EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPL in SEP with IR, does not mean that you should fly yourself into a cloud, you might have an IR, but is the aircraft equipped to deal with icing conditions?
I personally would never go flying a SEP into a cloud, as you never know what is below you.
I personally would never go flying a SEP into a cloud, as you never know what is below you.
I must stop flying immediately. Clearly it is a dangerous activity, especially in clouds.
You may well have sat those exams, but you do need to get out some more.
What a load of complete and total bollox
Actually I suggest you sit those exams again. It may even make you realise that being in IMC is not the same as being in icing conditions (I doubt the JAA IR Met theory is that practically oriented, but one might be pleasantly suprised).
And of course clouds can tell how many engines one has, and they will specially go after the single engine planes.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose is half right. The provision says:
"Pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c), as well as flight simulation training devices, persons and organisations involved in the training, testing, checking or medical assessment of these pilots, shall comply with the relevant ‘essential requirements’ laid down in
Annex III."
Article 4(1)(c) refers to aircraft "registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community".
I take this to mean that the state where the operator is established is relevant and if the operator is established in the EU then any flight crew will require EASA paperwork to fly; conversely, if the operator is established in a third country then the crew will not need EASA licences to fly in EU airspace.
The big question is how "established" is defined. Is a US trust set up to own an aircraft established in the US? Usually, even under EU law, a company is "established" or has its "seat" in the country in which it is incorporated. A trust will tend to be regarded as "established" under the laws of the country in which the trust document is drafted and executed.
However, a US aircraft trust is a device created to get around the FAA rules on ownership of N registered aircraft. So, would a court look behind the trust and have regard to the beneficial owner and where he is "established"? None of this is addressed in the basic regulation. By way of giving yourselves a further layer of protection, consider incorporating a non EU company (say in the BVI) to "own" the aircraft through the US trust. The identity of the "operator" then becomes even more problematic
I think I have just found a business opportunity
"Pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c), as well as flight simulation training devices, persons and organisations involved in the training, testing, checking or medical assessment of these pilots, shall comply with the relevant ‘essential requirements’ laid down in
Annex III."
Article 4(1)(c) refers to aircraft "registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community".
I take this to mean that the state where the operator is established is relevant and if the operator is established in the EU then any flight crew will require EASA paperwork to fly; conversely, if the operator is established in a third country then the crew will not need EASA licences to fly in EU airspace.
The big question is how "established" is defined. Is a US trust set up to own an aircraft established in the US? Usually, even under EU law, a company is "established" or has its "seat" in the country in which it is incorporated. A trust will tend to be regarded as "established" under the laws of the country in which the trust document is drafted and executed.
However, a US aircraft trust is a device created to get around the FAA rules on ownership of N registered aircraft. So, would a court look behind the trust and have regard to the beneficial owner and where he is "established"? None of this is addressed in the basic regulation. By way of giving yourselves a further layer of protection, consider incorporating a non EU company (say in the BVI) to "own" the aircraft through the US trust. The identity of the "operator" then becomes even more problematic
I think I have just found a business opportunity
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt the JAA IR Met theory is that practically oriented, but one might be pleasantly suprised
Boeing don't be a prat have a look at IO's posts he does way more single pilot IR flying in singles in IMC than all but a very few commercial pilots. He has bigger balls than me I might add.
IO the JAR stuff might seem guff to begin with and I must admit I had similar feelings when i first did it. But over the years more and more of it has become relevent to me as I have operated in more distant lands. For a european only flyer in private SEP alot of it isn't going to be of much use. BUt its saved my backside more than a few times. Commercially we get additional training in winter ops every year and of course most have a some grumpy old sod in the LHS to impart the more practical day to day operating in icing conditions. There are quite a few subjects such as ETOPS and polar grid nav which we would never operate unless we had significant additional training before doing.
There is actually quite a wide divide in respect to icing between turboprop and Jet. They get there bums bitten in different ways than we do and its always a picture the first time the props start shedding ice when a jet pilot hasn't heard it before.
The current syllabus for private SEP IR isn't specific for the roll and there is alot of stuff that is missed out that would be relavent and also there is alot of stuff in there that isn't really relavent for light aircraft IR.
In some ways now the GA SEP IR fraternity have way more advanced avonics and nav boxes of tricks than regional TP aircraft. I still batter away around the world in one aircraft type with the standard 6 and a crusty old trimble gps. The other type I fly has a honeywell EFIS fit which although looks gucci is really only the six on tellys with fancy radio boxes and a LNAV link to the GPS. In truth I prefer the standard 6 steam instruments because they very rarely go wrong and there is no difference in work load to me throwing a aircraft around a procedure using them compared to the EFIS kit.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assure you that if you or I can think of this, Justiciar, there are a dozen old hands already working on it 
The other thing not defined is "operator". In some cases this is trivial to meet. Imagine a rented N-reg SR22 parked at Biggin Hill. The owner is a company in Jersey, with a booking website running on a server in the USA. It's obvious that the operator is non-EU. And similar very good structures can be easily done for corporate operations.
It is the small fry like private owner pilots who cannot easily do this and would indeed rely on the difficulty of "piercing" of the trust, etc. I am not a lawyer but any businessman with half a brain knows that these are complicated legal concepts, which do have some case law but almost certainly not much that's directly applicable to this subject, so what we will have is a situation where no insurer is going to spend megabucks on lawyers to get a view on it, and instead they will continue writing policies which merely require the flight to be "legal", which conveniently allows them to pay out on small claims but walk away from the really big one on which it is worth having a fight. I cannot see the meanings of "operator" and "established" being established in anything less than a really major legal action.
The quite stupid aspect of this is that EASA is obviously doing this as (a) a finger-up to the USA; (b) out of political envy; (c) an EU empire building project, but the most provocative examples (business jets) will easily escape them. All they will achieve is screwing of the lowest layer of aviation: piston and low-end turboprop GA, flown by owner-pilots. As soon as you get away from pilot ownership, and move just that notch to the "rented SR22" concept, you are OK again.
There is no safety data for any of this, of course.
MJ - I struggle to see much relevance in the JAA IR theory, but at the same time I am amazed at how shallow it is on stuff that really matters, like really understanding approach plates. "IFR" as we know it, in real flying, is not complicated (just as well, since most of the world manages it just fine, most of the time) and any theory for pilots who actually want to fly should cover the obvious stuff thoroughly.
I have not yet got my head around how (or indeed if) the "non-ATPL IR" exams are somehow different from the stuff in the full 14-exam set, but have been told that e.g. FMS topics have been removed. This appears to have been done but there is still a lot of aircraft specific stuff which belongs in the Type Rating.
The other thing not defined is "operator". In some cases this is trivial to meet. Imagine a rented N-reg SR22 parked at Biggin Hill. The owner is a company in Jersey, with a booking website running on a server in the USA. It's obvious that the operator is non-EU. And similar very good structures can be easily done for corporate operations.
It is the small fry like private owner pilots who cannot easily do this and would indeed rely on the difficulty of "piercing" of the trust, etc. I am not a lawyer but any businessman with half a brain knows that these are complicated legal concepts, which do have some case law but almost certainly not much that's directly applicable to this subject, so what we will have is a situation where no insurer is going to spend megabucks on lawyers to get a view on it, and instead they will continue writing policies which merely require the flight to be "legal", which conveniently allows them to pay out on small claims but walk away from the really big one on which it is worth having a fight. I cannot see the meanings of "operator" and "established" being established in anything less than a really major legal action.
The quite stupid aspect of this is that EASA is obviously doing this as (a) a finger-up to the USA; (b) out of political envy; (c) an EU empire building project, but the most provocative examples (business jets) will easily escape them. All they will achieve is screwing of the lowest layer of aviation: piston and low-end turboprop GA, flown by owner-pilots. As soon as you get away from pilot ownership, and move just that notch to the "rented SR22" concept, you are OK again.
There is no safety data for any of this, of course.
MJ - I struggle to see much relevance in the JAA IR theory, but at the same time I am amazed at how shallow it is on stuff that really matters, like really understanding approach plates. "IFR" as we know it, in real flying, is not complicated (just as well, since most of the world manages it just fine, most of the time) and any theory for pilots who actually want to fly should cover the obvious stuff thoroughly.
I have not yet got my head around how (or indeed if) the "non-ATPL IR" exams are somehow different from the stuff in the full 14-exam set, but have been told that e.g. FMS topics have been removed. This appears to have been done but there is still a lot of aircraft specific stuff which belongs in the Type Rating.
Last edited by IO540; 21st Apr 2011 at 10:04.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NDB's in the FAA IR training
From reading the posts, I'm not sure whether BoeingDreamer is just trolling, but I can confirm I did my fair share of NDB approaches, and I think it is and should be part of the curriculum, in spite of an NDB being venerable nowadays (as opposed to the VOR, which is just a senior citizen).
The instrument rating should prepare you to fly IFR anywhere in the world, and that includes many places that only have an NDB. The FAA also realises this, especially after the USAF CT43 crash in Dubrovnik.
It is logical that the NDB is a bit "overpraticed" in the UK training, as VOR's are a lot less common there than in the US. Any FAA IR pilot is/should be capable of doing NDB holds and approaches, even if most of the US NDB-only airfields now have an RNAV GPS approach too.
As for the EASA proposals, the way an agency of the European Commission (and the transport directorate of the European Commission itself, by the way) is raping elementary democratic principles with a blatant disregard for the damages this does to the functioning of the European Institutions in the medium term frankly baffles me.
It is high time somebody (preferably the European Parliament, but the European Council would do nicely too) puts a stop to Eckard Seebohm and a few other loose cannon middle managers at the Commission who believe enacting substandard pan-European legislation is a good means to vent their frustration and anti-Americanism.
A good start would be to cut EASA's budget from € 110 Million down to something more in line with the quality of work is has been producing since its existence.
The instrument rating should prepare you to fly IFR anywhere in the world, and that includes many places that only have an NDB. The FAA also realises this, especially after the USAF CT43 crash in Dubrovnik.
It is logical that the NDB is a bit "overpraticed" in the UK training, as VOR's are a lot less common there than in the US. Any FAA IR pilot is/should be capable of doing NDB holds and approaches, even if most of the US NDB-only airfields now have an RNAV GPS approach too.
As for the EASA proposals, the way an agency of the European Commission (and the transport directorate of the European Commission itself, by the way) is raping elementary democratic principles with a blatant disregard for the damages this does to the functioning of the European Institutions in the medium term frankly baffles me.
It is high time somebody (preferably the European Parliament, but the European Council would do nicely too) puts a stop to Eckard Seebohm and a few other loose cannon middle managers at the Commission who believe enacting substandard pan-European legislation is a good means to vent their frustration and anti-Americanism.
A good start would be to cut EASA's budget from € 110 Million down to something more in line with the quality of work is has been producing since its existence.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jumping back a few posts...
'residence of the operator, not the pilot' - is the important thing?
My aircraft's 'operator' is already US based. Whilst I, and the aircraft, are based in Belgium.
Can anyone confirm that it's the operator's residence that is important, not the aircrew?
Fly safe, Sam.
'residence of the operator, not the pilot' - is the important thing?
My aircraft's 'operator' is already US based. Whilst I, and the aircraft, are based in Belgium.
Can anyone confirm that it's the operator's residence that is important, not the aircrew?
Fly safe, Sam.
If the aircraft is operated by an AOC not based in the EASA region (i.e. American Airlines), then it is very clearly NOT 'an Operator Established'. However, as you move to the case of an aircraft owned by a Delaware corporation but beneficially owned by an EU citizen, who is the only pilot to fly the aircraft, and is the individual that interacts with the maintenance facility and pays the insurance, maintenance, etc. and that individual is resident in the EU for tax purposed - the argument that the offshore trust is the 'operator' is looking a bit thin. Several people I respect are of the opinion this structure will be viewed as 'An Operator Established in ...' we will only know the answer if and when this is tested in court.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA also realises this, especially after the USAF CT43 crash in Dubrovnik.
- that was quite some years ago, before the routine use of GPS
- being military they were probably anything but modern in their procedures, and would have flown the NDB procedure even if they had a GPS
- they probably did not have a GPS (of the sort that we have and use)
- every NDB in the world should be available as an RNAV waypoint in the GPS database, which one would have anyway for the part of the world one is flying in
The FAA IR usually does not involve NDB holds.
NDB holds are actually easy enough to fly if you have decent instrumentation (a decent ADF and an RMI) and if you don't need to do the precise "gate" adjustments. I have been recently informed that the gates are now gone from the CAA IR checkride and that they are just an FTO training invention. This would make sense since the protected area has to be big enough for a 747 at ~ 220kt
You are of course right about the EASA budget, but this is very hard because "safety" is a powerful and emotive word. Just watch that famous Goudot video, and count the small-country brown-nosers congratulating the EASA chief on the excellent safety record which "EASA has achieved". These gravy train riders have really bought into EASA having the sun shining out of its back end.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vote in Parliamentary Committee Tomorrow Morning : Write to your MEP NOW !
Last Friday (!), EASA transmitted the amended part-FCL text to the MEPs for discussion in the Transport Committee (link below).
You have still time to write to your MEP's to ask them to reject the proposal. Remember : it is your flight privileges that are under attack by a bunch of vindictive bureaucrats that abuse their safety rulemaking prerogatives to settle some protectionist scores at your expense. The European Parliament is your chance to stop it.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdo...icences_en.pdf
The discussion takes place in the meeting of tomorrow morning.
The member list of the EP Transport Committee can be found here:
Transport and Tourism (TRAN) : Members
And, to follow the action live, there is a webstream of the discussion.
The agenda for tomorrow looks like this. The topic is hidden as "exchange of views comitology"
Brussels, 20-21 June 2011
You have still time to write to your MEP's to ask them to reject the proposal. Remember : it is your flight privileges that are under attack by a bunch of vindictive bureaucrats that abuse their safety rulemaking prerogatives to settle some protectionist scores at your expense. The European Parliament is your chance to stop it.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdo...icences_en.pdf
The discussion takes place in the meeting of tomorrow morning.
The member list of the EP Transport Committee can be found here:
Transport and Tourism (TRAN) : Members
And, to follow the action live, there is a webstream of the discussion.
The agenda for tomorrow looks like this. The topic is hidden as "exchange of views comitology"
25 May 2011, 9.00 – 12.30
19. Exchange of views with
Patrick Ky, SESAR
20. Exchange of views
Comitology
21. Any other business
22. Date of next meeting
19. Exchange of views with
Patrick Ky, SESAR
20. Exchange of views
Comitology
21. Any other business
22. Date of next meeting
Brussels, 20-21 June 2011
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have still time to write to your MEP's to ask them to reject the proposal. Remember : it is your flight privileges that are under attack by a bunch of vindictive bureaucrats that abuse their safety rulemaking prerogatives to settle some protectionist scores at your expense. The European Parliament is your chance to stop it.
When I wrote back to my MEP (and MP) I got a snotty letter back from them saying that I was wasting their time. They weren't experts on the subject, didn't understand it but EASA did and I was just unhappy because it was going to cost me money.....
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Changes to the proposal
That PDF is 226 pages. Does anybody know if there is anything in there which is new to what we know about?
(Public Hearing ? Citizen's rights ? Hellooo ????)
It also puts the validity of the Comitology process in doubt, if you first vote on something, then alter the text ad libitum before sending it off to parliament without further explanation.
Now, from what I've noticed so far, they have changed article 1, the Objective and Scope from
This Regulation establishes common technical requirements for:
1. the licensing, training and testing of pilots involved in the operation of aircraft
referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation;
2. the certification of personnel responsible for providing flight training or flight
simulation training and for assessing a pilot’s skill.
3. the licensing, training and testing of pilots of aircraft referred to in (a)(ii), (d) and (h)
of Annex II to the Basic Regulation, when used in commercial air transport.
referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation;
2. the certification of personnel responsible for providing flight training or flight
simulation training and for assessing a pilot’s skill.
3. the licensing, training and testing of pilots of aircraft referred to in (a)(ii), (d) and (h)
Article 3
Pilot licensing
Without prejudice to Article 7, pilots of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) and
Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 shall comply with the technical requirements
and administrative procedures laid down in Annex I.
Pilot licensing
Without prejudice to Article 7, pilots of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) and
Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 shall comply with the technical requirements
110 Million EUR a year, my friends, and you're paying for it...
Last edited by proudprivate; 24th May 2011 at 12:44. Reason: typo corrected
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last time I wrote to my MEP I had a note that contained a letter from M Goudou's team answering the wrong question. A very detailed explanation of a completely different issue.
When I wrote back to my MEP (and MP) I got a snotty letter back from them saying that I was wasting their time. They weren't experts on the subject, didn't understand it but EASA did
When I wrote back to my MEP (and MP) I got a snotty letter back from them saying that I was wasting their time. They weren't experts on the subject, didn't understand it but EASA did
That you got a wrong reply from Mr Goudou and his team should not come as too much of a surprise, as one of the legal drafters for this regulation is a Frenchman called Cluzeau
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ms Foster has a long background in aviation (airline) employment, looking at her MEP profile.
The extent to which she might be pro-GA is not clear because airlines, and airline pilot unions, tend to be very uninterested in GA, especially private IFR GA.
The extent to which she might be pro-GA is not clear because airlines, and airline pilot unions, tend to be very uninterested in GA, especially private IFR GA.
As far as I can see, the document is simply a working copy incorporating the changes agreed at the last meeting (e.g. the Basic LAPL and LAFI have been removed). I cannot find any changes in the document that have not already been agreed by the Committee - the phrase "calm down, dear" springs to mind.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bristol
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please write to MEPs today
I would urge all to these folks on the Transport Committee and any other MEPs relevant:
- Jacqueline Foster
- Brian Simpson
- Peter van Dalen [Deputy Chair]
Transport and Tourism (TRAN) : Members
It may not help; however, if they get a few thousand e-mails all saying the same it will be hard to ignore.
It may not get them to overturn EASA's disastrous plans, but for sure if we do nothing, then there is no chance.
- Jacqueline Foster
- Brian Simpson
- Peter van Dalen [Deputy Chair]
Transport and Tourism (TRAN) : Members
It may not help; however, if they get a few thousand e-mails all saying the same it will be hard to ignore.
It may not get them to overturn EASA's disastrous plans, but for sure if we do nothing, then there is no chance.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to Billiebob:
As far as I can see, the document is simply a working copy incorporating the changes agreed at the last meeting
With those people, the phrase "fair is foul and foul is fair" springs to mind.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Committee Meeting is going on now...
For the moment, interesting discussion with Patrick Ky on SESAR.
Clearly shows that not all is bad in European Aviation Politics. Still a lot of challenges ahead, though:
* Funding
* Getting the right ICAO agreements (including cooperation with the FAA and other key members such as India, China and Japan)
* Getting good cooperation between SESAR, Eurocontrol and the Commission.
* Getting all EU member states on board, even those that have less direct interests in it.
Clearly shows that not all is bad in European Aviation Politics. Still a lot of challenges ahead, though:
* Funding
* Getting the right ICAO agreements (including cooperation with the FAA and other key members such as India, China and Japan)
* Getting good cooperation between SESAR, Eurocontrol and the Commission.
* Getting all EU member states on board, even those that have less direct interests in it.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting debate
When this gets archived (probably this afternoon or tomorrow), you MUST have a look. The FCL debate starts at 10.10 AM (about 50 minutes total).
Transport and Tourism (TRAN) : Presentation
I take home that :
Matthew Baldwin, although better composed and able to express himself, is just as dishonest and evasive as Eckard Seebohm (or Patrick Goudou for that matter)
The Belgian Said El Khadraoui (Labour) is the Rapporteur for this decision
Dominique Riquet (FR, Christian Democrates) is aiming for a commitment by the Commission to postpone the FCL implementation as regards third country licensing. This makes a lot of sense. Baldwin was uncommittal and pretty dishonest in claiming that 2 years would suffice to get an agreement.
Very refreshing comments by Philip Bradbourn (UK, Conservatives) which basically came to the heart of the matter
- you discriminate EU citizens vis à vis non-EU citizens
- there is not problem at the moment and rectifying it (through additional training and flight hours) costs approximately £125 MM
- you're unlikely to reach an agreement with the US within the specified deadline*
- the EASA committee is inaccessible and hiding behind a veil of secrecy
- EASA decisions cause massive unnecessary fall-out
His opinion is shared by Peter Van Dalen (NL, Conservatives). They flatly propose to veto the EASA submission.
Brian Simpson (UK, Labour) seems to want to avoid the confrontation, as he immediately interupted Philip.
Jacqui Foster (UK, Conservatives) was also holding back; She admitted to being influenced by the UK Flight Instructing Industry. I also think she is trying to protect the UK sweeteners (i.e. getting the directors' post for Baldwin at the Commission and possibly some further EASA appointments). It would be interesting to see whether the Conservatives are divided on this issue...
A lot of MEP's (such as Eva Lichtenberger (AU, Greens&Free All)) are still confusing two things when they speak about recognition of licenses :
- The right to fly a US registered plane on a US licence vs the right to fly a EU member state registered plane with a JAR license (which I believe up until now is virtually without restrictions - barring a few technicalities, such as Mode S transponder etc... - in both continents. This, btw, includes countries like Brazil, Canada and other civilized nations)
- The conversion procedures for US licences into EASA licenses and vice-versa, which is an endless debate.
The fact that Matthew Baldwin didn't mention or clarify this when faced with the MEP's questions puts him on my blacklist of dishonest people, serving themselves, their maecenases and anyone but the general public interest.
Overall, there remains a lot of anti-American sentiment in parliament, and some of the 2009/2010 US congress decisions certainly haven't helped. However, to claim that is "N-flyers" (Brian's words) job to lobby US congress to get an FCL BASA done is not really testimonial of a lot of common sense.
There will be another debate in June, when all documents have been translated in the various member state languages, a final vote is likely to be for September.
What is clear to me is that the MEP's, although not yet fully briefed / informed on the matter, are, unlike the European Commission and its EASA agency, clearly listening to the citizens so your writing to them HELPS.
* He is absolutely right, btw. A similar agreement between the US and Canada on Helicopters took 8 years to do.
Transport and Tourism (TRAN) : Presentation
I take home that :
Matthew Baldwin, although better composed and able to express himself, is just as dishonest and evasive as Eckard Seebohm (or Patrick Goudou for that matter)
The Belgian Said El Khadraoui (Labour) is the Rapporteur for this decision
Dominique Riquet (FR, Christian Democrates) is aiming for a commitment by the Commission to postpone the FCL implementation as regards third country licensing. This makes a lot of sense. Baldwin was uncommittal and pretty dishonest in claiming that 2 years would suffice to get an agreement.
Very refreshing comments by Philip Bradbourn (UK, Conservatives) which basically came to the heart of the matter
- you discriminate EU citizens vis à vis non-EU citizens
- there is not problem at the moment and rectifying it (through additional training and flight hours) costs approximately £125 MM
- you're unlikely to reach an agreement with the US within the specified deadline*
- the EASA committee is inaccessible and hiding behind a veil of secrecy
- EASA decisions cause massive unnecessary fall-out
His opinion is shared by Peter Van Dalen (NL, Conservatives). They flatly propose to veto the EASA submission.
Brian Simpson (UK, Labour) seems to want to avoid the confrontation, as he immediately interupted Philip.
Jacqui Foster (UK, Conservatives) was also holding back; She admitted to being influenced by the UK Flight Instructing Industry. I also think she is trying to protect the UK sweeteners (i.e. getting the directors' post for Baldwin at the Commission and possibly some further EASA appointments). It would be interesting to see whether the Conservatives are divided on this issue...
A lot of MEP's (such as Eva Lichtenberger (AU, Greens&Free All)) are still confusing two things when they speak about recognition of licenses :
- The right to fly a US registered plane on a US licence vs the right to fly a EU member state registered plane with a JAR license (which I believe up until now is virtually without restrictions - barring a few technicalities, such as Mode S transponder etc... - in both continents. This, btw, includes countries like Brazil, Canada and other civilized nations)
- The conversion procedures for US licences into EASA licenses and vice-versa, which is an endless debate.
The fact that Matthew Baldwin didn't mention or clarify this when faced with the MEP's questions puts him on my blacklist of dishonest people, serving themselves, their maecenases and anyone but the general public interest.
Overall, there remains a lot of anti-American sentiment in parliament, and some of the 2009/2010 US congress decisions certainly haven't helped. However, to claim that is "N-flyers" (Brian's words) job to lobby US congress to get an FCL BASA done is not really testimonial of a lot of common sense.
There will be another debate in June, when all documents have been translated in the various member state languages, a final vote is likely to be for September.
What is clear to me is that the MEP's, although not yet fully briefed / informed on the matter, are, unlike the European Commission and its EASA agency, clearly listening to the citizens so your writing to them HELPS.
* He is absolutely right, btw. A similar agreement between the US and Canada on Helicopters took 8 years to do.
Last edited by proudprivate; 25th May 2011 at 11:24. Reason: typo corrected
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part-FCL was adopted this morning.
Dutch MEP P. van Dalen presented a motion for a resolution against part-FCL on which the TRAN members voted this morging 16/22 against the motion.
Dutch MEP P. van Dalen presented a motion for a resolution against part-FCL on which the TRAN members voted this morging 16/22 against the motion.