EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA UK has an ambiguous historical record on N-reg
most of the bizjet crowd has had their heads totally in the sand - yet they are the most powerful potential lobbyists
brgds
421C
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
421C
I have a few issues with the EASA Gods. Firstly EASA is a safety organisation! That is their mandate no more no less.
Secondly they are playing with peoples livelyhoods! But have to remember that there are other EC laws that EASA are answerable too.
They have stated that they have allowed 2 years extra time for the sole purpose of attaining a bilateral agreement.
That is not a safety issue but a political issue.
I am not the only FAA ATP who doesnt hold JAA licences flying corporate jets in Europe.
While I appreciate many may be dual licenced already a lot of pilots I know are not.
Many expecially older ones would without doubt loose their livelyhoods if this ever came into play.
We are talking about a lot of time and an awful lot of money to convert an ATP not as the commisioner hinted a simple test! Older pilots than me may have only a few years to fly in their careers and could not justify the expense or time to convert. Even if they did convert at huge expense they would not achieve work in EASA land at their ages. Discrimaination YES as they would also not be able to recover those costs over time like a younger pilot could.
This would effectively mean they would loose their livelyhoods.
N reg in Europe has been an accepted practice in Europe for decades. Far longer than the EU has been in play.
In all areas of UK law established practice gains legal rights in its own right.
EASA has already admitted to an extension for political reasons not its mandate on safety issues. Ie it is working in areas it has NO authority to be meddling in.
A non aviation Barrister who is a friend informed me that there are numerous grounds for litigation against EASA. If anyone has the time and finances to do so? and that is another option if all fails.
Pace
I have a few issues with the EASA Gods. Firstly EASA is a safety organisation! That is their mandate no more no less.
Secondly they are playing with peoples livelyhoods! But have to remember that there are other EC laws that EASA are answerable too.
They have stated that they have allowed 2 years extra time for the sole purpose of attaining a bilateral agreement.
That is not a safety issue but a political issue.
I am not the only FAA ATP who doesnt hold JAA licences flying corporate jets in Europe.
While I appreciate many may be dual licenced already a lot of pilots I know are not.
Many expecially older ones would without doubt loose their livelyhoods if this ever came into play.
We are talking about a lot of time and an awful lot of money to convert an ATP not as the commisioner hinted a simple test! Older pilots than me may have only a few years to fly in their careers and could not justify the expense or time to convert. Even if they did convert at huge expense they would not achieve work in EASA land at their ages. Discrimaination YES as they would also not be able to recover those costs over time like a younger pilot could.
This would effectively mean they would loose their livelyhoods.
N reg in Europe has been an accepted practice in Europe for decades. Far longer than the EU has been in play.
In all areas of UK law established practice gains legal rights in its own right.
EASA has already admitted to an extension for political reasons not its mandate on safety issues. Ie it is working in areas it has NO authority to be meddling in.
A non aviation Barrister who is a friend informed me that there are numerous grounds for litigation against EASA. If anyone has the time and finances to do so? and that is another option if all fails.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 21st Dec 2010 at 20:16.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe from the attitude of some of the supposed AOPA representatives who frequent these fora...
There are quite a few members who post on here. They voice their own opinions, as they are fully entitled to do.
As for AOPA's position on FRA I refer you to the news item on our website
IAOPA (Europe), the European Business Aviation Association and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association have written a joint letter to EASA expressing concerns about EASA's opinion regarding FCL and third country licenses. We are advised that the Commission will not be voting on the issue until Spring 2011 and that the transitional period has now been extended to 2014. To read the letter click here.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last stand options for Pace
Pace:
I've talked to a European Law barrister. An individual procedure before the General Court would cost around 4500 EUR + expenses (8 EUR per page; Hotel expenses if the plea session is in the morning; the lot not more than 750 EUR extra). So individual PPL (IR's) better join their cases, as the compensation claim is in the same order of magnitude as the expenses (which, by the way, you get reimbursed by the court if you win). For commercial pilots, an individual procedure claiming compensation already makes sense.
Exactly. It very much depends on what grandfathering / accomodation procedures surround the implementation
Both the Commission (represented Mr. Eckhard Seebohm) and EASA have already admitted this, making the legislative proposal (whatever its final form) quite vulnerable to legal challenge. In addition, we have Mr. Goudou on record creating genuine legal expectations surrounding transitional measures.
Finally, the people choosing the wrong side in this saga, such as bookworm here, and the individual member state representatives in the EASA committee should realise that they are damaging European aviation as a whole. All this is protectionism at its worst. The 1930's all over again. Whatever their individual motives, their actions will not go unnoticed.
A non aviation Barrister who is a friend informed me that there are numerous grounds for litigation against EASA. If anyone has the time and finances to do so? and that is another option if all fails.
In all areas of UK law established practice gains legal rights in its own right.
EASA has already admitted to an extension for political reasons not its mandate on safety issues. Ie it is working in areas it has NO authority to be meddling in.
Finally, the people choosing the wrong side in this saga, such as bookworm here, and the individual member state representatives in the EASA committee should realise that they are damaging European aviation as a whole. All this is protectionism at its worst. The 1930's all over again. Whatever their individual motives, their actions will not go unnoticed.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
We really have not discussed the litigation angle in any of this thread?
I appreciate non of us are qualified to make comments or suggestions and as such just pick up scraps from various sources which may or may not be a solid option.
I have already mentioned the uneven hand that these regulations would cause between a 25 year old and 55 year old working pilot and the possibility of an age discrimination angle?
We have not discussed legal challenges to some of these EASA FCL changes.
Maybe its not a good idea to show the enemy your damage potential unless you have a nuclear bomb rather than a feather.
I am equally sure there will be many who dont really know who will tell us the answer.
Regardless I am sure AOPA with their aviation legal expertise do know whether we have a nuclear bomb something between or purely a feather?
Pace
We really have not discussed the litigation angle in any of this thread?
I appreciate non of us are qualified to make comments or suggestions and as such just pick up scraps from various sources which may or may not be a solid option.
I have already mentioned the uneven hand that these regulations would cause between a 25 year old and 55 year old working pilot and the possibility of an age discrimination angle?
We have not discussed legal challenges to some of these EASA FCL changes.
Maybe its not a good idea to show the enemy your damage potential unless you have a nuclear bomb rather than a feather.
I am equally sure there will be many who dont really know who will tell us the answer.
Regardless I am sure AOPA with their aviation legal expertise do know whether we have a nuclear bomb something between or purely a feather?
Pace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Pace, we seem to be at cross purposes, my post was addressed to Al.
IO540 "AOPA UK has an ambiguous historical record on N-reg"
421C "Where do these myths come from?"
Al "Maybe from the attitude of some of the supposed AOPA representatives who frequent these fora..."
Nothing to do with litigation as far as I can see. AOPA's position is pretty clear from the reference I gave.
If someone is contemplating litigation he needs specific legal advice from a lawyer who is expert on the subject and the law of the jurisdiction in which the action is contemplated. That's something AOPA is not qualified to provide.
From a personal perspective my own opinion of a proposal that means that
1) My ICAO PPL issued by the UK CAA will not be valid to fly an EASA aircraft.
2) It will continue to be valid to fly G-REG non-EASA (Annex II) aircraft.
3) I will be able to use it together with a 61.75 to fly say an N-Reg Cirrus in Europe but not an EU Reg Cirrus.
is that it sounds entirely bonkers.
Anyway I'm living in the US for part of next year so I'll probably get a standalone FAA cert.
IO540 "AOPA UK has an ambiguous historical record on N-reg"
421C "Where do these myths come from?"
Al "Maybe from the attitude of some of the supposed AOPA representatives who frequent these fora..."
Nothing to do with litigation as far as I can see. AOPA's position is pretty clear from the reference I gave.
If someone is contemplating litigation he needs specific legal advice from a lawyer who is expert on the subject and the law of the jurisdiction in which the action is contemplated. That's something AOPA is not qualified to provide.
From a personal perspective my own opinion of a proposal that means that
1) My ICAO PPL issued by the UK CAA will not be valid to fly an EASA aircraft.
2) It will continue to be valid to fly G-REG non-EASA (Annex II) aircraft.
3) I will be able to use it together with a 61.75 to fly say an N-Reg Cirrus in Europe but not an EU Reg Cirrus.
is that it sounds entirely bonkers.
Anyway I'm living in the US for part of next year so I'll probably get a standalone FAA cert.
A reply 
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your email regarding EASA's Flight Crew Licensing proposal. Your MEP has forwarded me your email in my capacity as Conservative Transport Spokesman.
I share your frustration and concern at the proposed measures regarding licences issued by third countries. As someone who has worked in the aviation industry all my life, I am fully aware of the reasons why many pilots go to North America for their training. Our safety record alone proves that this has not had a detrimental effect on flying in Europe!
As I believe you are already aware, I have written to Patrick Goudou (Executive Director of EASA) and Mike Smethers (UK member of the Management Board) as well as the European Commission in order to raise your concerns and urge a rethink. Over the last few months, I have also been working closely with the Private Pilot and General Aviation organisations that are representing your interests in Europe. Unfortunately, however, despite these efforts neither EASA nor the European Commission wish to see these proposals overturned.
As such, the situation currently is the following: EASA's proposal regarding foreign-issued licences was accepted by the European Commission and your concerns have not been addressed other than to allow for a longer extension. The new deadline will be 2014 instead of the original 2013. Both the European Commission and Member States have taken this route to allow a little more time to reach agreement with the USA on a Bilateral Safety Agreement. Whether this will be possible remains to be seen. I certainly hope that it will be.
The next step in the legislative proposal will be for the text to come to the European Parliament's Transport Committee for approval or rejection. Due to the particular legislative procedure applied to this proposal the European Parliament is not allowed to make changes to the legislation but simply to veto the text as a whole (which I believe is unlikely). At the moment it seems likely that this will be sometime in late February or early March.
Please rest assured that, in my capacity as the Conservative Transport spokesman, I will continue to raise your concerns and push for a mutual recognition agreement with the USA. I will, of course, send you a further update when more information becomes available. In the meantime, should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Yours sincerely,
Jacqueline Foster MEP
Conservative Transport Spokesman
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your email regarding EASA's Flight Crew Licensing proposal. Your MEP has forwarded me your email in my capacity as Conservative Transport Spokesman.
I share your frustration and concern at the proposed measures regarding licences issued by third countries. As someone who has worked in the aviation industry all my life, I am fully aware of the reasons why many pilots go to North America for their training. Our safety record alone proves that this has not had a detrimental effect on flying in Europe!
As I believe you are already aware, I have written to Patrick Goudou (Executive Director of EASA) and Mike Smethers (UK member of the Management Board) as well as the European Commission in order to raise your concerns and urge a rethink. Over the last few months, I have also been working closely with the Private Pilot and General Aviation organisations that are representing your interests in Europe. Unfortunately, however, despite these efforts neither EASA nor the European Commission wish to see these proposals overturned.
As such, the situation currently is the following: EASA's proposal regarding foreign-issued licences was accepted by the European Commission and your concerns have not been addressed other than to allow for a longer extension. The new deadline will be 2014 instead of the original 2013. Both the European Commission and Member States have taken this route to allow a little more time to reach agreement with the USA on a Bilateral Safety Agreement. Whether this will be possible remains to be seen. I certainly hope that it will be.
The next step in the legislative proposal will be for the text to come to the European Parliament's Transport Committee for approval or rejection. Due to the particular legislative procedure applied to this proposal the European Parliament is not allowed to make changes to the legislation but simply to veto the text as a whole (which I believe is unlikely). At the moment it seems likely that this will be sometime in late February or early March.
Please rest assured that, in my capacity as the Conservative Transport spokesman, I will continue to raise your concerns and push for a mutual recognition agreement with the USA. I will, of course, send you a further update when more information becomes available. In the meantime, should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Yours sincerely,
Jacqueline Foster MEP
Conservative Transport Spokesman
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10540
That must be a standard pre written response as I have recieved the same latter down to the dot!
Not good and from the letter it appears that all the efforts should go to achieving a Bi Lateral agreement with the USA probably through AOPA UK and AOPA USA.
There are enough interests effected both sides of the pond to make some sort of agreement likely.
What that would amount to who knows?
There is also potential for a further extension if need be especially if some bi lateral agreement is in the workshop by then.
Failing that there are already legal issues that EASA will have to deal with covered by existing EC laws which would be breached by the current proposals.
I am well informed that one area is in the age discrimination line as the current proposals do not consider older working pilots who would be unable to recover the costs compared to young pilots and would without doubt be forced out of employment by the current proposals.
My indications are that these would be dealt with through existing exemptions.
Whether that would also include older PPL IRs rather than working ATPs?
Regardless our aims should now be targetted at a BI lateral agreement.
Pace
That must be a standard pre written response as I have recieved the same latter down to the dot!
Not good and from the letter it appears that all the efforts should go to achieving a Bi Lateral agreement with the USA probably through AOPA UK and AOPA USA.
There are enough interests effected both sides of the pond to make some sort of agreement likely.
What that would amount to who knows?
There is also potential for a further extension if need be especially if some bi lateral agreement is in the workshop by then.
Failing that there are already legal issues that EASA will have to deal with covered by existing EC laws which would be breached by the current proposals.
I am well informed that one area is in the age discrimination line as the current proposals do not consider older working pilots who would be unable to recover the costs compared to young pilots and would without doubt be forced out of employment by the current proposals.
My indications are that these would be dealt with through existing exemptions.
Whether that would also include older PPL IRs rather than working ATPs?
Regardless our aims should now be targetted at a BI lateral agreement.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this debate could get really hot.
For some reason I cant see the Yanks readily giving the agreement, particularly if they feel they are being bribed to do so - that doesnt usually sit comfortably with our friends across the Pond.
For some reason I cant see the Yanks readily giving the agreement, particularly if they feel they are being bribed to do so - that doesnt usually sit comfortably with our friends across the Pond.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I received the same letter, but out of courtesy did write back to her and ask if she minded me sharing it here...... no reply yet, but I guess that's a moot point now.
On the subject, this is what was to be expected. Interesting, that EASA has apparently managed to somehow circumvent the European Parliament:
On the subject, this is what was to be expected. Interesting, that EASA has apparently managed to somehow circumvent the European Parliament:
Due to the particular legislative procedure applied to this proposal the European Parliament is not allowed to make changes to the legislation but simply to veto the text as a whole
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about Jim Higgins ?
Jim Higgins MEP got lied to by Commissioner Kallas in the answer to his written question on the subject (Kallas claimed a BASA settling FCL with the US being in place already) . As he is also a member of the transportation committee, I wonder if he also wants to avoid all discussion by sending a standard reply.
Maybe Dublinpilot can contact him again ?
Maybe Dublinpilot can contact him again ?
One should not forget the fact that while N-reg and FAA Licenses are the largerst group affected, they are not the only one.
There are many other aircraft operating within EASA Land, all of which EASA would see in museums or scrap heaps with pleasure. We are talking East Block planes such as Yakovlevs, Antonovs, e.t.c. which are not certifiable in Europe but fly for private venues such as clubs. All those will be history too.
While the good MP sais that the EC can veto the text as a whole (that means all of EASA FCL and the other related documents) but are unlikely to do so, in my opinion they HAVE to reject it or need to face a barrage of legal dispute and compesnation claims. I am not sure if class action could be brought in or something the like, but yes, a full compensation claim as to the full worth of every airplane on N-Register plus the value of every single Pilots license plus the loss of livelyhood as a consequence of this action would look pretty good and also maybe scare the living daylights out of some of the more reasonable MP's who'd have to explain why they approved something which is going to cost EASA some billions in compensation claims.
I wonder what happened to the rebuff they got in 2009 when they were told to stop re-inventing Aviation and tranlsate JAR as they were told to?
In one of the recent PILOT' issues I seem to recall an AOPA spokesman asking the question whether it is time to declare EASA as a failed concept and disband it. While the follow up question of whether this might apply to the EU as a whole is tempting, I think it will eventually transpire that this is what the ultimate goal should be unless the EC stands by their slap in the face they gave EASA in 2009 and rejects the whole thing.
As I am not flying N-reg and my license is european national, I could lay back and watch. But I think us European pilots with JAA or national licenses are deadly mistaken if they believe that it is just the "N-Rebels" who will loose out on EASA's destructive regulation mania, but it will be all of us. Who will be next? The fact is, EASA is proposing law and implementing it without anyone having any possibility whatsoever to invervene.
Those who say that AOPA and other organisations need to be beefed up to the extent that they are in the US; where the FAA thinks twice whether it is wise to take them on, is 20 years late but absolutely necessary. We need a lobby like the US has, we need prominent faces as spokesmen and women on this issue and we need exposure in the press. As we know, there is nothing politicians are scared of more than investigative press.
There are many other aircraft operating within EASA Land, all of which EASA would see in museums or scrap heaps with pleasure. We are talking East Block planes such as Yakovlevs, Antonovs, e.t.c. which are not certifiable in Europe but fly for private venues such as clubs. All those will be history too.
While the good MP sais that the EC can veto the text as a whole (that means all of EASA FCL and the other related documents) but are unlikely to do so, in my opinion they HAVE to reject it or need to face a barrage of legal dispute and compesnation claims. I am not sure if class action could be brought in or something the like, but yes, a full compensation claim as to the full worth of every airplane on N-Register plus the value of every single Pilots license plus the loss of livelyhood as a consequence of this action would look pretty good and also maybe scare the living daylights out of some of the more reasonable MP's who'd have to explain why they approved something which is going to cost EASA some billions in compensation claims.
I wonder what happened to the rebuff they got in 2009 when they were told to stop re-inventing Aviation and tranlsate JAR as they were told to?
In one of the recent PILOT' issues I seem to recall an AOPA spokesman asking the question whether it is time to declare EASA as a failed concept and disband it. While the follow up question of whether this might apply to the EU as a whole is tempting, I think it will eventually transpire that this is what the ultimate goal should be unless the EC stands by their slap in the face they gave EASA in 2009 and rejects the whole thing.
As I am not flying N-reg and my license is european national, I could lay back and watch. But I think us European pilots with JAA or national licenses are deadly mistaken if they believe that it is just the "N-Rebels" who will loose out on EASA's destructive regulation mania, but it will be all of us. Who will be next? The fact is, EASA is proposing law and implementing it without anyone having any possibility whatsoever to invervene.
Those who say that AOPA and other organisations need to be beefed up to the extent that they are in the US; where the FAA thinks twice whether it is wise to take them on, is 20 years late but absolutely necessary. We need a lobby like the US has, we need prominent faces as spokesmen and women on this issue and we need exposure in the press. As we know, there is nothing politicians are scared of more than investigative press.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN2
The problem with US Pilots is that we are such a disjointed bunch. Ok some of us voice our frustrations through this forum and send off the odd letter to relevant MEPs but nothing happens.
EASA had its fingers burnt once and are not going to do it again. Hence they will push this through with lies, deciet, words behind closed doors.
Their whole existance lies in the balance if months of their work is shown to be a sham so they will force it through regardless using every trick in the book and more.
How do you deal with people like that? They will only change track if forced to.
If they come up against a brick wall.
Sadly there is no brick wall from us as pilots.
Look in other walks of life at those who do get changes made? They are groups of hundreds or even thousands who say NO! Those who grab media attention by civil disobedience, those who are prepared to expose the truths by any means available.
Sadly not us bunch of NO voice polite peacemakers.
Pace
The problem with US Pilots is that we are such a disjointed bunch. Ok some of us voice our frustrations through this forum and send off the odd letter to relevant MEPs but nothing happens.
EASA had its fingers burnt once and are not going to do it again. Hence they will push this through with lies, deciet, words behind closed doors.
Their whole existance lies in the balance if months of their work is shown to be a sham so they will force it through regardless using every trick in the book and more.
How do you deal with people like that? They will only change track if forced to.
If they come up against a brick wall.
Sadly there is no brick wall from us as pilots.
Look in other walks of life at those who do get changes made? They are groups of hundreds or even thousands who say NO! Those who grab media attention by civil disobedience, those who are prepared to expose the truths by any means available.
Sadly not us bunch of NO voice polite peacemakers.
Pace
Pace,
if you say it that way... I was under the impression that AOPA US is quite a factor in the decision making progress over there.
But ok.
Hmm. I am starting to wonder. How about getting the US side a bit upset?
"Evil Europeans dare to question the validity of AMERICAN license and deny the use of AMERICAN airplanes on European territory... how dare they?"
Maybe Sarah Palin and her folks might be interested?
This is part of a trade war. So maybe it's time to make war back? "You do that and we declare all Airbus C of A's in the US null and void?"
Ah well, not with that administration but hey, after all, it is a sort of insult to the American aviation system which has been proven to be superior to the US one but has been pi$$ed on by European lawmakers for decades. Where would the Germans who control EASA now have been without the American effort to relive Berlin? Maybe Europe would have become socialist a while earlier....
As for us here, maybe it's time to "rise the colours"
And if we can get Keira Kneightly and Johnny Depp to do it for us, the papers might notice...
just blowing off steam... never mind.
Best regards
AN2
"You're quite mad!!!"
"Thank heavens for that, otherwise this would never work!"
(Capt Jack Sparrow).
if you say it that way... I was under the impression that AOPA US is quite a factor in the decision making progress over there.
But ok.
Hmm. I am starting to wonder. How about getting the US side a bit upset?
"Evil Europeans dare to question the validity of AMERICAN license and deny the use of AMERICAN airplanes on European territory... how dare they?"
Maybe Sarah Palin and her folks might be interested?
This is part of a trade war. So maybe it's time to make war back? "You do that and we declare all Airbus C of A's in the US null and void?"
Ah well, not with that administration but hey, after all, it is a sort of insult to the American aviation system which has been proven to be superior to the US one but has been pi$$ed on by European lawmakers for decades. Where would the Germans who control EASA now have been without the American effort to relive Berlin? Maybe Europe would have become socialist a while earlier....
As for us here, maybe it's time to "rise the colours"
And if we can get Keira Kneightly and Johnny Depp to do it for us, the papers might notice...just blowing off steam... never mind.
Best regards
AN2
"You're quite mad!!!"
"Thank heavens for that, otherwise this would never work!"
(Capt Jack Sparrow).
It's irksome but true.
Celebrities help a cause (and AOPA uses Harrison Ford, Morgan Freeman etc. to great effect).
So, do we have any celebrity pilots on this side of the pond?
If necessary, I could start a new thread!
Safe flights all, Sam.
Celebrities help a cause (and AOPA uses Harrison Ford, Morgan Freeman etc. to great effect).
So, do we have any celebrity pilots on this side of the pond?
If necessary, I could start a new thread!
Safe flights all, Sam.
