EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft

[Thomascl605]

From a pure licencing perspective it is illegal to insist that a person flying an "N" reg aircraft on an FAA licence, must also hold a JAA licence. Nowhere in the FAR's does it stipulate that a pilot should hold another countries non FAA licence to fly an Aircraft with an "N" on the tail.

It's like asking a BA Captain with a JAA licence to take his FAA licence from scratch just so he / she can continue to fly their "G" reg 747.

[Thomascl605]

I'm talking about the issuing licencing authority which I am complying with, as I can exercise my right to fly "N" reg Aircraft with my FAA licence. Nowhere in the FAR's does it stipulate that I need another countries non FAA licence to fly an "N" reg Aircraft. Just as a JAA licenced Pilot wouldn't require an FAA licence to continue flying a "G" reg Aircraft that he has been doing safely for years.

Yes, I have heard the passage that you quote before. The reality is it doesn't really mean much. The proposal in this case is fixated on pilot domicile, which as we all know is rubbish.

[Mike Cross]

From a pure licencing perspective it is illegal

What a curious idea. Who would you envisage as being the prosecuting authority in this "illegality", who would they prosecute and in what jurisdiction and what law would they be charged with breaching?

If a US pilot in a US aircraft is operating outside the US then he comes under the law of the State within whose airspace he is flying, which may or may not allow him to exercise all of the privileges of his license.

I agree the EASA proposal is daft, but that does not make it illegal.

FAR 375.22

§ 375.22 Flight operations.

Flights of foreign civil aircraft in the United States shall be conducted in accordance with the currently applicable rules of the Federal Aviation Administration

If they want to make a rule that specifies the obligatory wearing of pink underpants while flying a foreign registered aircraft in the US they are perfectly entitled to do so.

[Pace]

If they want to make a rule that specifies the obligatory wearing of pink underpants while flying a foreign registered aircraft in the US they are perfectly entitled to do so.

Mike

I know what you are trying to say but they are not quite the Gods you make them out to be.

To your pink pants example may I add only allow white people to fly foreign reg.

Only allow pilots under the age of 40?

Only allow pilots who do not belong to a union?

Only allow males but not females?

I could carry on but I think you get my gist?

They are covered by numerous laws and rights which is also applicable to EASA which they too have to abide by and also by their own behaviour and mandate.

Watch the lawsuits fly they are not Gods!

Pace

[Pace]

SoCal

Each contracting State reserves the right to refuse to recognize, for the purpose of flight above its own territory, certificates of competency and licenses granted to any of its nationals by another contracting State.

There is not such thing as an EU national. I live in the UK and have British Citizenship which is one form of British Nationality. I also have EU Citizenship but not EU nationality it does not exist.

Suggest you check out a national in the dictionary?
You cannot be a national of a state only a country.

Pace

[Pace]

That maybe semantic but take this scenario a UK national where the UK have signed up to the EASA directive can ban its national from flying over UK airspace in an FAA N reg aircraft but the french, Italians,Spanish, ETC cannot.

That UK national working out of france could not be stopped as that regulation stands from flying all over Europe other than UK airspace?

The UK Pilot based in the UK could hold a basic EASA PPL fly VFR to clear UK airspace and then use his FAA IR to fly all over Europe IFR.

Or even better he could use EASAs proposed lifelong IMCR privalages to fly his N reg IMC OCAS to clear and then join CAS once in french airspace using his FAA IR

Each contracting State reserves the right to refuse to recognize, for the purpose of flight above its own territory, certificates of competency and licenses granted to any of its nationals by another contracting State.

under that portion above the french could not stop him once he left uk airspace and entered french airspace.

Quite a semantic

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Mike

If they want to make a rule that specifies the obligatory wearing of pink underpants

I think you will find almost every first world, the majority of second world and even a few third world countries have rules against that sort of discrimination these days. It is just not pc you know.

As we say these days whatever rocks you boat, and if that is your sort of thing .. .. .. but a slightly worrying example to give. Ooop shouldnt have said that either.

[IO540]

As has been written before, ICAO article 32 refers to "nationals" which means citizenship of the pilot.

EASA has shifted this to "operator" "residence" which is definitely not citizenship of the pilot.

Nobody I know knows what this is supposed to mean and it is self evidently a difficult to define concept; more so for some than others.

The EU would have to force every member state to file a difference to ICAO on this (they they have the power to do I assume, because that is how the EU works today).

Regarding the FCL BASA, I don't see a problem with the FAA wanting it. The problem would be getting it past the US legislative apparatus in the current US security climate.

[proudprivate]

Bookworm

Quote:
... as well as a potentially undesirable outcome.
That I don't follow. I can understand that you don't approve of the process. But why would FAA-EASA mutual licence acceptance and an achievable EASA IR be an undesirable outcome? Isn't that very much better than the status quo?

I personally think that, at least for private pilots, the status quo is a more desirable outcome. An N-reg based training is better integrated, more focussed on safety, and training materials are better. Furthermore, medical certification is more accessible (financially and geographically) and is more focussed on flight safety issues.

That being said, the ideal situation would obviously be a European licensing mechanism that would work "like the FAA", but we seem unable to achieve this because of petty nationalism and vested interest lobbying. I didn't particularly enjoy being fingerprinted and all that by the Americans, but I found it a smaller burden than all the JAR nonsense they make us put up with. If we had a European FAA, NOONE in the private scene would even contemplate flying something other than yellow stars on a blue background.

I don't think Goudou was referring to FCL.008 at all: the "charitable" explanation is that he's misinformed about what Annex III entails for the conversion process.

Now if Goudou were an (elected) politician, I could accept he's "misinformed". It is not easy to jump from "Save the whale" issues to "Flight Crew Licensing" issues having to rely on briefings from some overworked pps service. But he is the chairman of a specialised aviation agency, a high ranking civil servant at that. Then it is your job to be informed, knowledgeable and transparent in your communication. It is your job to gauge the impact of administrative implementations or legislative proposals.

[Thomascl605]

Dear Mike Cross,

It's not such a "Curious" idea in fact.

In fact I shall be writing to the FAA legal team shortly and will ask why my FAA licences are in danger of not being recognised to fly an "N" reg Aircraft. As I said before, nowhere in the FAR's does it stipulate that I need a JAA licence to fly an "N" reg Aircraft. Also, the precedent is that I have been flying in this way for years with no safety issues.

You say that the Pilot comes under the law of the State he is flying over,and that you quote "they can get you to wear pink underpants"

What a "Curious" thing to say. Well, we shall see wont we ? You ask who would be responsible well here goes.

As I would no longer be allowed to fly, a lawsuit would contain the complete costs from start of FAA training up to present. Further to this it would include all further loss of earnings from date of implementation of law until retirement, well over £1 mill.

As for who this lawsuit would be directed at, well I am sure you can guess.

I will win.

[IO540]

I personally think that, at least for private pilots, the status quo is a more desirable outcome

As far as I am concerned, in the present climate of uncertainty, I would happily see the whole of EASA melt down completely.

The only good thing they have actually done is the grandfathering of all national-CAA certification to be valid all over the EU. This is very good and has benefited many owners.

I am hard pushed to think of anything they have done which is worthwhile. Any offers?

Obviously, if the "FCL008 IR" was actually available, then this is better than the status quo.

But even then only for some owners, because the N-reg registry is still better for operating sensible maintenance practices, avoiding the Part M ripoff operated by a large % of MOs.

The problem is that we won't know if the FCL008-IR really exists until the very end, at around the time the anti-N-reg proposals will (or will not) be implemented.

BTW, Goudou (profile and a picture showing him somewhat less harrassed than at the EU hearings ) is a highly educated and prob99 competent engineer. To see him reduced to spouting bullsh*t like this is sad, but clearly he knows he is doing just that.

[Intercepted]

The only good thing they have actually done is the grandfathering of all national-CAA certification to be valid all over the EU. This is very good and has benefited many owners.

I disagree that this is a good thing at all and I think it's a big blow to the hobby and future pilots. You have to be quite selfish if you think grandfather rights is a "very good thing".

It's the same as saying that from 2012 you are not allowed to have flying as a hobby anymore and we will only allow commercial operation. After some noice from the PPLs we change our minds and grandfather the rights for existing PPLs to fly, but new PPLs will not be granted anymore.

[IO540]

I suspect you are thinking of the proposed LAPL or whatever.

That is FCL (flight crew licensing). EASA has thus far made a hash of that, in its proposals.

"Certification" means component and modification certification. For example, a different exhaust system approved in 1985 in Germany can, post-EASA, be fitted to any EU reg aircraft. This is a positive step.

[Intercepted]

Sorry, I didn't read the thread properly.

I'm just getting to upset when seeing the words "grandfather rigths" in combination with EASA and automatically thought about the handling of the IMC-rating.

[Mike Cross]

Thomas

I think we are suffering from a lack of agrement on terminology.

To me something that is illegal is something that is against the law, to you it seem to mean something that is actionable. If one of my customers refuses to pay me I can take him to court and sue for the loss. What he did was not illegal but it was a breach of contract so a civil action is possible.

While there may not be a law that says "you have to pay Mike Cross what you owe him" there is a law that says you have to pay your taxes, which is why you can get jailed for not paying taxes but not for failing to pay a supplier.

The pink underpants business was light hearted but for example if you wanted to come to the UK in an N Reg and carry out aerial survey work you would find that there is a prohibition on your doing so. perfectly legal for you to do it in the US, or in the UK in a G Reg.

[IO540]

Well, yes, except that you will probably need an AOC, and if you get one of those, the DfT permission to use an N-reg will be implicit...

One needs an AOC for most classes of aerial work. Same in the USA, though a bit fewer.

But I agree with you. It is not illegal as such. It is a lot of other things...

[Pace]

I'm just getting to upset when seeing the words "grandfather rigths" in combination with EASA and automatically thought about the handling of the IMC-rating.

Intercepted

I agree with what you are saying. Some heralded the suggestion by EASA that existing IMCR pilots could continue to exercise those privalages as some great victory for the save the IMCR brigade.

The IMCR would no longer exist in EASA land so their victory, no new pilots could get one in the UK because the IMCR has been done away with!
Here I disgree with Mike Cross EASA is a European Aviation Safety organisation that is their mandate. To blatently change regulations which does the very opposite of their mandate and dramatically increases the death rate of pilots would mean that they could be challenged in court epecially if it could be proved that their motivation for regulation was not safety but political or protectionism.

Mike paints EASA as a God who can do what it wants with total immunity and is not answerable to anybody or the courts.

100,000 European pilots (or whatver the number is) forced to loose their FAA IR privalages and new UK PPLs forced to fly VFR because the IMCR no longer exists would dramatically increase the death rates.

That can be shown through accident statistics in countries especially France which has such a high accident rate for VFR flight.
EASA may be forced to create a European IR Lite to counteract the results of them doing nothing.

It would have to be a Lite as EASA would not water down their existing IR But could politically create a MK1 version to Lead to the Full version.
naturally the MK1 version would have restrictions.
In that sense I cannot see how they would get away in the courts with doing nothing.
I could see a situation where families of dead pilots would sue EASA for creating a hightened danger situation by removing the FAA IR and IMCR with nothing else in place.

Going onto N reg again I am not so sure that EASA is not answerable? talking with a non aviation Barrister established and accepted practice gains legal rights which get stronger over time.

N reg has been an accepted mode of operation for decades albeit with griitted teeth by the authorities.

Those who have businesses or income or will make financial losses due to what was an accepted practice for such a long period of time and have that practice removed would indeed be able to sue for those losses.

Pace

[englishal]

With all this talk about EU, what I don't understand is what about those countries that are NOT in the EU but are EASA member states? Clearly their pilots are NOT EU domiciled citizens...so...??????

Secondly if one is flying their N reg from the UK to a Non EU country, what happens at the "change over" point? EASA say you must have an EASA license to fly in EASA airpace if you are an EU resident, yet the FARs also state you must have an FAA certificate to fly an N reg.

What about a Norwegian pilot with an FAA certificate? Can he fly an N reg throughout Europe? What about if my main residence becomes Alderney?

What about a type not currently available in Europe (can't think of one, but there must be). How can one have an EASA certificate to fly this non euro type when this non euro type cannot be flown on a European certificate?

Regarding pink underpants, there are quite a few girl pilots too who'd probably look quite good in pink underwear .........

[proudprivate]

Regarding pink underpants, there are quite a few girl pilots too who'd probably look quite good in pink underwear

That is why male EASA pilots under 40 will have to undergo "a little test" to see if their instrument scan remains intact if the rhs is wearing (only) pink underpants.

[Mike Cross]

Mike paints EASA as a God who can do what it wants with total immunity and is not answerable to anybody or the courts

Where'd I say that? I was simply trying to point out that when you fly outside of your own national airspace you become subject to the laws of the country whose airspace you are in.

Where we will come unstuck if we are not vigilant is that EASA's Opinion will feed through the European Parliament into European Law, which will then become binding on the EU States, who will have to enact it into their own law. It's not EASA who make the law it is our own government.

Please don't assume that I am a defender of EASA or what they are up to. Under the proposed rules as outlined by the CAA I'd be prevented from flying an EASA aircraft using my lifetime CAA PPL. I could however continue to fly my Luscombe (National Permit to Fly) on the license. I could fly an N Reg Cirrus in Europe on my FAA 61.75, but not a G Reg Cirrus on my UK Licence. Where's the common sense in that?