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
Thomas
FAA in Europe has been an accepted and legal practice in Europe for over 2 decades.
These EASA People can at a sweep of a pen destroy our incomes and positions that we hold through no fault of our own loose and with no redress for our losses and expenses incurred.
I said in an earlier post that this move is discriminatory against race (Europeans) It might as well read black coloured people. EASA can try and wrap this up as they want but discrimination is what it is put purely in place for politics not safety to banish N reg from Europe by using a cruel stick to beat us into submission.The whole thing in a free world is disgusting and I am amazed that there is nothing that we can do.
EASA could have looked at why 10000 in Europe went the FAA way learnt some lessons and put something equally attractive in place but that thought with EASA is a joke as their mission can only be to destroy aviation in Europe.
I am not just talking about N reg I feel very sorry for the AOC OPS saddled with so much burocracy and needless costs and for what SAFETY? EASAs supposed mission? They dont know what the word means.
Count me in if there is a way of suing them?
Pace
FAA in Europe has been an accepted and legal practice in Europe for over 2 decades.
These EASA People can at a sweep of a pen destroy our incomes and positions that we hold through no fault of our own loose and with no redress for our losses and expenses incurred.
I said in an earlier post that this move is discriminatory against race (Europeans) It might as well read black coloured people. EASA can try and wrap this up as they want but discrimination is what it is put purely in place for politics not safety to banish N reg from Europe by using a cruel stick to beat us into submission.The whole thing in a free world is disgusting and I am amazed that there is nothing that we can do.
EASA could have looked at why 10000 in Europe went the FAA way learnt some lessons and put something equally attractive in place but that thought with EASA is a joke as their mission can only be to destroy aviation in Europe.
I am not just talking about N reg I feel very sorry for the AOC OPS saddled with so much burocracy and needless costs and for what SAFETY? EASAs supposed mission? They dont know what the word means.
Count me in if there is a way of suing them?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 12th Oct 2010 at 21:56.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 52N
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA
Practically the net effect of EASA's attitude to their "stakeholders" or whatever we aviators are going to be called next, is that they are disaffecting tens of thousands of sane, logical opinion formers from the true purpose of the EU. I am not about to lose a job or suddenly find I have a devalued aeroplane on my hands, but I feel strongly that the EU should not have that power over us for no tangible reason.
It is very clear that EASA do not have their public with them, and operate in an arena of confrontation and discord instead of co-operation with the segment of population they are tasked to protect and nurture.
Regulation is a necessity in all aspects of civilized society, but over-regulation is the product of excessive bureaucracy; EASA seems to have disregarded that basic tenat, and it can only take a change of people and mindset within the organization to correct and contain the ambitions of desk bound rule makers who are so out of touch with the subject of their raison d'être.
We can only vote with our feet, by leaving aviation and/or voting for withdrawal from the EU. How sad.
It is very clear that EASA do not have their public with them, and operate in an arena of confrontation and discord instead of co-operation with the segment of population they are tasked to protect and nurture.
Regulation is a necessity in all aspects of civilized society, but over-regulation is the product of excessive bureaucracy; EASA seems to have disregarded that basic tenat, and it can only take a change of people and mindset within the organization to correct and contain the ambitions of desk bound rule makers who are so out of touch with the subject of their raison d'être.
We can only vote with our feet, by leaving aviation and/or voting for withdrawal from the EU. How sad.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We can only vote with our feet, by leaving aviation and/or voting for withdrawal from the EU. How sad.
I cannot think of another proposal which is more pointless, and which has so few supporters (beyond the customary axe grinders of which most would never own up to their views publicly, because they would feel ashamed).
As Pace says, these ops have been permitted in Europe for many years (a lot more than 20 - e.g. Graham Hill was N-reg back in the 1970s) so blocking them now is very unfair.
It will be interesting to see what happens to EASA and all this garbage, over the next few months.
EASA has been very clever in keeping this below the event horizon of Europe's major stakeholders. A few weeks ago I was having a lunch with the executives of one of Europe's significant aircraft makers (not light GA) and none of them had even heard of the FCL proposal. They know now, of course
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LegalApproach
Can you explain to me how come if EASA has this power to do as they will regardless of the damage created how it has taken 20 years of failed attempts to remove N reg fom Europe? Surely they could have done it with the sweep of a pen years ago?
What has changed today?
If EASA has this superhuman power to destroy peoples lives, livelyhood, cost them a fortune by the sweep of a pen and these people have no redress in law against EASA then something has to be seriously wrong for things were better in communist Russia?
We should be standing up en masse against this? protesting outside EASAs doors in our thousands with banners! grabbing the attention of the media.
EASA should be exposed for what it is doing to the health of aviation in Europe but all we have is AOPA to put our case.
Sadly a few of us spouting off our frustrations in these forums wont achieve a thing in real terms.
Pace
What you do not seem to follow is that EASA can regulate flight within its own airspace and impose whatever regulations it wishes to. Within that airspace an aircraft of whatever registration is bound to comply with the regulations or the flight is illegal at that point of time.
What has changed today?
If EASA has this superhuman power to destroy peoples lives, livelyhood, cost them a fortune by the sweep of a pen and these people have no redress in law against EASA then something has to be seriously wrong for things were better in communist Russia?
We should be standing up en masse against this? protesting outside EASAs doors in our thousands with banners! grabbing the attention of the media.
EASA should be exposed for what it is doing to the health of aviation in Europe but all we have is AOPA to put our case.
Sadly a few of us spouting off our frustrations in these forums wont achieve a thing in real terms.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 12th Oct 2010 at 22:20.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Socal
There have been numerous attempts to curtail N reg in Europe at differing times. All failed! I believe the last was the 90 day rule which also failed.
But all of a sudden along comes EASA who by what is said in this forum can do what they like when they like and are immune to any scrutiny without redress. Since when?
CJBoy
Anything constructive or meaningful in the reply?
Problem with that is that all you would achieve is what EASA wants. The Elimination of GA and ALL airtransport confined to the State PEOPLE carriers and military! Mind you not sure about the Military either as that is shrinking at a fast rate of KTS too.
THE BIG STATE PEOPLE CARRIERS ONLY!
Pace
There have been numerous attempts to curtail N reg in Europe at differing times. All failed! I believe the last was the 90 day rule which also failed.
But all of a sudden along comes EASA who by what is said in this forum can do what they like when they like and are immune to any scrutiny without redress. Since when?
CJBoy
Anything constructive or meaningful in the reply?
We can only vote with our feet, by leaving aviation and/or voting for withdrawal from the EU. How sad.
THE BIG STATE PEOPLE CARRIERS ONLY!
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
National Aviation authorities have always been able to regulate their own airspace and they have done so in the past, for example the CAA has banned certain foreign carriers or registrations from operating within UK airspace when there have been concerns about maintenance standards or aircraft types when there have been concerns about their airworthiness.
Further, the CAA currently has the right to limit the operation of foreign registered aircraft and the law provides for this - see for example articles 138 and 140 of the ANO (restrictions on non-UK registered aircraft being operated for valuable consideration and for the purposes of aerial photography or aerial survey).
By and large the authorities have been influenced by a degree of common sense and international treaty obligations.
In the past, whilst there were individual authorities it might have been difficult for one country to take unilateral action. For example as we are all part of the EU a decision by, say, Germany to ban its' citizens from operating N reg without good reason might be open to challenge if most or the rest of the EU CAA's allowed it for their citizens.
Then God or his representatives in Brussels created EASA. You talk about 20 years being spent trying to ban N reg but EASA was only created in 2003 and only reached full functionality in 2008, therefore 18 years was wasted but now, fortunately, EASA, a self serving, self important, bureaucratic monster is here to get on with the job.
Bear in mind that the spec. requirement for EASA appears to - be how we can create:
(a) a lot of jobs for ourselves
(b) a lot of power for ourselves
and
(c) an amalgamation of all of the worst aspects of our members former CAA's
As with so many governmental type organisations the ethos appears to be "we must legislate, we must interfere, we must constantly tinker and alter in order to look busy; otherwise it might give the impression that we are unnecessary. However, above all we must save our citizens from themselves because not only do we know best, but we have the power"
However, the point that I and a number of other contributors have made is that, irrespective of whether any decision is in fact fair or rational, EASA has the power to effectively ban N reg operations for its' citizens living within its' boundaries if it so wished. The justification if it wanted to would I suspect be along the lines of:
"We are tasked with the maintenance of safety standards within our airspace. We have no control over FAA maintenance or licencing standards. In order to standardize and both properly and effectively regulate safety within EASA world we require any aircraft ordinarily based within our territorial jurisdiction to adhere to EASA airworthiness, maintenance and operating requirements"
How could this be open to challenge? What Judge or politician for that matter is going to say that on the face of it EASA's approach is unreasonable?
To take an extreme example suppose I, as a UK citizen, travel to a nameless country in darkest Africa where I obtain my nameless country HGV licence, (no test just pay $ 3 to the man behind the desk) and buy a lorry. The lorry is largely held together with string, the brakes are wooden blocks and the tyres are bald - all perfectly legal in nameless country. I return to the UK with it and use it to ferry my children and all of their class mates to and from school. The argument "But it's perfectly legal in nameless country where it is registered, it complies with their DoT requirements and it's much cheaper than your system" is not likely to cut much ice.
I have some sympathy with the underlying sentiments expressed in your posts, I find the turf war between FAA and EASA to be quite ludicrous, but from a legal perspective EASA has the power to regulate and the only way of effectively fighting this is through the politicians.
National Aviation authorities have always been able to regulate their own airspace and they have done so in the past, for example the CAA has banned certain foreign carriers or registrations from operating within UK airspace when there have been concerns about maintenance standards or aircraft types when there have been concerns about their airworthiness.
Further, the CAA currently has the right to limit the operation of foreign registered aircraft and the law provides for this - see for example articles 138 and 140 of the ANO (restrictions on non-UK registered aircraft being operated for valuable consideration and for the purposes of aerial photography or aerial survey).
By and large the authorities have been influenced by a degree of common sense and international treaty obligations.
In the past, whilst there were individual authorities it might have been difficult for one country to take unilateral action. For example as we are all part of the EU a decision by, say, Germany to ban its' citizens from operating N reg without good reason might be open to challenge if most or the rest of the EU CAA's allowed it for their citizens.
Then God or his representatives in Brussels created EASA. You talk about 20 years being spent trying to ban N reg but EASA was only created in 2003 and only reached full functionality in 2008, therefore 18 years was wasted but now, fortunately, EASA, a self serving, self important, bureaucratic monster is here to get on with the job.
Bear in mind that the spec. requirement for EASA appears to - be how we can create:
(a) a lot of jobs for ourselves
(b) a lot of power for ourselves
and
(c) an amalgamation of all of the worst aspects of our members former CAA's
As with so many governmental type organisations the ethos appears to be "we must legislate, we must interfere, we must constantly tinker and alter in order to look busy; otherwise it might give the impression that we are unnecessary. However, above all we must save our citizens from themselves because not only do we know best, but we have the power"
However, the point that I and a number of other contributors have made is that, irrespective of whether any decision is in fact fair or rational, EASA has the power to effectively ban N reg operations for its' citizens living within its' boundaries if it so wished. The justification if it wanted to would I suspect be along the lines of:
"We are tasked with the maintenance of safety standards within our airspace. We have no control over FAA maintenance or licencing standards. In order to standardize and both properly and effectively regulate safety within EASA world we require any aircraft ordinarily based within our territorial jurisdiction to adhere to EASA airworthiness, maintenance and operating requirements"
How could this be open to challenge? What Judge or politician for that matter is going to say that on the face of it EASA's approach is unreasonable?
To take an extreme example suppose I, as a UK citizen, travel to a nameless country in darkest Africa where I obtain my nameless country HGV licence, (no test just pay $ 3 to the man behind the desk) and buy a lorry. The lorry is largely held together with string, the brakes are wooden blocks and the tyres are bald - all perfectly legal in nameless country. I return to the UK with it and use it to ferry my children and all of their class mates to and from school. The argument "But it's perfectly legal in nameless country where it is registered, it complies with their DoT requirements and it's much cheaper than your system" is not likely to cut much ice.
I have some sympathy with the underlying sentiments expressed in your posts, I find the turf war between FAA and EASA to be quite ludicrous, but from a legal perspective EASA has the power to regulate and the only way of effectively fighting this is through the politicians.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legalapproach
Your argument sounds reasonable but there are several points to disagree with.
The third country aircraft with bald tyres and string are already banned; aircraft and pilots from several nations have been forbidden to enter UK (and other) airspace on safety grounds. This is right and proper. No pilot will argue with that.
The USA pretty much invented general aviation regulation and has an excellent safety record. No systemic problems have been identified with FAA overseen maintenance, certainly in the UK. There is no safety problem to be fixed.
The same applies to FAA licenced pilots, anywhere in the world. FAA standards are the "lingua franca" of the aviation world and every country is familiar with migration to, and from, those standards.
Our CAA do have the right to stop all operations for valuable consideration by non-EASA aircraft within their boundaries. But they don't in practice. In fact they consider each case and can/will grant permission. What does that say about safety?
None of the operations being addressed in this "problem" are commercial in the EASA definition - they are all "private" ops - so the misleading of the ignorant public does not come into the equation. Why do we need protecting from ourselves?
The consequences of this action could be catastrophic for many businesses both sides of the Atlantic. Custom and practice has allowed many operations to be built that support many people and now is not a good time to destroy jobs and/or livelihoods on a whim. The value of the GA fleet can/may also plummet and this will affect the bottom line for many individuals and businesses who hold positions of power in the job market and whose spending supports other businesses.
Some "operators" in the crosshairs can/will relocate outside the EU and take their toys, as well as their income tax revenue, jobs and spending power, with them. Once gone, such people will not return without a great deal of inducement.
The identification of operations that breach the new rules will be very difficult; the rules have not yet been properly defined. Do we prosecute EU passport holders flying any other registration than local? Or do we rely on the "base of operation" of the operator? Who is "the operator"? All very badly thought out by people who don't understand what is going on.
I'm not convinced that it will happen this time; it didn't work before. But my suitcase stands ready and I'm casually househunting........bet I'm not alone.
Your argument sounds reasonable but there are several points to disagree with.
The third country aircraft with bald tyres and string are already banned; aircraft and pilots from several nations have been forbidden to enter UK (and other) airspace on safety grounds. This is right and proper. No pilot will argue with that.
The USA pretty much invented general aviation regulation and has an excellent safety record. No systemic problems have been identified with FAA overseen maintenance, certainly in the UK. There is no safety problem to be fixed.
The same applies to FAA licenced pilots, anywhere in the world. FAA standards are the "lingua franca" of the aviation world and every country is familiar with migration to, and from, those standards.
Our CAA do have the right to stop all operations for valuable consideration by non-EASA aircraft within their boundaries. But they don't in practice. In fact they consider each case and can/will grant permission. What does that say about safety?
None of the operations being addressed in this "problem" are commercial in the EASA definition - they are all "private" ops - so the misleading of the ignorant public does not come into the equation. Why do we need protecting from ourselves?
The consequences of this action could be catastrophic for many businesses both sides of the Atlantic. Custom and practice has allowed many operations to be built that support many people and now is not a good time to destroy jobs and/or livelihoods on a whim. The value of the GA fleet can/may also plummet and this will affect the bottom line for many individuals and businesses who hold positions of power in the job market and whose spending supports other businesses.
Some "operators" in the crosshairs can/will relocate outside the EU and take their toys, as well as their income tax revenue, jobs and spending power, with them. Once gone, such people will not return without a great deal of inducement.
The identification of operations that breach the new rules will be very difficult; the rules have not yet been properly defined. Do we prosecute EU passport holders flying any other registration than local? Or do we rely on the "base of operation" of the operator? Who is "the operator"? All very badly thought out by people who don't understand what is going on.
I'm not convinced that it will happen this time; it didn't work before. But my suitcase stands ready and I'm casually househunting........bet I'm not alone.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To take an extreme example suppose I, as a UK citizen, travel to a nameless country in darkest Africa where I obtain my nameless country HGV licence, (no test just pay $ 3 to the man behind the desk) and buy a lorry. The lorry is largely held together with string, the brakes are wooden blocks and the tyres are bald - all perfectly legal in nameless country. I return to the UK with it and use it to ferry my children and all of their class mates to and from school. The argument "But it's perfectly legal in nameless country where it is registered, it complies with their DoT requirements and it's much cheaper than your system" is not likely to cut much ice.
If your name is anything to go by then I will fire a few questions at you?
EASA did infact try the safety arguement as with your African example above but EASA spent a lot of money trying to build that case from accident statistics and failed miserably! Maybe their arguement would not stand so well in court?
If EASA was claiming safety which is supposed to be their remit but found the the african state not only met but exceeded the EASA states safety as shown in accident stats then what?
But ACCEPTING what you are saying will happen bar an act of God at the last hour what are our options? One is to spend the next 2 years studying and taking 14 useless exams and probably finding in excess of 10K to 15k to convert to licences we dont need to have. (based on the arguement that we already have licences and practically fly in Europe safely already) There would hardly be the motivation or inclination or the bank balance to follow that route.
Many of us are very experienced jet pilots in our fiftees not the best at taking in how many molecules make up a windscreen
Firstly myself and many other commercial pilots will loose our jobs. The owners would employ dual rated pilots to take our positions.
We would have to find 10K plus to convert, some with FAA who like my first officer would fail the EASA eye sight test and hence class 1 would be out for good. All this created by EASA against citizens carrying out their rightful business.
My owner would want to retain me but at what cost. He would be forced elswhere.
What course is open to these Europeans to sue EASA for their losses?
Secondly what are the workarounds? Some here say it wont be a problem for the corporate jet owners who would locate offshore. I cannot see this!
If Joe Blogs investments are based in London then they will not want their jet based anywhere else but London. The positioning costs would be Horrendous from offshore.
The only workaround I could see would be through an operating company based in say IOM. Either the pilot /operator would be employed by IOM Operations as their agent or all operational requests would have to route via a computer link at IOM operations. IE flight plans would route to IOM operations and then to Brussels.
Any IDEAS?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 13th Oct 2010 at 09:51.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
Firstly I think it would be wrong to discuss the more subtle workaround openly - even if the legislation had already got past the final closed-session EU stage (which it has not yet) and was drafted into something less ambiguous (which it hasn't yet either).
But the location of the aircraft and the location/residence/citizenship of the pilots is probably not relevant. If the word "operator" is ever defined, it will have to be something like whoever has effective control of where the aircraft goes.
In a corporate scenario, it should be easy to separate the operator from the aircraft itself, in terms of location.
Less easy with the common light GA single owner pilot scenario. But I can immediately think of a work-around, for a GA case where there are multiple pilots...
I really suggest one stops worrying about this for the moment.
You (or anybody else) is not going to pick up a JAA PPL/IR or CPL/IR before this garbage is converted into law, so there is no point in working out what to do.
I thought about getting on with the 7 IR exams, but they may not be valid under some new EASA regime and they expire after 3 years anyway. A good friend of mine in Europe (a bizjet pilot) has a national (non JAA) ATPL for which he had to sit all the then exams but now, to continue flying, they are making him do the JAA ATPL and they have disregarded everything he has done previously, and he has to do the 14 exams from scratch. And this is a supposedly civilised country in N Europe... a gold plating load of t0ssers. He has spent months already and is still getting only low marks in the computer tests (like all real pilots he is not 21 - how many BA Nigels would pass the 14 do you think? 5%?).
Let's see what happens. The sh*t is really going to hit the fan, because even now perhaps 90% of affected pilots have no clue about this proposal.
Firstly I think it would be wrong to discuss the more subtle workaround openly - even if the legislation had already got past the final closed-session EU stage (which it has not yet) and was drafted into something less ambiguous (which it hasn't yet either).
But the location of the aircraft and the location/residence/citizenship of the pilots is probably not relevant. If the word "operator" is ever defined, it will have to be something like whoever has effective control of where the aircraft goes.
In a corporate scenario, it should be easy to separate the operator from the aircraft itself, in terms of location.
Less easy with the common light GA single owner pilot scenario. But I can immediately think of a work-around, for a GA case where there are multiple pilots...
I really suggest one stops worrying about this for the moment.
You (or anybody else) is not going to pick up a JAA PPL/IR or CPL/IR before this garbage is converted into law, so there is no point in working out what to do.
I thought about getting on with the 7 IR exams, but they may not be valid under some new EASA regime and they expire after 3 years anyway. A good friend of mine in Europe (a bizjet pilot) has a national (non JAA) ATPL for which he had to sit all the then exams but now, to continue flying, they are making him do the JAA ATPL and they have disregarded everything he has done previously, and he has to do the 14 exams from scratch. And this is a supposedly civilised country in N Europe... a gold plating load of t0ssers. He has spent months already and is still getting only low marks in the computer tests (like all real pilots he is not 21 - how many BA Nigels would pass the 14 do you think? 5%?).
Let's see what happens. The sh*t is really going to hit the fan, because even now perhaps 90% of affected pilots have no clue about this proposal.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NE England
Age: 53
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To take an extreme example suppose I, as a UK citizen, travel to a nameless country in darkest Africa where I obtain my nameless country HGV licence, (no test just pay $ 3 to the man behind the desk) and buy a lorry. The lorry is largely held together with string, the brakes are wooden blocks and the tyres are bald - all perfectly legal in nameless country. I return to the UK with it and use it to ferry my children and all of their class mates to and from school. The argument "But it's perfectly legal in nameless country where it is registered, it complies with their DoT requirements and it's much cheaper than your system" is not likely to cut much ice.
Sounds like a case of double standards to me.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, nobody and especially not EASA is suggesting that this is anything to do with safety.
The 'operator residence' thing is a pure job creation/protection measure for the usual axe grinders who have been compaigning against foreign reg ops for decades.
It has as much consistency as saying to a 5 year old 'You can't have that ice cream because you are wearing green trousers'.
The unelected politicians pushing this obviously couldn't care less what anybody thinks of them. What a cynical job...
The 'operator residence' thing is a pure job creation/protection measure for the usual axe grinders who have been compaigning against foreign reg ops for decades.
It has as much consistency as saying to a 5 year old 'You can't have that ice cream because you are wearing green trousers'.
The unelected politicians pushing this obviously couldn't care less what anybody thinks of them. What a cynical job...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10540. I am not worrying more concerned (subtle difference) My main feelings are ones of anger and injustice. I too think there is not a lot we can do until we know how this plays out. Really There should be 1000 pilots shouting and screaming and burning placards of EASA outside their offices with all the media in attendance 
Prpblem is we are such a fragmented bunch so it's all down to AOPA. Thinking about it a large Hot AIr Balloon landing outside their offices with " EASA stop destroying aviation in Europe " would generate the publicity 
Prpblem is we are such a fragmented bunch so it's all down to AOPA. Thinking about it a large Hot AIr Balloon landing outside their offices with " EASA stop destroying aviation in Europe " would generate the publicity
Last edited by Pace; 13th Oct 2010 at 12:12.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alleged voting date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing on the Commission's agenda, which met yesterday.
Nothing on the Council's agenda
Nothing on EASA's website, apart from the draft regulation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing on the Commission's agenda, which met yesterday.
Nothing on the Council's agenda
Nothing on EASA's website, apart from the draft regulation
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Implementing Rules are adopted by a Regulatory Committee consisting of officials from the Member State governments and chaired by officials of the Commission. There are lots of such committee meeting (on a wide range of subjects) each day and they do not appear to make the agendas for such meetings public.
If 13th/14th are hearings, I assume experts from industry or national delegates can contribute, but then nothing can be decided or adopted on these days, which means that we still have time to write to our MEP, or, if it is a pure Commission affair, to Siim Kallas, the transportation commissioner, or to your "national" commissioner, which for the UK would be Barones Ashton.
If it is a hearing organised by EASA, you would expect to find something on the EASA website, or otherwise on the website of the DG for Transportation, from which the agency EASA is depending. It doesn't make sense to have a hearing in secret.
So far, the only source is an (I)AOPA website. I cannot imagine, unless democracy is really astray in Europe, that such a far reaching and important decision can be taken without anyone seeing an official reference first.
Can we please have another attempt at finding an official European reference for this ? It will also help when you write to your commissioner (which incidentally, WILL reply, as part of good administrative practice).
Last edited by proudprivate; 14th Oct 2010 at 08:26. Reason: typos corrected
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One chap to write to might be Zoltan Kazatsay 
He is above EASA in authority and it very much sounds like he is well cheesed off with them.
EASA stuck a finger up to the higher authority and is making the best of its budget while the money is flowing... quite normal really; most people would do the same.
For such a public rebuff, he is suprisingly closely involved in EASA - see page 17 here. This is just weird... imagine publishing such a scathing press release and at the same time be attending EASA board meetings.
His email appears to be zoltan.kazatsay ( at ) ec.europa.eu
Well, if I was trying to push through something really controversial and nasty, that's exactly what I would do. Especially if I thought my days are numbered anyway...
It is a mistake to think of EASA as related to aviation. This is pure politics. Politics of power, expense budgets, envy, and pandering to anti American and FTO job creation/protection attitudes.
He is above EASA in authority and it very much sounds like he is well cheesed off with them.
EASA stuck a finger up to the higher authority and is making the best of its budget while the money is flowing... quite normal really; most people would do the same.
For such a public rebuff, he is suprisingly closely involved in EASA - see page 17 here. This is just weird... imagine publishing such a scathing press release and at the same time be attending EASA board meetings.
His email appears to be zoltan.kazatsay ( at ) ec.europa.eu
I cannot imagine, unless democracy is really astray in Europe, that such a far reaching and important decision can be taking without anyone seeing an official reference first.
It is a mistake to think of EASA as related to aviation. This is pure politics. Politics of power, expense budgets, envy, and pandering to anti American and FTO job creation/protection attitudes.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight training in the U.S. is done because most EASA countries do not have the extensive infrastructure to provide the flight training to would-be pilots
Don't agree with this comment, we loose people not due to lack of infrastructure but due to over regulation. As a JAR instructor I note that there is more demand for FAA IR instructors and I see US Instructors coming to Europe to work. I would prefer to see the European flight training market as strong and vibrant as the Americvan and I suspect that the way to achieve this is a rethink on the current status quo. We need strong and equal rules for European pilots and our jobs are just as important as any other countries citizens.
I am a big fan of USA approach to aviation and would love to see that approach replicated in Europe, we need sensible rules, tough enforcement of those rules and a more equal status in bilateral agreements.
Europe needs to show some pragmatic leadership and stop trying to re-invent the wheel. I feel that the EURO US balance is currently tipped too far in favour of USA and we need to get the balance right as it affects our jobs freedoms as European citizens and incomes.
Lets face it a loss of US trade and business income would be an increase in Euro trade and industry, I don't think many JAR qualified pilots will view the proposals as a bad thing for job creation in Eurozone.
I do think that the best solution is mutual recognition of licenses and a European training and licensing system that closely resembles the pragmatic FAA approach.
Don't agree with this comment, we loose people not due to lack of infrastructure but due to over regulation. As a JAR instructor I note that there is more demand for FAA IR instructors and I see US Instructors coming to Europe to work. I would prefer to see the European flight training market as strong and vibrant as the Americvan and I suspect that the way to achieve this is a rethink on the current status quo. We need strong and equal rules for European pilots and our jobs are just as important as any other countries citizens.
I am a big fan of USA approach to aviation and would love to see that approach replicated in Europe, we need sensible rules, tough enforcement of those rules and a more equal status in bilateral agreements.
Europe needs to show some pragmatic leadership and stop trying to re-invent the wheel. I feel that the EURO US balance is currently tipped too far in favour of USA and we need to get the balance right as it affects our jobs freedoms as European citizens and incomes.
Lets face it a loss of US trade and business income would be an increase in Euro trade and industry, I don't think many JAR qualified pilots will view the proposals as a bad thing for job creation in Eurozone.
I do think that the best solution is mutual recognition of licenses and a European training and licensing system that closely resembles the pragmatic FAA approach.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't agree with this comment
Of course, if one dispensed with the stupid and pointless requirement to use an FTO.....
Lets face it a loss of US trade and business income would be an increase in Euro trade and industry
I was flying VFR 2001-2006. That is how long it took me to get around to doing the IR, in between having a "life" etc. And I was not budget-limited in any way...
An IR is a huge project. For most adult pilots it is the biggest project they will do in their life. Make it harder and a lot of people won't bother. Especially as an IR is tightly linked to aircraft ownership (most people have no access to suitable hardware on the rental scene, and the few who have are paying ~ £300/hr for an SR22 which is about 3x the DOC of my similarly capable TB20).
If they are "instrument capable" they will just fly VFR in IMC if necessary (I know quite a bit about that too, like most pilots of capable hardware.................).
The problem with VFR is that much of virtually empty and unused European airspace, which under ICAO should be open to VFR, is closed due to local ATC stupidity, and that leads to low level flight, and low level flight (say below FL100) is often in IMC...
Making an IR harder is just stupid, no matter which way you look at it, and FTO job protection is way way way down the list of prioroties on this one.
I do think that the best solution is mutual recognition of licenses and a European training and licensing system that closely resembles the pragmatic FAA approach
The huge challenge on the "Euro PPL IR" is to develop a product which is basically like the FAA one (training requirements, no need for an FTO, appropriate theory, etc) but which none of the morons associate with the FAA one
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Below Radar
I cannot agree with you regarding training. The costs in europe are so high not just because of the cost of fuel and heavy taxes but also because of over regulation and the burocracy machine.
Flight training used to be carried out at our famous flight school at Oxford.
That was palmed out to the USA with Oxford students completing their ground studies at Oxford and then heading to the USA for their flight training.
The whole European system is so cost unfriendly that I am surprised anyone can afford to fly private in Europe.
Pace
I cannot agree with you regarding training. The costs in europe are so high not just because of the cost of fuel and heavy taxes but also because of over regulation and the burocracy machine.
Flight training used to be carried out at our famous flight school at Oxford.
That was palmed out to the USA with Oxford students completing their ground studies at Oxford and then heading to the USA for their flight training.
The whole European system is so cost unfriendly that I am surprised anyone can afford to fly private in Europe.
Pace