EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft

[IO540]

Even I (not a keen reader of tomes unless written by Tom Clancy (in his good 1980s cold war days) or F. Forsyth, etc) spotted that paragraph, very quickly.

It either means EASA is irrelevant in this context (because any NAA can just convert any ICAO papers to EASA ones, for 10 euros) or it means nothing.

Or maybe something in between (got to get a prize for working that out ).

Was this put in to allow an FAA to EASA conversion route, to defuse (at the all-important national level) the vast amount of ***t which everybody with a brain knew would hit the fan?

One has to realise that the NAAs must have already done a deal with EASA on what will happen, in exchange for supporting EASA. I say this because the EASA response listings include respondes from loads of NAAs, which is simply bizzare because these organisations are not reduced to writing to EASA via the website comment forms The only possible reason for say the DGAC to write such a response on the website is as a cover for having already done a deal under the table with EASA - on matters of interest to France. If the DGAC had not written the web response, it would look like they did a deal under the table

The answers are all here.

[Justiciar]

So different NAAs will apply different rules for converting the same licence. Brilliant. So much for harmonisation. Conceivably the requirement could be no more than pass the exams and take the test, as in S. Africa.

[IO540]

Or an oral exam and a flight test, as in some other places in Europe (though not leading to a JAR-FCL CPL/IR).

After all, the words repeatedly used are "demonstrate knowledge", never "sit X exams", so an oral exam is perfect, and to demonstrate flying competence you do a flight.

On the face of it, this could never happen in Europe, because it goes so much against the grain here, but

(a) it already does happen in some places in Europe;

(b) it used to happen in a few places in JAR-FCL Europe, until JAA bosses found out and stopped it (Ireland)

(c) it would defuse the N-reg mayhem; there is already a proposal dealing with the long term parking measures, and it isn't too onerous, and a license conversion would deal with the rest.

It takes just one country to do this, for say 1000 euros...

[IO540]

Is this an EASA typo?

Going back to the doc
http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_100

on page 8 (case: privately used N-reg) it says

>CASE 3: Aircraft registered in a third country used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community.
....
>· For other than complex motor-powered aircraft:

the aircraft shall have to a type-certificate issued in accordance
with ICAO Annex 8;

the aircraft shall hold a CofA in accordance with ICAO Annex 8;

the operating organisation shall ensure that aircraft are maintained
by a qualified maintenance organisation complying with the requirements of ICAO Annex 6.

i.e. an ICAO TC is required, but in the table on page 9 it says an EASA Type Certificate is required.

Have I missed something, or is it a typo?

My suspicion is that EASA intended privately operated non-complex (meaning SE and ME pistons and SE turboprops, under 5700kg, etc - this is defined in the above doc) foreign regs to merely require an ICAO TC.

Does anybody know where the Jetprop falls in this? I know many have been registered in (I think) Netherlands so the PT6 mod must be grandfathered into EASA, and of course the PA46 Malibu does have an EASA TC. The Jetprop does not have a TC as such, AFAIK; it is still a PA46 Malibu, isn't it?

Edit: the text mentioned by 421C above

Applicants for Part–FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates already holding at least an equivalent licence issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 1 by a third country shall meet all the requirements of Part–FCL, except that the requirements of course duration, number of lessons and specific training hours may be reduced. The credit given to the applicant shall be determined by the competent authority of the Member State to which the pilot applies on the basis of a recommendation from an approved training organisation.

to me reads that no reduction is allowed on any exam passes. This is in line with present conversion options and presents a major chunk of the objections to the EASA proposal, because a CPL/IR would have 14 exams to do.

[Pace]

because a CPL/IR would have 14 exams to do.

10540

That is the biggest hurdle. Young guys making a career take 6 months full time study to complete.

Distance learning if you are the type who will set aside X hours a day for 1 to 2 years and have the motivation to do so may complete.

Work, family matters, lifestyle changes, age etc can all impact distant learning so that the student from starting off motivated never finishes.

Motivation is the Key. The young pilot who is building a career in Europe is motivated towards being an airline pilot and that is what drives him through all this study material, a lot of which is totally irrelevant.

What motivation does an experienced N reg Captain have to get licences to do something he is already doing safely and professionaly who may be in his 50s and thinking is it worth starting again?

I know of one such Captain, very experienced and capable who went to convert to JAA. He was the type who I thought would do it but he gave up after a year when his wife developed cancer.

What should be required is a differences exam and study material for that as well as an IR flight test with at most a pre test flight test for a signoff to do the real one.

But it wont happen sadly.

Pace

[englishal]

From AOPA US again...Looks like this is stiring up a fuss over there too.

Safety or Politics?

October 6, 2010 by Bruce Landsberg

Most U.S. pilots have never heard of EASA – the European Aviation Safety Agency. Their motto is “Your Safety is our Mission” but in my view, as least as far as light GA is concerned, they sometimes create solutions in search of a problem. And sometimes it is done out of frustration with our political system.

I’ve had the privilege of working with the International AOPA (IAOPA) for a number of years and have participated over a decade in IAOPA conventions. I always come away with a new-found appreciation for the freedom to fly that we have in the U.S. Despite some recent encroachments, GA here is generally much better off here than in the rest of the world. Believe it or not - it is much more affordable and less complex.

EASA has just proposed to require holders of U.S. pilot certificates to also get a European Instrument rating to operate IFR for Part 91 flights on the Continent. The logical question is, “Have there been accidents or incidents by U.S. pilots where the probable cause was due to a misunderstanding of IFR European flight procedures?”

To my knowledge there is NO data to support this concern – zero, zip, nada. You should know that the Air Safety Institute has offered to maintain an international database and report annually just as we do in the U.S. with The Nall Report. So far, there has been no answer.

So why this sudden concern about U.S. IFR pilots? Glad you asked! It seems that in 2008 there was a bi-lateral agreement proposed between the U.S. and EASA that called for the joint recognition of flight crew certification, air carrier operating certificates and maintenance facilities. Seemed reasonable especially in light of no conflicting operational data.

However, concern was voiced from some U.S. labor sources that off shore repair shops might be substandard and hence would require FAA oversight. Was there any systemic data to support that contention? Again, not to my knowledge. Understandably, that was a deal-breaker for the Europeans. The response was, “OK, if you can’t trust our shops – guess we can’t trust your pilots!”

The potential ramifications are enormous. Thousands of U.S. registered aircraft would be grounded in Europe. To obtain an EASA IFR rating it would require seven (7) knowledge tests and a flight check. Some pilots would attempt VFR when they needed to be in the IFR system.

One of the biggest impediments to safety and common sense is politics. Economics and fairness is also important and those need to be judged on their merits but wrapping them in the golden mantle of safety is disingenuous. Settle those differences honorably on the economic and political playing field.

IAOPA and AOPA have been engaged since 2008 although this is just now coming to a head and there has been a direct and forceful response. If there was ever a time for pilots to band together with their Association this is it. In the immortal words of Thomas Paine, “If we do not hang together we shall surely hang separately.”



Bruce Landsberg
President, AOPA Air Safety Foundation

[IO540]

Good work

However I am not sure that

However, concern was voiced from some U.S. labor sources that off shore repair shops might be substandard and hence would require FAA oversight. Was there any systemic data to support that contention? Again, not to my knowledge. Understandably, that was a deal-breaker for the Europeans. The response was, “OK, if you can’t trust our shops – guess we can’t trust your pilots!”

is the whole story.

There are persistent reports that the FAA walked away from signing the treaty because it would have required the USA to allow foreign license use within the USA - something difficult for them to swallow in the present post-9/11 climate. As we all know, the USA hands out validations easily, accepts all foreign ICAO training towards any US license, etc, etc, but EASA pretends this doesn't exist.

The other thing is that there is now some US law restricting the setting up of FAA Repair Stations abroad. This is not applicable to private flying (you need a RS only for the 2-yearly altimeter/static check, which is why "everybody" travels to IAE at Cranfield) but it is AIUI applicable to AOC aircraft. EASA threw in the big commercial stuff in with the small private stuff, and the baby got chucked out with the bathwater.

[IO540]

A good article here by Pilot und Flugzeug

[Fuji Abound]

I actually don’t see a problem with Europe wanting control of its own citizens. I can’t think of any other arena where we would be happy for someone to be regulated by overseas laws. It is a little like arguing that lawyers qualified in the States or Bongo land should be able to practice here. I hear you saying, ah but aviation is different because of its international component. However, while that is true of international commercial aviation, it isn’t true so far as light GA is concerned. As much as I would wish otherwise I find it difficult to rationalise the alternative.

On the other hand I strongly object to EASA’s failure (so far at least) to provide a realistic IR for GA pilot’s modelled on the FAA system, the very reason for driving the pilots onto the N reg in the first place. Moreover, I also cannot rationalise allowing pilots to operate N reg in Europe one moment but not the next without realistically accommodating existing pilots in the “new” system. In that regard EASA’s proposals are fundamentally flawed.

In short EASA has gone about this in the wrong way even if I have to admit that their may be justification in their aims.

[Justiciar]

It is a little like arguing that lawyers qualified in the States or Bongo land should be able to practice here

Fuji:

There is a relatively straightforward foreign lawyer conversion process called the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test, which has been in place for some years. Of course, laws and practice vary from county to country: the skills of flying are universal and have to be since foreign based pilots regularly fly into the EU for commercial air transport reasons. These pilots will be unaffected by the new regulations, which is what makes the whole conversion and validation process so absurd, given that they wil in general apply to areas with least risk. None of the TK which may have to be absorbed by a 15000 hour foreign pilot wishing to convert has anything to do with safety and precious little to do with operatiol matters either. At least with lawyers the knowledge law and practice needed to convert is relevant!

The point about the regulations is that they are not directed at citizens (which is allowed by the Convention) but apply to operators on the basis of whether they are established in the EU or not. American pilots with american licences working for american companies which have aircraft which happen to be based in (operated from) the EU are likely to be caught by these provision. Depending on the sphere of operations of the companies concerned it is not difficult to image a move of operations to Switzerland, Norway, Turkey, Morocco .....

EASA shows every sign of wanting to pull up the drawbridge on the rest of the world and either doesn't realise or doesn't care about the commercial impact of what it is proposing. They have a track record of this as does Europe in general. Reading about the development of the new Kestral Turbo prop recently, it was very notable that EU/EASA and CAA bureaucracy ensured that the aircraft (originally conceived by Richard Noble and his team at Farnborough) ended up being developed in the US, where jobs have been created at the expense of the UK. We apparently never learn anything in this country or in Europe with a result that technical inovation is stifled and goes to the US or the far east.

[Pace]

Fuji they are infact not getting control as EASA licences hold no validity on FAA aircraft.
It will not be EASA who controls matters if the aircraft crashes in Europe. EASA will not gain control of their residents in that sense.

What they are tying to do are trying to do is to block 10,000 Europeans from wanting to fly N Reg by making things as difficult as possible.

To drive them out that way. They might as well regulate that all FAA licenced european residents must wear red tights while flying that would hold as much legality as what they are doing but there would be a rush to the lingerie shop to comply.

Control they will not have in the sense you mean as the licences have no legal basis on N Reg. They are purely finding a way to make N reg unattractive to European residents and to kill them off that way.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Justiciar

the skills of flying are universal and have to be since foreign based pilots regularly fly into the EU for commercial air transport reasons.

Actually while that may be true, there are significant operational differences between here and America. A bare PPL (and for that matter a PPL with an IR) will find operations in Europe very different so far as NOTAM gathering, weather, when, where and how to file a FP is concerned, the arrangement of airspace and a whole list of things I might mention that only become apparent if you have flown both sides of the Pond.

I appreciate there are few FAA PPLs flying in Europe who have not been through European PT BUT it would be entirely possible for a private FAA IR holder to fly solo in European airspace never having done so before - if a little silly.

In reality this would never happen for an ATPL, because almost every operator requires the pilot to have a number of line checks before being set free in European airspace.

Arguably the challenges of flying solo outside controlled airspace are greater because OCAS the regulatory enviroment is very different in Europe.

The point about the regulations is that they are not directed at citizens

I think you are very wrong. The whole attempt (even if it may be flawed) was to direct the regulations at private pilots with N reg aircraft based permanently in Europe and not any one else.

Pace

It will not be EASA who controls matters if the aircraft crashes in Europe.

but that is the point - it will. European courts are very ill placed to rule on whether or not a pilot has complied with the FARs, but far better placed if their ruling is based on EU legislation. Moreover doubtless the regulators believe the FAA might be less willing to act against a pilot resident in Europe where it would be expensive and difficult to expedite.

I dont like it any more than you.

[Justiciar]

It will not be EASA who controls matters if the aircraft crashes in Europe

Leaving to one side the issue of EASA/EU not being a treaty signatory, the state where an accident occurs has responsibilty for investigation (Article 26), so I am not sure the point is well made!

as the licences have no legal basis on N Reg

That is not I am afraid true. Nothing in the ICAO convention absolves any pilot from complying with local rules and if local rules say that you need an EU licence to fly in EU airspace that rule has to be complied with, especially if local rules state that an FAA licence granted to its citizens are not recognised (not, byt the way what the EASA draft says). Hence, a pilot may be legally required to hold two licences and yes that could give rise to some interesting conflict of law issues if say there is a conflict of operational rules; the preferred view would be that the rules of the state whose airspace is being used prevail.

This is not what is currently happening though with the draft regulations. Linking the validity of licences in a given airspace to where the operator happens to be established has no basis that I can determine in any of the Conventions, other than the right for a state to impose its own rules in its territory. It is though a receipe for confusion and conflict, as we are seeing.

[Pace]

Fuji

You cannot take an EASA licence, type rating and jump into an FAA aircraft and fly it. EASA holds no jurisdiction over the FAA aircraft the FAA does and still will should this ever be passed in its present form.

Yes EASA could take you to court and charge you with not having the legal requirement of holding an EASA licence which they require you to do. But for operational control over an FAA aircraft they might as well regulate that you wear Red Tights

That is really the point I am making we are legally being forced to hold licences which are themselves illegal on the aircraft being flown if you get my drift.
In That case any court would have to look at the licences which are relevant to the aircraft in say a crash scenario as the EASA ones are operationally illegal.
I do accept that they are legally required to allow a European resident to fly in the aircraft in Europe but not to operate the aircraft.
Maybe I am not making myself clear In that case maybe the insurance is valid as you would comply with all the legal licences but you would be charged with not holding EASA licences. That is seperate to the flying licences required to fly an FAA aircraft.
How could you for instance be charged with endangering an aircraft by not holding say the required medical or instrument currency if both your EASA medical and EASA licences are illegal on that aircraft? You could only look at your FAA medical and FAA Currency to determine that!

The medical is a good example. Say you held a current FAA medical but failed the EASA one and as such did not hold EASA licences? or you were ramp checked in june with your EASA Medical running out in may while your FAA was good till december! could you be charged with not holding a valid medical on the FAA aircraft? Your EASA medical is not valid on that aircraft so the answer has to be NO!

Your violation on EASA licences would be a seperate charge to those required to fly the aircraft and would purely be not holding EASA licences or wearing Red tights

Pace

[IO540]

A bare PPL (and for that matter a PPL with an IR) will find operations in Europe very different so far as NOTAM gathering, weather, when, where and how to file a FP is concerned, the arrangement of airspace and a whole list of things I might mention that only become apparent if you have flown both sides of the Pond.

That is true but the difference between UK and US training (applied to European airspace) is far smaller than the vast gulf in operational knowledge which exists between what UK PPL training delivers and what is needed to fly from A to B in the UK with any confidence

The whole attempt (even if it may be flawed) was to direct the regulations at private pilots with N reg aircraft based permanently in Europe and not any one else.

I am not convinced of that. This proposal has every sign of politics of envy, and pandering to the standard bunch of anti-American axe grinders within the FTO and NAA regulatory circles. And the really obvious stuff, which provokes the strongest emotions if you don't like the USA and don't like rich people, is foreign reg jet operations, and many/most of those will be unaffected because they can shift their "operator residence" around. Private N-reg pilots are barely noticeable and are probably outnumbered by the foreign reg jets. Certainly in much of Europe they are totally outnumbered; for example Greece has ~ 200 pistons and ~ 200 jets. Almost everywhere I land around Europe I see at least one or two N-reg jets parked where I park. In some places it is pretty depressing; I recall landing at Granada LEGR and every Spanish-reg plane had flat tyres with grass growing around them; with mine and one other N-reg the regulators there must feel pretty sick but what are they thinking? Do they not realise they have brought this about directly themselves?

European courts are very ill placed to rule on whether or not a pilot has complied with the FARs, but far better placed if their ruling is based on EU legislation

Agreed but the present EU regulatory system is crap for private flying, which is why so many have gone foreign.

You cannot take an EASA licence, type rating and jump into an FAA aircraft and fly it

You can but only to the extent permitted by FAR 61.3 (OK in the airspace of whoever issued your license; not very useful).

[Justiciar]

Actually while that may be true, there are significant operational differences between here and America. A bare PPL (and for that matter a PPL with an IR) will find operations in Europe very different so far as NOTAM gathering, weather, when, where and how to file a FP is concerned, the arrangement of airspace and a whole list of things I might mention that only become apparent if you have flown both sides of the Pond.

I am sure that you are right. The same applies the other way, but that does not justify 200 pages of rules. I have an FAA piggy back licence, so I can in theory fly with just a BFR. I am sure in practice no FBO will let me loose until they are satisfied I am familiar with the local rules and procedures as well as local terrain and weather. In reality I get the impression that in the US there is an element of trust, by which I mean they trust me not to be a prat and fly when I am not sufficiently familiar with local procedures.

I think you are very wrong. The whole attempt (even if it may be flawed) was to direct the regulations at private pilots with N reg aircraft based permanently in Europe and not any one else.

Article 4(1)(c) of the basic regulation says absolutely nothing about nationality or citizenship beyond referring to where an operator is established. I agree that the rule seems aimed at EU citizens holding FAA paperwork, but as drafted the rule equally covers a US, Australian, Canadian, South African etc citizen or company operating an N reg aircraft and using an FAA licence, so will hit any business established in the EU and operating on an N reg, even if the business is non aviation and the aircraft is used for internal business use and even if the pilots live outside the EU.

[Pace]

10540

You can but only to the extent permitted by FAR 61.3 (OK in the airspace of whoever issued your license; not very useful).

Not in an aircraft requiring a type rating you cant. I did say type rating

Pace

[hum]

Well written and researched piece from the Comanche Society

Great piece of work passed to me this morning; think it deserves a widespread read...

here is the link

http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/servlet/use/Home.class?frame&main={http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/artikel/2010-10-07/FAA_and_Europe_Safety_Record}

Meanwhile I'm with Pace and the others, off to buy red tights and get a fish licence for my 'Halibut - variant' N-Reg aircraft ;-)

The European Regulators dismal safety-record on General Aviation, and why EASA doesn't do a thing about it

With EASAs frontal attack against US pilots and US aircraft flying in Europe causing a severe backlash from pretty much the entire General Aviation Community, more and more lawmakers and media-representatives, who look at the US-registered aircraft in Europe ask themselves one simple question: "What’s not to like?"

In almost any objective category of safety, the FAA-regulated system does produce safer flights, fewer accidents and even more cost-effective solutions than it’s heavily regulated european counterpart. Incredibly, instead of learning from a clearly safer and more efficient system, EASA dwells in chauvinistic protectionism and - in many areas - clings to it’s long since repudiated approach of maximum barriers for advanced flight training and higher pilot qualification.

This is not the standard case of an industry resenting change and fighting regulation just because "all was well in the past". This is the case of concerned citizens screaming at an indifferent regulator for change, longing for safer standards and more effective methods of training and demanding the regulatory application of lessons learned all over the aviation-world through blood, sweat and tears.

If we agree, that a system, that produces fewer dead bodies per hour flown or mile traveled is somehow superior to a system, that results in more casualties for the same services rendered, the following examination might be of interest.

General Aviation encompasses all flying activity other than military and airlines. Glider-Pilots and Business-Jets are General Aviation operators, just as individuals flying small four-seat single or twin engine aircraft.

Applying meaningful statistics to a field of such diversity is notoriously difficult. We want to avoid getting bogged down in discussions whether one type of accident is underreported or another type of operation is overly represented. Hence, we'll use a very simple and also very important indicator: Dead people. Assuming, that the reporting-rate of fatal accidents is almost 100% in the EU and in the US, this will make us least vulnerable to statistical fudging or blurring.

Fortunately, we have precise and excellent data on fatal accidents:

In the US, the total number of fatal accidents for 2008 was 282 (Source: Nall-Report 09, page 5). This includes all aircraft registered in the US or flying in the US below 5,7 tonnes which can be used as a practical delimiter to the airline world. With this number, the year 2008 was an average year. Not particularly good, but also not too bad.

In Germany, the total number of fatal accidents for 2008 was 42 (Source: Annual Report German Air Accident Investigation Board for 2008, Table 2, Page 10). This also includes all aircraft below 5,7 tonnes registered in Germany and thereby operated under unified european JAR licensing and maintenance rules. 42 also is a rather average year.

While one part of our contemplation is well known and simple to compare, the other part is not. What's going to be our denominator to asses the accident rate? Hours flown would be the ideal criteria. Hours flown would insulate us from different kinds of usage (e.g. transportation vs. recreational flying), but a reliable number for hours flown is not available. For Germany, there is no such ascertainment at all, and in the US the number is an estimation.

However, the factor for the absolute number of fatal accidents already is revealing: 42 fatal accidents under the German regulator vs. 282 fatal accidents under the US-system means a factor of 6,7.

It can safely be assumed, that the total number of General Aviation hours flown in the US is much, much higher than 6,7 times the number in Germany. So we know, that sitting in an american private- or business-aircraft is safer than sitting in a german one. We just don't know how much safer.

Without taking the reader onto a wild trip into statistical never-land, another simple inspection will give us an idea. The number of airplanes registered. This number is also precisely known: The number of US-registered airplanes for 2008 averaged at 379.000 (Source: FAA Airplane Registry Database Download). The number of aircraft registered in Germany in 2008 totaled 21.327 (Source: LBA). A factor of 17,7!

Looking at the number of licensed pilots yields a similar picture. Excluding the glider pilots (due to a national particularity, they make almost 50% of German airmen), Germany had issued 50.973 pilot-certificates of all levels in 2008 (Source: LBA). The US comes up with 613.746 active certificates in 2008 (Source: FAA Pilot Statistics Tables 1 and 8). Subtracting 29.214 American glider-pilots, we get 584.532 US pilots to compare them to 50.973 German aviators [Note 1]. A factor of 11,5!

The stringent deduction is alarming. Rounding all numbers in favor of the Europeans, 11 times as many pilots and 17 times as many airplanes in the US only produce 7 times as many fatal accidents compared to the German system under common european JAR-rules, which will be implemented and even tightened by EASA.

No amount of statistical rectification, adjustment or clearing up will be able to overcome this enormous gap.

Assuming for a moment, that german pilots are nowhere more suicidal or lightheaded than their american colleges, the inescapable conclusion is:
There is a lot of room for improvement in the European system!

The interesting question is: Where?

The author does not claim to know the exact reasons for the increased lethality of General Aviation under european rules. The hardware (airplanes, engines, navigation-instruments) used in both systems is almost identical.

Looking at the two systems from the point of view of decades of first hand flying- and training-experience in both worlds amongst our research-staff, some striking differences come to light. Holding pilot- and instructor-certificates in both systems, we feel competent to at least relate some observations.

I. Instrument Rated Pilots

The first and most obvious difference is the minuscule number of instrument rated pilots under european JAR-rules. An instrument rating is an add-on license, that a pilot obtains to fly safely in clouds and in bad weather under the guidance of Air Traffic Control. If the pilot does not hold this rating, he has to stay in visual conditions, outside clouds and in good visibility. If he inadvertently gets into a cloud he simply lacks experience and training to safely fly through or out again. The fact, that 99,9% of commercial passenger transport is done under instrument-rules by instrument-rated pilots, speaks to the utility of this add-on-qualification.

Flying "VFR into IMC" means a non-instrument-rated pilot get’s into adverse weather conditions. These accidents are frequent and the resulting collision with earth is almost always deadly. 14,1 percent (2008) of fatal accidents fall into that category, forming the single biggest primary cause of death in european General Aviation.

Of 31.219 private airplane pilots in Germany only 1.667 held this qualification. That’s 5,5%. The number is an embarrassment, plain and simple. You could easily summon all german "PPL/IR" pilots in a Bierzelt and probably even afford to buy them a drink.
Paying for the 57.422 US instrument-rated private pilots (27%) to have a good time would be a much larger investment. The number gets even starker, if you take into account the US commercial- and ATP-rated pilots holding only a private medical certificate, hence only exercising private pilot privileges (something very common in the US, but legally not possible in the EU).
113.212 airline- and commercial-pilots with instrument-ratings fall into that category, bringing the number of instrument-rated pilots engaged solely in General Aviation up to 172.634. That translates to 48,1% of all US airplane pilots holding a private-pilot-medical certificate!
It follows, the comparison between GA-pilots holding the vital instrument qualification in the US and pilots of the same skill- and experience-level in Germany is 48 percent against 5,5 percent!

The main reason is not cost. Though flying in Europe is clearly more expensive than in the US, the amount of practical training required and the content of that training is almost identical and expenditures for travel and lodging in America quickly offset any savings from lower flying-costs.

The main reason is access. Three major administrative barriers stand between an normal General Aviation pilot and his instrument rating:

An overly inflated theory syllabus. A private pilot wishing to obtain an instrument rating to safer conduct his flights has to learn a multitude of subject-matters far beyond the capabilities of his airplane or the application of his license: Turbine-engines, electrical-systems of airliners and aeromedical-content stuffed into the european instrument rating not only are applicable mostly to commercial operations, they're also redundant, because if the pilot ever wishes to fly any larger and faster aircraft where this knowledge would be useful, he has to undergo additional training and examinations anyway.
Classroom-Lessons: The overinflated theory has - by law - to be taught mostly in classroom lessons - hundreds of them; and they are only available at a handful of schools. This is hardly compatible with the daily life of a professional employee or businessman able to muster the funds required for the training. There has to be a way to study the required content in a time-flexible manner. The FAA allows this, and it’s common in many other professional fields here in Europe.
While classroom lessons might well be effective for straight-through-training of airline pilots, it’s rigid schedule proves prohibitive for anyone trying to get a job, a business, a family and maybe additional pilot-qualifications into just one life.
Aircraft: Under the current system, training for the instrument rating in one’s own aircraft is next to impossible. That not only increases cost, it’s also counterproductive, because in most cases training in one’s own airplane with the familiar navigation-instruments and systems is not only faster, but yields a much safer pilot in the end.
Any aircraft approved for instrument flying can also be used for instrument training. There are no modifications as in driving school vehicles or the like. The barrier is purely administrative, maybe also protectionist.

Very simple and cost-effective rule changes would go a long way towards addressing these three barriers. EASA is attempting this task in FCL.008, but the proposals discussed therein are meek and and fall even short of the three simple and most urgent steps stated above.

II. Air Traffic Control Infrastructure

Air Traffic Control in Europe is geared towards airline-operations. Small local airfields rarely provide instrument takeoff- and landing procedures which would allow General Aviation pilots to fly in and out in less than perfect weather. That’s in spite of the fact that since the approval and introduction of GPS-instrument-approaches 15 years ago, the cost of establishing an instrument takeoff or landing is mostly paperwork (no ground installations required).
That Europe neglects this paperwork whereas in the US an instrument-approach is available to almost any tiny airstrip, is a shameful shortcoming of our infrastructure.

In Germany, it is due to a multitude of administrative requirements, that airfield-operators can not afford to provide such a safe procedure. Some of these requirements make sense for commercial aviation, most are utterly over the top for personal and business-flights and nowhere required by international standards set through ICAO.

Moreover, properly licensed pilots flying visually en-route and wishing to change to an instrument-flight due to deteriorating weather-conditions are actually prosecuted and punished
http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/servlet/use/Home.class?frame&main={http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/artikel/2009-08-09/IFR_Air_Filing}

by the Civil Aviation Authority whereas this safety-decision is exactly what the FAA expects of any responsible airman.
The kookiness of that particular twist defies the imagination. It’s like outlawing brakes on the Autobahn, because you weren’t supposed to go that fast in the first place.

III. Inconsistencies

Also, flying on instruments in uncontrolled airspace not managed by Air Traffic Control is not allowed in many european countries, whereas others such as Great Britain specifically encourage it and have even created a license to allow just that.
The ramifications of this ban are directly related to the lack of instrument takeoff- and landing-procedures, because most smaller airports used by General Aviation pilots are located in uncontrolled airspace that is not managed by anyone.

IV. Flight Instructors and their abilities

In the FAA-system, a flight instructor is required to hold at least a commercial pilots license and an instrument rating, thus insuring the instructor is not one, but two steps ahead of his student. The european regulator only requires theoretical commercial-pilot knowledge and does not mandate an instrument rating at all from it’s primary disseminators of knowledge and experience.

We're not proposing to simply raise the requirement over night, because that would effectively cease pilot training in the EU, we’re proposing to reduce administrative barriers to the instrument-qualification so that future european flight instructors at least stand a fair chance to obtain the same qualifications and skills as their american counterparts.

Also, every US certified flight instructor, all 93.202 of them, can take their students all the way to the certificate or rating sought. The US flight instructor is licensed to teach theory and practical flying and also authorized to recommend his student for examination and the practical check-flight.
The european instructor can do none of this. He can only act as part of an approved and highly bureaucratic Training Organization, where the student has to be formally registered, approved and put into a curriculum – thus further limiting the accessibility of training and knowledge.

Finally, the US system requires the applicant for any certificate or rating to undergo a thorough oral examination of aeronautical knowledge, that – even in the case of a lowly private pilots license – can take 5 to 8 hours of questioning, testing and demonstrating theoretical knowledge and understanding. This is – by all accounts – a grueling, but a necessary experience.
The european regulator requires none of that and rather relies on a written multiple-choice examination only, thus allowing the aeronautical knowledge examination to be degraded into an exercise in rote-learning.

Summary

EASA addresses none of these issues in it’s regulatory opinion that will be before the Comission on October 14th. To the contrary, EASA, in what can only be described as a fit of administrative rage, proposes to effectively ban US licensed pilots and US registered aircraft from the continent.

The common european JAR-system of licenses, in place now for 10 years, has failed to even come close to the US-system in terms of safety delivered for General Aviation.

The main reasons for Europe’s dismal safety-record are not higher costs or ineptness of the actors, but mostly bureaucratic barriers to advanced pilot qualifications and continuative training.

EASA is now proposing to fight this very problem with yet more bureaucracy. We do not believe this will be successful.

There are other issues such as the legitimate fears of Flight Schools facing competition from their clearly predominant US counterparts or from suddenly freed free-roaming flight instructors making training available on a personal and flexible basis. These fears are justified and need to be addressed.
The more far sighted amongst the schools however, have long since realized that the medium and long term solution to the industries problems has to lie in the expansion of the pilot population and not in the ever more vicious battle over the last two or three instrument students standing.

In the interest of safety we therefor call on EASA to:

Short-Term: Immediately lower the administrative barriers for private pilot instrument qualification by:
Reducing the theoretical syllabus to the required breadth for General Aviation pilots and putting advanced content into the requirements for advanced licenses where it belongs.
Permitting self-study of the theoretical subject matters, checked by a pre-exam that can be administered by any qualified flight instructor. Upon successful completion of the pre-exam the flight instructor can recommend the student for the actual written exam.
Permitting training – at least for the instrument rating – in any properly certified aircraft, irrespective of where it’s registered or owned.
Medium-Term: Mandate and fund a unified Air Traffic Control infrastructure and regulatory environment, that allows for the cost effective creation of GPS based instrument takeoff- and landing-procedures (called IFR departures and approaches) to the most commonly used General Aviation airfields within the Community.
Long-Term: Mandate new flight instructors to hold at least a commercial pilots license and an instrument rating, and allow them to give training within the limits of their own instructor-qualifications independently from training organizations or solely bureaucratic umbrella organizations.

While these changes are implemented, accept as equal FAA private pilot licenses and FAA instrument ratings, to allow pilots to quickly and cost-effectively improve their qualifications and skills while Europe catches up.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

there are significant operational differences between here and America. A bare PPL (and for that matter a PPL with an IR) will find operations in Europe very different so far as NOTAM gathering, weather, when, where and how to file a FP is concerned, the arrangement of airspace and a whole list of things I might mention that only become apparent if you have flown both sides of the Pond.

I think the differences between various European countries are as large as the difference between any one European Country and the US - with one exception. At least in Europe you could reasonably be taught that every country is different and where to find the differences (I know we are not taught this, but we could be); however, in the US you would never think to do so unless you were on the Mexican or Canadian boarder!

[Fuji Abound]

IO540

Please dont misconstrue my comments. I am approaching this from an entirely theoretical point of view. In other words in theory you can understand why Europe might want control of its citizens - I have no doubt that in reality the proposed changes are driven by a host of other reasons.

Equally, we all know the training here is truly dreadful for operational purposes. Most schools teach you how to fly an aircraft, not how to operate an aircraft in a useful way. Of course the Americans are much better at that stuff as well in my experience. From my ideology veiwpoint of course that would all change as well, in which event EASA would be better placed to argue we teach our resident PPLs how to operate an aircraft in EASA airspace, which the Americans dont, and that is why you need to have an EASA license.

Justicair

I am not discriminating. As a pilot that has flown a lot both here and in America operating an aircraft in America for the first time is also very different. Of course the Feds might well argue that if you pitch up in the States with a European license you need at least a 61.75 and a biannual to go flying. (Unless perhaps you can find an aircraft lurking on the G reg - which almost certainly you cant). In theory at least the biannual and the 61.75 will weed out those who do not have the operational knowledge to work in the US. Over here historically you could get out at Heathrow with a FAA license, pitch up at Fairoaks, borrow a friend's Cirrus and fly to Glasgow, never having operated an aircraft in European airspace before. Would the legislation as proposed prevent this - who knows, but in theory if it did that might make sense. It might also make sense if it prevented a EU resident taking a two week FAA PPL in Florida, returning home, buying an N reg aircraft, and setting off for Spain without any further instruction (which he could legally do at the moment).

Pace

As IO540 says you can do just as I have outlined above. In my ideaology this is exactly what might concern a European regulator. I doubt they are really worried about you in a type rated aircraft because they know there are a whole host of other checks and balances that should ensure you are "safe". In other words you are not representative. It is to say the least unfortunate enough for you to be "caught" by the proposed regulations.

Interstingly in reality neither is my example representative. As I said earlier the vast majority of EU based pilots operating on the N register have been through the EU FT treadmill at some point. That is partly the weakness of my argument. However, regulations are very often directed at the minority who "abuse" the system, not the majority, who do not abuse the system whether or not the regualtions were in place. For example in the pre insurance days pretty much everyone sensibly was insured.

Pace - it is a good try, but I dont follow your argument about EASA illegally excercising control over N reg aircraft. Take an example. The FAA may say you can land in France as PIC when you are 90. EASA might say you cant. If a 95 year old lands an aircraft in Paris which is on the N reg all that would happen is the FAA would point out so far as they are concerned the flight was perfectly legal, but EASA would prosecute the pilot on the basis he was flying illegally. I suspect the prosecution would succeed.

MM-Flyn - you make an excellent point which I can only counter by saying that most European pilots dont go far. It is a strange one, but that is the reality. I guess EASA would also say that is the whole point for their being! - to lessen the differences within Europe so one license is good for everywhere.

You appreciate that I dont believe a lot of this - as I have already said the European FT system does not teach you to operate an aircraft throughout European airspace - but in theory it should, and I suspect the Regulators would never accept it doesnt.

The purpose of my post is because ultimately these are the points which we might need to counter. Our arguments must be properly founded otherwise they do not carry as much weight.

It is simply no good saying forget controlling Euro citizens - that is not your concern, when the whole basis of the European mentality is to do just this. On the other hand if we argue there are better (and safer) ways to achieve the same objective I think we establish the moral high ground.