EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10540
My biggest concern to the fact that all these promises are nothing more than a smokescrean is what has been mentioned in some of the posts.
N reg Europe has been going on and may I say GROWING for years. If the Figures of 67000 N reg pilots are correct thats a pretty hefty percentage of the total.
There have been attempts in the past to remove N reg which have failed.
Who would want to run a G reg aircraft in the USA? Nobody in his right mind!
So this is a European problem not an FAA one which makes me doubt how genuine EASA are about a bi lateral agreement.
EASA had two options to stem the growth of N reg in Europe.
They could bash it out of existance?
They could put something so atttractive in place that N reg would die a natural death.
Are we now to believe they are going to take the free market way of putting something better in place.
I worry that the FAA dont have a problem with third country licences in the USA But the Europeans do in Europe.
What a way out? publish very reasonanble proposals wait for the FAA to do nothing because they dont have a need to do something and then say " Its not my fault guv we did all we could! Back to plan A.
Where is that stick to beat the hell out of N reg in Europe?
I really hope thats not the case
Pace
My biggest concern to the fact that all these promises are nothing more than a smokescrean is what has been mentioned in some of the posts.
N reg Europe has been going on and may I say GROWING for years. If the Figures of 67000 N reg pilots are correct thats a pretty hefty percentage of the total.
There have been attempts in the past to remove N reg which have failed.
Who would want to run a G reg aircraft in the USA? Nobody in his right mind!
So this is a European problem not an FAA one which makes me doubt how genuine EASA are about a bi lateral agreement.
EASA had two options to stem the growth of N reg in Europe.
They could bash it out of existance?
They could put something so atttractive in place that N reg would die a natural death.
Are we now to believe they are going to take the free market way of putting something better in place.
I worry that the FAA dont have a problem with third country licences in the USA But the Europeans do in Europe.
What a way out? publish very reasonanble proposals wait for the FAA to do nothing because they dont have a need to do something and then say " Its not my fault guv we did all we could! Back to plan A.
Where is that stick to beat the hell out of N reg in Europe?
I really hope thats not the case
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the conversion process which is a mess in EASA. For example if you went to the USA and you have met the requirements, you can pretty much just do a flight test, plus maybe one ground exam. For example one bloke I know who was an IRI in the UK converted to FAA CPL ME IR in one test flight and a few hours brush up.
If I could self study, book a FI / IRI for a number of hours and turn up and take a ground exam and book a flight test in my aeroplane, there would have been no need to put our aeroplane on the N register. This is probably true of all those like Pace, if it was a simple conversion then people would just get on and do it.
Regarding the medical issues - I had a letter from the CAA stating that if one already held a FAA Class 1 medical then to get a Class 1 JAA medical all that was required was a JAA Class 1 RENEWAL, rather than initial.
If I could self study, book a FI / IRI for a number of hours and turn up and take a ground exam and book a flight test in my aeroplane, there would have been no need to put our aeroplane on the N register. This is probably true of all those like Pace, if it was a simple conversion then people would just get on and do it.
Regarding the medical issues - I had a letter from the CAA stating that if one already held a FAA Class 1 medical then to get a Class 1 JAA medical all that was required was a JAA Class 1 RENEWAL, rather than initial.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a letter from the CAA stating that if one already held a FAA Class 1 medical then to get a Class 1 JAA medical all that was required was a JAA Class 1 RENEWAL, rather than initial
Englishal
Is that time limited getting a JAA CLASS 1? IE will that loophole close with EASA in 2012?
Does that renewal have to be done at Gatwick as I usually do my renewals FAA CLASS 1 JAA class 2 with the same AME in one package?
If so I might as well get both done FAA class 1 and CAA class 1 at the renewal date in february for me! either with the AME or FAA with the AME and JAA down at Gatwick.
Mind you reading todays press the Euro appears doomed apart from within a group of 4 countries as does the EEC apart from those 4 countries with the rest of us going our own merry way or rather not so merry with a recession never experienced or dreamed of before
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The letter stated that you were only subject to a renewal BUT the first renewal had to be done at the AMC at Gatwick. I believe there are also exemptions if you hold a foreign CPL.
These are little advertised "loop holes" but if I were you I'd call the CAA and get them to confirm.
These are little advertised "loop holes" but if I were you I'd call the CAA and get them to confirm.
You have to do the initial class one at Belgrano but if you hold an ICAO CPL then they will use 'renewal' standards to test you. It's also slightly cheaper too. (certainly this was correct as of 3 years ago!)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FCL.008 crediting Part-FCL PPL or CPL holders holding also a current ICAO-based third
FCL.008 – NPA
2. Competency-based modular course for the IR(A)
2. Competency-based modular course for the IR(A)
2.6. Skill test
The skill test for the competency-based modular route is proposed to be the same as the IR skill test as detailed in Appendix 7 of Part-FCL and was taken over from JAR-FCL.
The skill test for the competency-based modular route is proposed to be the same as the IR skill test as detailed in Appendix 7 of Part-FCL and was taken over from JAR-FCL.
2.7. Crediting for third country rating holders
Appendix 6 A.2 also provides a proposal for crediting Part-FCL PPL or CPL holders holding also a current ICAO-based third country IR(A). With a certain amount of instrument flight time as PIC, the holder of a Part-FCL licence holding also a third country IR(A) will be credited in full towards the training course requirements. Nevertheless, the applicant has to pass the skill test and must demonstrate the appropriate knowledge of Air Law, Meteorology, Flight Performance and Planning and Human Performance.
The conditions for the acceptance of licences and instrument ratings issued by or on behalf of third countries (e.g. for pilots not holding a Part-FCL licence) are further detailed in Annex III of the draft Commission Regulation laying down the requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew.
A.2. IR(A) — Competency-based modular flying training course Appendix 6 A.2 also provides a proposal for crediting Part-FCL PPL or CPL holders holding also a current ICAO-based third country IR(A). With a certain amount of instrument flight time as PIC, the holder of a Part-FCL licence holding also a third country IR(A) will be credited in full towards the training course requirements. Nevertheless, the applicant has to pass the skill test and must demonstrate the appropriate knowledge of Air Law, Meteorology, Flight Performance and Planning and Human Performance.
The conditions for the acceptance of licences and instrument ratings issued by or on behalf of third countries (e.g. for pilots not holding a Part-FCL licence) are further detailed in Annex III of the draft Commission Regulation laying down the requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew.
4. The course shall comprise:
(a) theoretical knowledge instruction to the IR(A) knowledge level;
(b) instrument flight instruction.
(b) instrument flight instruction.
8. Applicants for the competency-based modular IR(A) holding a Part-FCL PPL or CPL and a valid IR(A) issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country may be credited in full towards the training course mentioned in 4 above. In order to be issued the IR(A), the applicant shall:
(a) successfully complete the skill test for the IR in accordance with Appendix 7;
(b) demonstrate that he/she has acquired knowledge of air law, meteorology, flight planning and performance, and human performance;
(c) demonstrate that he/she has acquired knowledge of English in accordance with FCL.055;
(d) have a minimum experience of at least 100 hours of instrument flight time as PIC on aeroplanes.
(b) demonstrate that he/she has acquired knowledge of air law, meteorology, flight planning and performance, and human performance;
(c) demonstrate that he/she has acquired knowledge of English in accordance with FCL.055;
(d) have a minimum experience of at least 100 hours of instrument flight time as PIC on aeroplanes.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Attention !
A.2. IR(A) — Competency-based modular flying training course
Credit is given only toward to the instruction.
(The 100 hours theoretical instruction and 40 flight instruction.)
Demonstrate mean sitting the exams, as the credit is given only toward the instruction.
The equivalent wording “Demonstrate” in the previous JAA regulation implied sitting exams.
Thanks Proudprivate to point this out.
What's your reading on the term "Demonstrate" ?
A.2. IR(A) — Competency-based modular flying training course
- 4. The course shall comprise:
-
- (a) theoretical knowledge instruction to the IR(A) knowledge level;
(b) instrument flight instruction.
- (a) theoretical knowledge instruction to the IR(A) knowledge level;
-
-
-
-
- 8. Applicants for the competency-based modular IR(A) holding a Part-FCL PPL or CPL and a valid IR(A) issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country may be credited in full towards the training course mentioned in 4 above. In order to be issued the IR(A), the applicant shall:
-
-
Credit is given only toward to the instruction.
(The 100 hours theoretical instruction and 40 flight instruction.)
-
-
-
-
- (a) successfully complete the skill test for the IR in accordance with Appendix 7;
(b) demonstrate that he/she has acquired knowledge of air law, meteorology, flight planning and performance, and human performance;
(c) demonstrate that he/she has acquired knowledge of English in accordance with FCL.055;
(d) have a minimum experience of at least 100 hours of instrument flight time as PIC on aeroplanes.
- (a) successfully complete the skill test for the IR in accordance with Appendix 7;
-
-
-
Demonstrate mean sitting the exams, as the credit is given only toward the instruction.
The equivalent wording “Demonstrate” in the previous JAA regulation implied sitting exams.
Thanks Proudprivate to point this out.
What's your reading on the term "Demonstrate" ?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Demonstrate" means sitting the written exams.
I realise the word doesn't mean that in English and could be met with e.g. an oral exam but that is not how the people who run this business have ever treated it.
So you have to swat up maybe 70-80% of the current JAA IR theory. This is not insignificant considering there is not (I am informed) going to be a question bank.
I did most of the JAA IR TK using the QB and estimate it saved me 80% of the study workload. Most of the stuff is utter garbage; remains to be seen whether the material in the new TK is any better. I don't know anybody who has seen the TK, as a student.
Obviously the FTOs could eventually develop a QB (the way they did for the JAA ATPL, by assigning each student to memorise a few questions and quickly writing them down outside the exam room afterwards) but these are not ATPL exams, and these will be sat by only a relatively small number of people. So I do not expect much effort to go into a QB for this stuff.
I realise the word doesn't mean that in English and could be met with e.g. an oral exam but that is not how the people who run this business have ever treated it.
So you have to swat up maybe 70-80% of the current JAA IR theory. This is not insignificant considering there is not (I am informed) going to be a question bank.
I did most of the JAA IR TK using the QB and estimate it saved me 80% of the study workload. Most of the stuff is utter garbage; remains to be seen whether the material in the new TK is any better. I don't know anybody who has seen the TK, as a student.
Obviously the FTOs could eventually develop a QB (the way they did for the JAA ATPL, by assigning each student to memorise a few questions and quickly writing them down outside the exam room afterwards) but these are not ATPL exams, and these will be sat by only a relatively small number of people. So I do not expect much effort to go into a QB for this stuff.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French Privat IR was much more clear with regards to how to "Demonstration" is to be accomplished:
Démontre à l’examinateur, lors de l’épreuve d’aptitude visée au b ci-dessus, qu’il possède des
connaissances satisfaisantes dans les domaines suivants :
– réglementation ;
– météorologie ;
– facteurs humains ;
– préparation du vol et performances.
Translated, it stipulate: Demonstrate to the examinator during the checkride that you have the knowledgde in the following fields:
- air law
- meteorolgy
- human factors
- flight planning and performance
Hopefully we can get EASA to clarify the way how the "Demonstrate" has to be done.
Démontre à l’examinateur, lors de l’épreuve d’aptitude visée au b ci-dessus, qu’il possède des
connaissances satisfaisantes dans les domaines suivants :
– réglementation ;
– météorologie ;
– facteurs humains ;
– préparation du vol et performances.
Translated, it stipulate: Demonstrate to the examinator during the checkride that you have the knowledgde in the following fields:
- air law
- meteorolgy
- human factors
- flight planning and performance
Hopefully we can get EASA to clarify the way how the "Demonstrate" has to be done.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tetrimmo
I would be very surprised if EASAs interpretation of demonstrated means a quick chat with the Examiner.
Without going into the detail of all this its panning out as I thought a few years ago in the forum when the whole EASA thing re IMCR and PPL IR reared its ugly head.
I wrote then that EASA would not make a rating which competed with the structure of the JAA IR and that all they could do was a IR light as a stage to a full IR.
Sadly EASA have not addressed why so many (67000) went the FAA way? and have not competed by putting something in place to compete with the FAA IR.
The FAA IR has equal safety records to the JAA IR So in theory there is no reason why the EASA IR should not emulate the FAA IR.
Sadly EASA will trim a bit off here and there and place restrictions on the IR light but it will still be a time consuming thing to get.
No mention of FAA ATP for pilots flying commercially on FAA private jets in Europe? They do have legal problems in certain areas there and my prediction will be annual excemptions which are given not a right.
Ie if you can make a case for yourself and are a good boy you get one if you cannot make a case for yourself or are a bad boy you dont! but lets wait and see?
One of my co pilots qualifies for an FAA 1st class medical Butdue to eyesight problems does not qualify for a JAA first class !not sure what will happen there?
Pace
I would be very surprised if EASAs interpretation of demonstrated means a quick chat with the Examiner.
Without going into the detail of all this its panning out as I thought a few years ago in the forum when the whole EASA thing re IMCR and PPL IR reared its ugly head.
I wrote then that EASA would not make a rating which competed with the structure of the JAA IR and that all they could do was a IR light as a stage to a full IR.
Sadly EASA have not addressed why so many (67000) went the FAA way? and have not competed by putting something in place to compete with the FAA IR.
The FAA IR has equal safety records to the JAA IR So in theory there is no reason why the EASA IR should not emulate the FAA IR.
Sadly EASA will trim a bit off here and there and place restrictions on the IR light but it will still be a time consuming thing to get.
No mention of FAA ATP for pilots flying commercially on FAA private jets in Europe? They do have legal problems in certain areas there and my prediction will be annual excemptions which are given not a right.
Ie if you can make a case for yourself and are a good boy you get one if you cannot make a case for yourself or are a bad boy you dont! but lets wait and see?
One of my co pilots qualifies for an FAA 1st class medical Butdue to eyesight problems does not qualify for a JAA first class !not sure what will happen there?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 22nd Sep 2011 at 11:24.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MadJock
No Idea where the 67K came from? Originally 100K was banded about then reduced to 67K.
Whether its 67K or less makes no difference. I know EasyJet pilots who see no good to their industry from EASA so dont see them as protectors of the faith as EASA are bad news all round whether FAA or JAA for our industry.
Not sure where Europe will be by 2014/ 2016 as the Euro is doomed without doubt other than in 4 major countries and maybe even the whole structure of the EEC!
Pace
No Idea where the 67K came from? Originally 100K was banded about then reduced to 67K.
Whether its 67K or less makes no difference. I know EasyJet pilots who see no good to their industry from EASA so dont see them as protectors of the faith as EASA are bad news all round whether FAA or JAA for our industry.
Not sure where Europe will be by 2014/ 2016 as the Euro is doomed without doubt other than in 4 major countries and maybe even the whole structure of the EEC!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 22nd Sep 2011 at 15:07.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: EU
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA medical
Hi All,
Can someone help me interpret the new regs concerning the medical requirements.
The way I understand is that having a UK license, soon to be UK-EASA.
I need a UK-EASA medical.... But... I can get the medical through an AME based outside UK,
simply asking him to send relevant documents to the CAA. Am I correct?
CAA Quickguide
FAQ
And another query, concerning flying N-reg (VFR).
My interpretation is that there's no changes in operating corporate/private a/c until July 2014.
Correct?
Thanks in advance,
FTF
Can someone help me interpret the new regs concerning the medical requirements.
The way I understand is that having a UK license, soon to be UK-EASA.
I need a UK-EASA medical.... But... I can get the medical through an AME based outside UK,
simply asking him to send relevant documents to the CAA. Am I correct?
CAA Quickguide
FAQ
And another query, concerning flying N-reg (VFR).
My interpretation is that there's no changes in operating corporate/private a/c until July 2014.
Correct?
Thanks in advance,
FTF
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't speak for the MED stuff (EASA has taken over most of the JAA stuff lock stock and barrel, even the ridiculous audiogram) but
is correct, in so far as each EU State has the option to postpone implementation of the anti-N-reg move till April 2014, but only the UK is definitely known to have thus postponed.
(Quite what it means is unclear if you fly from say UK to Germany and are UK resident... the vagueness of this Brussels crap is mind boggling)
And another query, concerning flying N-reg (VFR).
My interpretation is that there's no changes in operating corporate/private a/c until July 2014.
Correct?
My interpretation is that there's no changes in operating corporate/private a/c until July 2014.
Correct?
(Quite what it means is unclear if you fly from say UK to Germany and are UK resident... the vagueness of this Brussels crap is mind boggling)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: EU
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...great, just great...
is correct, in so far as each EU State has the option to postpone implementation of the anti-N-reg move till April 2014, but only the UK is definitely known to have thus postponed.
(Quite what it means is unclear if you fly from say UK to Germany and are UK resident... the vagueness of this Brussels crap is mind boggling)
(Quite what it means is unclear if you fly from say UK to Germany and are UK resident... the vagueness of this Brussels crap is mind boggling)
Or maybe call to Brussels... Hmmm, somehow this sounds like a big time-waister...
I guess it's time to get that type added to my JAA (easa
) license.Before I get stuck on some apron somewhere...
Can't speak for the MED stuff (EASA has taken over most of the JAA stuff lock stock and barrel, even the ridiculous audiogram) but
Thanks for your reply,
FTF
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So does anybody know what is happening come the 1st June? After a very unhelpful phonecall with them, the CAA dont seem to! We have to get a license validation for 1 year, who is that with CAA or EASA? Have you got to prove you are in training for ATPLs? (I'm talking about commercial operations here)
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the operator is non EU based then you are not affected.
If the operator is EU based (loosely speaking) then you probably don't have to do anything before April 2014.
After that, nobody knows.
If the operator is EU based (loosely speaking) then you probably don't have to do anything before April 2014.
After that, nobody knows.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The operator is EU based and so am I, but the way I understood it was that the April 2014 date was for private pilots only, so am I wrong? I'm having difficulty finding any definitive information on the CAA website and any information at all on the EASA one!