EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft

[dublinpilot]

If you could write to Jim Higgins thanking him for the written questions

Will do. Thanks for quoting his question. It makes thanking him much easier

[IO540]

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.

or they are simply more compliant people

Also, some countries do not have any significant touring population, and the chief issue here is the IR which is applicable to long distance flying. French pilots do almost no touring.

Goudou is hugely unimpressive for such a top political job. He gave "political answers" but everybody who knows anything about the subject can see he is bu11sh**tting.

He was hiding behind law already passed, which got sneaked in through the use of very general phrases, without anybody noticing its detailed effects.

I hope his disposable statement about a "little test" gets recorded and widely distributed and is used to rub various peoples' noses in the dirt. I bet he wishes he never said that.

Seebold is another crazy legislator, wanting EU OPS to apply to private flying (because, he says, there is no European regulation governing it), and again ranting on about bilateral FCL treaties making things much simpler. Why? It is a purely artificial argument.

[mmgreve]

Well, I did not draft the question by Mr Messerschmidt and while I agree that it could have been better worded I am happy that he poses the question.

I think that common European recognision and rules under EASA is a good thing, but they need to limit their work to promote safety and ease of operation across borders....and it surely does not need to cost €107m on top of whatever the national CAAs are spending.

[proudprivate]

Who is driven by what ?

IO540:

There is IMHO little chance of the USA signing a BASA covering reciprocal license acceptance....

The more I think about it, the more I get convinced there are people at the Commission (such as Seebohm's Air Safety Unit) and EASA who, for personal motives unclear to me or under direct lobbying influences by member states and vested insterests are deliberately going after the N-register.

They intentionally use an inefficient negotiation tool (legislation) to make sure that an agreement with the US is unlikely.

When you question EASA people directly, they claim that knew it would face severe opposition but that they were forced to put Annex III and the rest on the table by a couple of member states. Given the reactions in parliament we heard last week, the dominant member state behind this would be France.

Assuming that EASA staff claims are true, what are the primary motives for France to move against the N-register with FUD-tactics ?
Is the N-register hurting EADS sales ?
Do French FTO's stand to benefit in particular (and sufficiently to have a significant effect in steering France's lobbying effort) ?

And what is EASA's motivation for doing this ? Are key people being threatened or bribed careerwise ? I don't believe in the "smoke filled room / chip on the shoulder / do something before we get abolished"-image we have seen in other threads. The council is already moving to cut EASA's budget and alienating the transport committee of the parliament is only going to expedite the process.

Also, what is the link between the pilot unions and EASA that was being mentioned by Mad_Jock in this thread but also by MEP Foster when she urged Goudou "Not to try to perform a social dialogue but to focus on air safety instead" ? What would an airline pilots' union have to gain if the N-register were to be driven out ? I don't quite see what that my moves in FL060-FL120 would overcrowd their airspace. PPL/IR also generally avoid the intense landing fee strips where the Airlines come. It is not as if the Airlines are going to gain custom from grounded PPL's : getting treated like excrement as a passenger at EGSS is not a substute for the royal welcome at EGSC, EGMC or EGMH as a pilot.

Any light shed on this is welcome.

[IO540]

The more I think about it, the more I get convinced there are people at the Commission (such as Seebohm's Air Safety Unit) and EASA who, for personal motives unclear to me or under direct lobbying influences by member states and vested insterests are deliberately going after the N-register.

They intentionally use an inefficient negotiation tool (legislation) to make sure that an agreement with the US is unlikely.

I agree 100%

When you question EASA people directly, they claim that knew it would face severe opposition but that they were forced to put Annex III and the rest on the table by a couple of member states. Given the reactions in parliament we heard last week, the dominant member state behind this would be France.

IMHO France is unlikely. 3 reasons:

1) France proposed to kick out N-regs in 2004 and the proposal got squashed very fast indeed.

2) France has its govt closely tied to national industrial interests i.e. Dassault and EADS (Daher/Socata now) and these rely heavily on the N-reg option

3) Rumours from the 15 Oct Comitology meeting suggest that it was actually France that killed the anti N-reg proposal

IMHO if one country is behind anti N-reg moves it would be Germany. The UK has kind of given up on this years ago but remains the #2 candidate. Germany and the UK gold plate everything and then some.

And what is EASA's motivation for doing this ? Are key people being threatened or bribed careerwise ? I don't believe in the "smoke filled room / chip on the shoulder / do something before we get abolished"-image we have seen in other threads.

Same as ever. Go to any airport and compare the N-regs with the local regs. The Nregs are the classiest most expensive planes, flying the longest trips. The local regs are often just AOC ops, otherwise they are rotting in the grass. I recall landing at Granada LEGR and all the ES- stuff had more or less flat tyres - except for an AOC Partenavia. All the flyable stuff was N-reg.

This picture is all over Europe. The bigger jets are N or Caymans/Aruba etc. It rubs up all the vested interests the wrong way. With EASA, they got a chance to have a go.

The council is already moving to cut EASA's budget and alienating the transport committee of the parliament is only going to expedite the process.

This could also cause a meltdown of FCL proposals...

Also, what is the link between the pilot unions and EASA that was being mentioned by Mad_Jock in this thread but also by MEP Foster when she urged Goudou "Not to try to perform a social dialogue but to focus on air safety instead" ? What would an airline pilots' union have to gain if the N-register were to be driven out ? I don't quite see what that my moves in FL060-FL120 would overcrowd their airspace. PPL/IR also generally avoid the intense landing fee strips where the Airlines come. It is not as if the Airlines are going to gain custom from grounded PPL's : getting treated like excrement as a passenger at EGSS is not a substute for the royal welcome at EGSC, EGMC or EGMH as a pilot.

Sure.

The reason the pilot unions do not like N-reg is because any move to get N-regs out of Europe (short of a ban, and killing much of the private IFR scene as a result) involves producing a more accessible IR. Anybody who disagrees with this simple statement is living up on some cloud. And an easier IR is unwelcome to the airline pilot unions because Europe has historically tied a "hard IR" to the status of a "professional pilot". They should have used the ATPL instead (as the USA does) but that did not happen, and anyway if you have a CPL/IR here then you get an ATPL as a formality after sitting in the RHS for X hours, so the ATPL means little in Europe, as a hallmark of a professional pilot. It's all bollox but that's what we have.

[bookworm]

And what is EASA's motivation for doing this ? Are key people being threatened or bribed careerwise ? I don't believe in the "smoke filled room / chip on the shoulder / do something before we get abolished"-image we have seen in other threads. The council is already moving to cut EASA's budget and alienating the transport committee of the parliament is only going to expedite the process.

Good question. I have two theories:

1) This is a personal vendetta waged by some very important nameless people who have a personal grudge against IO-540. That might sound a little paranoid, but that doesn't mean they're not out to get him.

2) EASA has been trying to do something sensible, but has been repeatedly beaten up by the Commission saying "stop trying to re-invent the wheel, just use the JARs". And the JARs say:

JAR-FCL 1.015 (b) Licences issued by non-JAA States
(2) Validation of a professional pilot licence and a private pilot licence with instrument rating shall not exceed one year from the date of validation, provided that the basic licence remains valid.
...
JAR-FCL 1.015 (c) Conversion of a licence issued by a non-JAA State.
(1) A professional pilot licence and/or IR issued by a non-JAA State may be converted to a JAR–FCL licence provided that an arrangement exists between the JAA and the non-JAA State. This arrangement shall be established on the basis of reciprocity of licence acceptance and shall ensure that an equivalent level of safety exists between the training and testing requirements of the JAA and the non-JAA State. Any arrangement entered into will be reviewed periodically, as agreed by the non-JAA State and the JAA. A licence converted according to such an arrangement shall have an entry indicating the non-JAA State upon which the conversion is based. Other Member States shall not be obliged to accept any such licence.
(2) A private pilot licence issued by a non-JAA State may be converted to a JAR-FCL licence with a single-pilot aeroplane class/type ratings by complying with the requirements shown in Appendix 2 to JAR-FCL 1.015.

Which is pretty much what it says in Part-FCL Annex 3 taken alongside the BR.

Now contrary to many of the suggestions of EASA being an EU gravytrain, the staff at EASA are diligent and extremely hard-working. But they are also drowning in work, so there comes a point at about 22.00 on a Friday evening when you stop trying to change the world for the better and just do what the bloody client tells you to.

[IO540]

That's a very charitable explanation bookworm, but the fact remains that every national CAA in Europe (except apparently Denmark, and then in a very arbitrary manner) has freely allowed N-reg operations.

So what has changed?

It's no use hiding behind the JARs. The directive given by the EU to EASA to stick to the JARs came from Zoltan Kazatsay, a year or so ago. Do a google for the timing. The EASA proposals to push out FAA licensed pilots go back a few years before that.

the staff at EASA are diligent and extremely hard-working.

Sure they are. With the size of their payroll (PAYE and contract staff) versus the workforce, so would most people be

But they are also drowning in work

Of their own pointless making.

One only has to listen to the bollox from Goudou and Seebohm...

[bookworm]

That's a very charitable explanation bookworm, but the fact remains that every national CAA in Europe (except apparently Denmark, and then in a very arbitrary manner) has freely allowed N-reg operations.

Inventory of Answers to the Consultation Document ER OPS & LIC

Question 3
Do stakeholders agree that third country aircraft used for non-commercial activities in the
Community by third country operators should be subject to Community legislation?

CAA-Belgium
Eurocopter
CAA-UK
FOCA
British Airways
EHA
AEA
IACA
FNAM
SNPL
CAA-Norway
ENAC
ECA
Austrocontrol
CAA-Sweden
ETF
FAA
Austrian Ministry of Transport
Dutch Ministry of Transport
CAA-Poland
Belair
IAA
DGAC-France

All these comments support the idea that third country aircraft used for noncommercial activities in the Community by third country operators should be subject to Community legislation. Several insist however that this should not affect the free movement principle enshrined in the Chicago Convention, nor impose on such operators requirements which would not apply to Community operators.

Interesting that the FAA's on the list, isn't it?

[IO540]

If one drafts a question like

Do stakeholders agree that child labour is a bad thing

or

Do stakeholders agree that third country aircraft used for non-commercial activities in the Community by third country operators should be subject to Community legislation?

then everybody will support it, obviously.

This is standard clever politics.

This is what Goudou and Seebohm are now hiding behind. They drafted an enabling regulation which was full of this vague crap and this got passed into law because a) nobody could disagree with it without looking like Charles Dickens and b) few people believed it would actually be used to boot out the foreign reg pilots.

[bookworm]

then everybody will support it, obviously.

German Ministry of Transport
LBA
RSA
ECOGAS
BGA
CAA-Finland
CAA-Estonia

These comments are not favourable to
the concept of Community regulation of
third country aircraft used by third
country operators, which they consider
to be against the spirit of the Chicago
Convention.
They recognise however the need to
avoid that such freedom of movement is
used to circumvent EU rules applicable
to EU registered aircraft. They suggest
therefore addressing this issue by an
obligation to register aircraft in EU
Member States if they stay in the
European territory beyond a certain
period of time.

[IO540]

That's vvvery German You villlll comply. (and most of them do).

Yet, long term parking limits on foreign reg airframes (which is what the above amounts to, in any remotely practically controllable form) have been done to death, dropped by the French in 2004, dropped by the UK in 2005, and I have never met anybody who can think how they would work.

Even I, a mere pilot, worked out a very easy work-around within an hour. Obviously I won't say what it was. But long term parking limits are not workable, in any civilised country which has anything like a transparent legal system.

Let me tell you something funny. I could park my TB20 at Split airport in Croatia (outside the EU), take an Easyjet flight to it once a week, and it would cost me less than parking it at Bournemouth.

[proudprivate]

3) Rumours from the 15 Oct Comitology meeting suggest that it was actually France that killed the anti N-reg proposal

The rumour I heard was that Germany asked further information regarding the economic impact. Also strange that a German governing party MEP then being so critical of Goudou.

All this shows that comitology is not a very transparent and democratic process. Are there publicly available minutes from the comitology meeting ?

The reason the pilot unions do not like N-reg is because any move to get N-regs out of Europe (short of a ban, and killing much of the private IFR scene as a result) involves producing a more accessible IR. Anybody who disagrees with this simple statement is living up on some cloud. And an easier IR is unwelcome to the airline pilot unions because Europe has historically tied a "hard IR" to the status of a "professional pilot". They should have used the ATPL instead (as the USA does) but that did not happen, and anyway if you have a CPL/IR here then you get an ATPL as a formality after sitting in the RHS for X hours, so the ATPL means little in Europe, as a hallmark of a professional pilot. It's all bollox but that's what we have.

Forgive me for being daft, but I don't follow the reasoning at all : If banning N-reg would lead to a more accessible IR, and assuming that is something the unions don't like, why be against N-reg in the first place ?

bookworm:

2) EASA has been trying to do something sensible, but has been repeatedly beaten up by the Commission saying "stop trying to re-invent the wheel, just use the JARs". And the JARs say:...

I think the chronology of actions as you state it is flawed (in part pointed out by IO540).

Now contrary to many of the suggestions of EASA being an EU gravytrain, the staff at EASA are diligent and extremely hard-working. But they are also drowning in work, so there comes a point at about 22.00 on a Friday evening when you stop trying to change the world for the better and just do what the bloody client tells you to.

This I just don't buy. It is as bad as the "smoke filled room" story. While getting contradictory input from influential stakeholders can be demotivating, it is not an excuse for delivering unsatisfactory output.

The "drowning in work"-part at EU-level can be alleviated by streamlining overly rigid processes. If you are an agency, you should be able to do this. Not that it would turn into a 9 to 5 job overnight, but provided the hiring was done carefully, it clearly could be cut to manageable levels (remember that there is 574 of you). I also have the impression that EASA has been actively "power grabbing" and creating more tasks for itself in the process.

And if the "client" (in this case the Commission) is getting unreasonable, you simply tell him no, pointing out the contradictions, legal obstacles or political headwind. A civil servant who doesn't do that, is simply not serving the civil society. If I were heading the agency and got a hammering like that in a parliamentary committee, and assuming that the above bookwork quote pretty much summed up the situation, I would not hesitate to point this out. It would earn me the respect of the parliament, the aviation community as a whole and it would advance the decision making process.

Instead, I saw someone being evasive, mixing up relevant issues and ignoring a few important others. Not something you would expect from a diligent team manager trying to change the world for the better.

[IO540]

Forgive me for being daft, but I don't follow the reasoning at all : If banning N-reg would lead to a more accessible IR, and assuming that is something the unions don't like, why be against N-reg in the first place ?

Banning N-reg would not lead to a more accessible IR.

Banning N-reg would just wipe out most private IFR-capable pilots, with some % of those pilots queing up to do the existing IR (the conversion option).

What I meant was that if you wanted to use a carrot rather than a stick, you come up with an easier IR and then the N-reg population will gradually move over to it. Certification issues aside (and EASA's proposal already deals with those adequately for private flying) nobody here actually wants to fly a US registered plane.

And it is this easier IR which the airline pilot unions are against. I doubt they care about N-reg itself.

[BossEyed]

Originally Posted by proudprivate

A civil servant who doesn't do that, is simply not serving the civil society.

Extraordinary. Such a thing would likely be verging on a promotable offence.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by IO540

Banning N-reg would not lead to a more accessible IR.


And it is this easier IR which the airline pilot unions are against. I doubt they care about N-reg itself.

Easier implies lessor. Since there are probably more pilots in the world flying on a FAA IR than all the other nations IR rating put together, I think the quality of the FAA IR qualification can not be seriously disputed.

The issue seems to me various European agences and organizations are, despite all evidence to the contrary, completely unwilling to admit the fact that the FAA certificate is as good as theirs. What the EU needs is not a "simpler" IR it is a "sensible" IR......like the FAA one.

[proudprivate]

Easier doesn't imply lesser

Easier implies lesser

That is not true. Getting an FAA PPL is easier than a JAR PPL because
- the theoretical subject matter is better explained in FAA-style courses
- the subject matter is more directly applicable, making it easier to focus
- the concept of written test followed by a better integrated flight test + oral exam make it easier for the student pilot to absorb the skills and knowledge.

The JAR PPL theory subject matter is much more arcane, and the exam questions are put in a silly "quiz" style. It also requires the student to be physically present for at least 21 hours "in classroom", something that is not easily manageable for an amateur.

Study materials for JAR PPL courses are also substandard, making it harder for students to see the "big picture". The JAR course materials are also more expensive, and the compulsory ground school in an FTO starts at € 500, often more.

I also fully agree that the FAA qualification delivers better pilots. Add to that that the FAA encourages PPLs to train on for an instrument rating and the safety record becomes overbearing.

So while it is easier to obtain an FAA rating, the FAA rating is certainly not the lesser (I also don't think that IO540 meant that). It is just that the FAA rating is more sensible and focusses more on piloting skills and safety.

In summary, we don't need just a sensible IR in Europe, we need a sensible everything, from PPL to ATPL + type ratings.

[mad_jock]

That maybe your local CAA rule proudpilot.

The UK theory structure sounds as if its different. Our UK students can self study and sit the exams. There are 2 sets of commercial (as in you can buy them in a bookshop not its commercial theory) theory books used which are available in most public libaries. Or you can pick a set up off ebay.

The theory is in the majority relevant to what we are instructing.

There isn't that much difference between the UK and FAA PPL apart from we don't have to do certain exercises like circling round a point and the night qualification.

[IO540]

the FAA rating is certainly not the lesser (I also don't think that IO540 meant that). It is just that the FAA rating is more sensible and focusses more on piloting skills and safety.

Exactly.

I think the quality of the FAA IR qualification can not be seriously disputed.

I don't think anybody (intelligent) is disputing it. They hardly can because they have no data supporting such an assertion.

But that isn't the point. The problem is in many years of history. The IR has been used as a "yardstick of dedication", to stop people from getting to be airline pilots too easily. That's why (until very recently) the IR question bank was loaded with jet transport specific stuff, even if you were doing in to go on a PPL and not a CPL. That's also why, in the UK, the initial test is done by a small band of CAA staff examiners, and why the plane has to be modified with window screens (cannot be done under the hood). It is all to make it more elitist.

Our UK students can self study and sit the exams

They can for the PPL but not for the IR.

[mad_jock]

Don't have a problem with that IO I was just clarifying that in the UK at least we don't have to do the theory as proudpilot has stated for I presume Belgium.

The small band is out the door now under EASA proposals any IRE can do it if they hold the relevant class examiner ratings. Oxford are already using in house examiners.

Right this is just thoughts and not really meant to say one way or another on this debate.

The windows screen issue is purely a staff examiner thing (I know its not meant to be). I haven't done a IR in an aircraft with them since my intial. Never mind hoods its usually a VFR chart gets parked in the windscreen as the gear comes up. That is if the examiner doesn't go with "I promise not to look" which to be honest I don't do because it screws with my scan.

The theory side of thing 8 years ago I used to think this is 95% pish. Now I have changed my mind as I have used progressively more of it. I am talking the NAV side of things, Met and ICAO law, not jet engines and all that stuff.

The 2 weeks brush ups didn't actually teach me any more about the subjects but it was more about exam technique and focusing on hot areas in the question banks. I wouldn't have passed the exams without it. But see below.

In my day when JAR first started we didn't have the likes of BGS question banks. These days the kids that I know that have gone through all averaged over 95%.

I agree with the elitist comment and I have been told that it was the last chance the CAA had of stopping commercial pilots getting unsuspecting pax in thier aircraft and being ****e (although there seems to be quite a few that get through). So would agree that the whole system is set up as a progress test for a budding commercial pilot. Although now the industry has changed, the requirement for single crew commercial operations is now much reduced.

The IMC to me in the UK is a sensible standard to require for a private pilot about the right level of theory added onto the UK PPL theory and a reasonable amount of stick time. Now personally I couldn't see a problem with the IMC privrleges but add additional rights of being allowed to fly in Airways but not in Class A TMA's. Twins are getting into a dodgy area and I would say you need the full monty for one of them but thats purely because of the single engine go around IMC.

The only issue which nobody seems to have touched on is the staturation of airspace with IFR traffic. I do wonder if PPL IR has been a victim of its own sucess and ATS want shot of them because they are taking up commercial slots and revenue. I can see the airways fee's wavier for lights being removed in the not so distant future.

Medical wise I have flown with colour blind pilots from other countries how they passed I don't know but it seems to make no difference. Glasses again if you can see with a pair of specs and have a spare pair crack on.


As I said this is just a series of thoughts and not meant to add to either side of the debate.

[IO540]

The only issue which nobody seems to have touched on is the staturation of airspace with IFR traffic. I do wonder if PPL IR has been a victim of its own sucess and ATS want shot of them because they are taking up commercial slots and revenue.

I doubt it.

I have almost never seen another GA plane when flying Eurocontrol routes. Very very rarely one hears what sounds like one on the radio. In the FL100-FL200 band, there is just about nothing.

One does get Eurocontrol slots fairly often but that seems to be a computer artefact, perhaps to do with controller (sector) capacity around DVR; nothing to do with traffic capacity anywhere near the relevant altitude. I just wait them out and usually they shrink to very little by the original EOBT.

I have spoken to Eurocontrol people about this a number of times, and they agree there is no traffic volume issue.

Reportedly, people flying "slow" turboprops around the FL300 area have problems getting routes, but below FL250 it seems to be fine.

However, every Eurocontrol presentation I have been to was full of "VLJ traffic forecast to clog up the skies" ... "hundreds of VLJs flying out of Luton" stuff. I don't know if they have woken up within the past year but they will one day and realise the whole VLJ business was about 95% hype - especially in Europe where (due to lack of suitable open etc airports) the air taxi business model would be an even bigger failure than in the USA. In fact I bumped into one of the Eclipse executives (shortly before they went bust) and he thought the air taxi model was bogus from day 1. But maybe this fear is still driving some sort of anti private IR sentiment? These people really do live in underground bunkers, surrounded by prejudices.