EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft

[proudprivate]

I just caught the last part (in an out of meetings / telco's with clients the whole day). 't was good to see some of the main actors involved, also the apparent division among both member states and political parties.

Good summing up by Brian (citing Eckhardt Seebohm) "We seem to be having a bit of a rulemaking issue"

[IO540]

Has anybody got this saved? I could not make the video work at all.

[bookworm]

This is Goudou's response on FRA.

"We have proposed an easy form of conversion of the American licence or other licence into a European licence. Obviously there would be a little test involved, and one would have to show that the pilot concerned is properly aware of the European rules governing air traffic, those kind of things, because they are very different to the American ones."

Both he and Seebohm mentioned the prospect of a BASA with the US.

[IO540]

Any offers on how many Euro millions were spent generating and translating all that FCL/FRA garbage?

[robin]

Sounds interesting.

Is the broadcast available off-line or is there a transcript available?

[IO540]

Obviously there would be a little test involved

These people are seasoned political operators who have just got a bl00dy nose, but that is all in a day's work at the EU, so you can bank on them dealing with this minor crisis and when the opposition has lost interest, they will have another go.

Is the broadcast available off-line or is there a transcript available?

I think it appears here under Committee on Transport and Tourism, but only the morning session appears in the video which that link takes you to. Also I find it doesn't work properly in Firefox; it needs IE8 to get the full player controls. Maybe the p.m. session will appear tomorrow.

[mmgreve]

Parliamentary question

As you might recall, the Danish MP Morten Messerschmidt has been asking questions about EASA's over-regulation on these issues.

I have since been in contact with him and he has subsequently posted the following parliamentary question (E-9185/2010, if you want to look it up):

Question for written answer E-9185/2010
to the Commission
Rule 117
Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)
Subject: Non-recognition by EASA of FAA-registered aircraft
In the USA the number of amateur flyers who hold an Instrument Certificate (I-Certificate) is much greater than in Europe. The reason is that it is much cheaper and less time-consuming to obtain an I-Certificate in the USA. The accident statistics provide direct evidence that this leads to a worsening of air safety.
Flying enthusiasts in Europe holding an American I-Certificate (issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)) are prevented from keeping up their instrument skills, since the FAA certificate is not recognised.
Could the Commission please state what attitude it takes to the FAA?
Does the Commission consider that the accident statistics support the view that increased private flying leads to greater risks of accidents?
Does the Commission take the view that EASA’s practice is in accordance with the Chicago Convention?

Good to see that some people are taking an interest, but I guess his family name makes him a naturally aviation supporter

[robin]

Still no sign of the video of the EASA questions

[Fuji Abound]

Sadly those arent helpful questions and nor is the opening premise well worded.

I can see some very "simple" answers being given that easily side step the whole issue.

[proudprivate]

Committee on Transport and Tourism video now online

This is Goudou's response...

It looked as if EASA got a bit of head wind in the Parliamentary Commission...

Goudou also said that the budget of EASA is € 107 Million, of which € 65 Million goes to staffing (574) and that he will need more staff to cover the additional tasks. El Khadraoui asked him which of those tasks precisely would require more staff ?

Meissner made a very pertinent point: "Why, if European FAA IR pilots have a better safety record, do you want to forbid them from flying in Europe ?" and she also said
"Harmonising in Europe is good, but I don't think it should lead to excluding something that is probably better"

Lichtenberger : "What is your precise motivation for this proposal" ?

Foster : "I'm not very happy with what is happening as some of my colleagues are. Something has got lost enroute since we approved the creation of EASA." ;
"Rulemaking procedures should be limited to true safety issues."
"EASA never listens in consultations"
"Commission and Goudou need to focus on safety to avoid the agency getting divested"
"Do not overload the recreational side or the industry with burdens"
"You have 106 rulemakers, apparently a 100 of them are not listening to anyone".

Kohlicek on FCL:
"Do you think pilots should be pilots or do you think they should be engineers" ;
"You never reply to my letters"

Simpson : "You have to look at the IMC rating and third country licencing. It is not as if planes are falling from the sky in the UK" ;
"Animal welfare is still number 1 in my mailbox, we still have to save the whale, but EASA has now become the number 2 issue with mails from angry private pilots" ;
"EU Ops : any amendment is primary legislation and needs to get back to parliament"

The response from Goudou was really unsatisfactory :

First he mixes the LAPL issue with PPL/IR issue. He also said that all the letters the MEP's received complaining about EASA are unfounded and they are talking nonsense.

He goes on by defending himself saying
"Everything we propose is conform the basic regulation. IF WE HAVE A BILATERAL AGREEMENT, then there is no problem"

Finally, he ignores Simpson's comments about the costs involved and the problems if the Americans wouldn't deliver on the Bilateral Agreement.

[flybymike]

Mr Messerschmidt's question to the commission as printed above is hopelessly worded and even gives the impression that the "easier" FAA IR leads to a worsening of air safety.

[dublinpilot]

Agreed with FBM.

For those interested in the video, I've found it now, and to save you the effort, there is the link

Committee on Transport and Tourism

It starts around 16:43:30

dp

[robin]

Not playing the sound after a time. Could it be that 15ooo pilots are trying to watch it.......

[IO540]

"Everything we propose is conform the basic regulation. IF WE HAVE A BILATERAL AGREEMENT, then there is no problem"

This is crooked. The proposed bilateral agreement does not provide for pilot licensing.

[Fuji Abound]

There will be a "little" test involved.

Oh goodie, well that is settled then.

At least we dont have to worry about it being a "big" test that would cover a lot more than the mere differences between European and American airspace.

[proudprivate]

This is crooked. The proposed bilateral agreement does not provide for pilot licensing.

It was my first "hands on" experience with Mr Goudou and I must say I'm seriously disappointed. While it is not easy to answer questions about technical matters to a non-technical audience like the parliament, I found him both evasive and disrespectful.

I'm convinced there are more competent people out there who could lead EASA in such a way as to obtain a broader support basis across the community as well as a more efficient and safer European Airspace. It would be better if Commissioner Kallas were to propose a replacement.

[bookworm]

This is crooked. The proposed bilateral agreement does not provide for pilot licensing.

Not fair. The 2008 BASA could not include FCL, because FCL doesn't come under EU control until 2012. It could only cover certification and maintenance.

I tend to agree with proudprivate though, in being a little disappointed.

[IO540]

The 2008 BASA could not include FCL, because FCL doesn't come under EU control until 2012. It could only cover certification and maintenance.

I disagree. It is totally disingenuous to go round saying that we could concede such and such if we got the BASA signed. Two reasons:

• The existing BASA does not provide for FCL (regardless of the reasons) - so why link it to a presently-sought FCL concession? Why doesn't the EU link the FRA/FCL issues to a US agreement on export of free range chickens?
• There is IMHO little chance of the USA signing a BASA covering reciprocal license acceptance. Why? They have no need for it. They more or less hand you their own license if you turn up there with your ICAO one. Why should they accept foreign licenses (not locally validated for security, etc) to be used in their airspace, which is only going to make the TSA and the DHS go berserk, and these are powerful agencies? (the fact that they are staffed with a load of morons doesn't help). I went to an FAA lawyer presentation earlier this year where someone raised the question of some (slightly subtle) ICAO deviations by the USA (without a difference filed) and the explanation was clearly that doing anything about it is a difficult matter in the present "security" climate. So I think an "FCL BASA" is just an un-achievable objective, and linking assorted current stuff to such a hypothetical treaty is just a clever way of making sure it will not happen, but you can then blame the USA for being difficult Even if the USA did agree to a bilateral FCL treaty, they would insist on fingerprinting European pilots wishing to rely on such privileges within US airspace, and this is just going to get the EU going off on yet another tangent to make sure the whole thing fails.

[dublinpilot]

Watching that EU debate was very interesting.

What a terrible system for debating. Everyone gets to ask a questions, and then the person questioned gets to answer whichever questions that he can remember (or more correctly, he wants to answer).

A question that is answered but waffled doesn't get reput.

It was also interesting to note that those critical of FCL & GA issues, both seemed to be British. It's a pitty that the rest of the EU MEP's weren't as vocal about FCL & GA issues. I can only assume that pilots in other countries are not contacting their MEP's. Presumably it's because they don't have an IMCR to worry about.

dp

[proudprivate]

It was also interesting to note that those critical of FCL & GA issues, both seemed to be British.

Don't forget Gesine Meissner from Germany, Liberals. This could mean tri-partisan support (Conservative / Labour / Liberals).

The French silence was deafening. However, we have the Irish on board. If you could write to Jim Higgins thanking him for the written questions, then we get the Christian Democrats on board too. (He already has written to the Commission on 26 October 2010, see quote below)

Can the Commission confirm that EASA, in its opinion to the Commission, is suggesting that from 2012 anyone who is domiciled in Europe can only fly if they have a valid European licence? I understand there are more than 10 000 Europeans holding a third-country licence and that in order to continue flying they will need to convert to the EASA Part FCL Licence after implementation (April 2012) of the new system. The financial impact will be huge, particularly for those who hold an instrument qualification. They will have to re-sit a number of exams and do a flying course prior to being confirmed as ready to take the flight test. Is the Commission concerned at such a recommendation? What is the Commission’s view on the recommendation?

My guess is, if this comes back for scrutiny to the Parliament, we might see democracy at work !