all legal and correct came falling down and 5-6 figure tax bills were issued. Thankfully I had got very uneasy with talk about soft currency loans and other such ideas and didn't get stung. We had our good times with the loophole it got stopped we moved on.

I am the same as the others on this thread in that I completely agree with your points about over regulation and rule making by "lawyers" with very little experence in aviation.

I don't hate N reg or FAA pilots. I just want a level playing field for everyone in europe/uk.

I wouldn't have a clue if I am welcome in the US or not. Never been barred entry, don't have any links to terrorist organisations, don't have a criminal record, don't have aids. But I will now be looking out for a sneaky question on the card "Do you think N reg should be able to operate in Europe outside European regs using a trust setup in Delaware to flout federal regulations on aircraft ownership" I will be very carefull with my answer

And proudpilot thankyou for seeing the other side of the coin. I actually agree with pretty much everything you have said bar the fact that the loophole should continue to exist in its present form.

[dublinpilot]

Thomas,

That's un called for.

Mad Jock is a big supporter of GA, and has been for a long time. His posts on here have been very helpful to many people, and he happily takes the time to share his experience and advice with those who are still finding their feet.

The fact that he has a different opinion to you, and to the majority here on this occasion, does not justify your comments. He is perfectly entitled to, in fact I would say earned the right here, to have different opinions to anyone, and to voice those opinions.

Your comments were uncalled for and should be removed.

dp

[Katamarino]

mad jock - if so many people have been using this "loophole" (you speak of it like it's a bad thing), then why don't you campaign to improve the terrible EU system and make it more competitive, rather than trying to punish the users of the superior system and drag them down to your level?

Typical bureaucratic EU thinking...

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by SoCal App

Corporations are set up in Delaware for other reasons including sales tax.
The County within the State where the aircraft is "habitually situated" will result in "use tax" and property tax by that particular state/county at whatever the prevailing rate is.

So I in California cannot simply get around taxation by setting up a company in a tax friendly state - because the aircraft is habitually located here in California.
Airports will actually report to the State those aircraft that are based at their location.

As we both know, personal property taxation, local sales tax and use taxes are very complex in their detail and variable in their existence and application - but more importantly, as state taxes, are totally irrelevant to funding the FAA.

[LEG PULL]
Now fuel tax and income tax on the other hand are (as they are the primary ways that US operators fund the FAA). So maybe to equalise things up the EU should send an appropriate slice of these taxes to the FAA for N-Reg aircraft based over here so the FAA can get their share of the funding base [/LEG PULL]

[mad_jock]

Err Yes loopholes are bad things. They indicate that the legislation system is flawed. By there very nature they get shut.

And yes I do responed to the calls for opinion that regularly get posted on this board for consultation of JAR and EASA rule making. What else do you expect me to do?

I wouldn't say the FAA system is superior its just different, its funded in a completely different way to the EU. And has to deal with different issues that the EU may or may not have to deal with. And the EU has issues which your average FAA person would not even condsider, mainly to do with airspace saturation and ATC coordination across multiple very closely linked FIR's. It may be to you superior because of advantages which you actually have over other EU pilots who want to do exactly the same things as you. You can do them so it must be superior.

To me personally its inferior because it gives me restricted rights of employment within the EU in the airline industry. It restricts what aircraft reg's I can fly inside/outside the EU. Some issues under FAA are shocking compared to what EU pilots are subjected to. Although commercial, the flight time limitations for commercial operations under FAA are lethal and public pressure is growing to get them sorted. It is no way perfect, it just has different issues to ours but I will accept those issue will proberly not effect you.

As with all these things a combination of both systems would actually be the best one.

Again though we have combined points one and two. Pilot qualifications and oversight.