CAA proposal for ANO amendments for EASA

[englishal]

But by that token, someone straying VFR into Class A airspace is uninsured for the duration of that time when they are in the class A ? Or someone who is in Class D without a clearance is now uninsured. I think this is too complicated and insurance companies tend to look at the easy stuff. In fact, come to think of it, when we bought our aeroplane off the insurers to rebuild, it transpired that all the hoses in the engine bay were out of calendar time (we were going to replace anyway but it was interesting to note that they still paid out to the previous owner after his gear collapsed.)...

My insurance doc for our N reg stated we needed to be checked out with a "qualified flight instructor" before we could solo. When queried, they said a CRI was ok - despite a CRI or QFI not being recognised in FAALand.

(Funnily enough, they said that a buddy of mine, who is a Biz Jet pilot, with JAA and FAA ATP, thousands of hours, FAA CFI CFII and MEI was required to be checked out by this "qualified flying instructor" before he could solo. The really funny bit is that when I wanted to name the CRI on the insurance, they said no problem, but he will need to be checked out by a "Qualified Flight Instructor" - despite checking all of us out! In fact my FAA ATP buddy can now check him out...despite being checked out by him in the first place! - Nonsense the whole lot)....

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by englishal

But by that token, someone straying VFR into Class A airspace is uninsured for the duration of that time when they are in the class A ? Or someone who is in Class D without a clearance is now uninsured.

the specific risks seem to be getting ramp checked after executing an Instrument approach (which is the same risk an IMCr pilot holds if IFR operating outside the UK), the other issue is crashing during an Instrument
Approach from a filed IFR flight plan (it is easy to prove after the fact that the flight was planned to be not compliant with this particular aspect of EU law
- not withstanding that the flight would be 100% legal anywhere else in the world). We will need to wait for a case to be decided where the insurer elects not to pay and is then litigated to know the answer.

[IO540]

someone straying VFR into Class A airspace is uninsured for the duration of that time when they are in the class A

No, that is negligence, and negligence is insured.

The scenario where insurers tend to not pay out (if the claim is big enough for them to examine it closely, i.e. 5 figures plus) is where the flight was illegal before it got off the ground

- no license
- no IR (on an IFR flight plan)
- no CofA
- no medical

The above are believed to be actual cases. The other stuff which keeps coming up in pilot forums e.g.

- outside of W&B
- airspace-mandated equipment (e.g. ADF) not carried
- mandatory equipment proved INOP before departure
- actual dodgy maintenance
- legally dodgy maintenance (forged paperwork, etc)

have never (to my limited knowledge) featured in GA non-payouts, but could if proof was obtained.

The more common stuff e.g.

- not enough fuel
- "impossible" weather for flying
- didn't check weather before flying
- no planning

is just negligence/stupidity/incompetence/pilot error, and that is insured; if it wasn't then insurers could avoid paying in the vast majority of accidents

The other aspect is that under the UK Civil Aviation Act passenger liability hangs on establishing pilot/operator negligence, and I bet you that this will be a whole lot easier if the pilot gets previously lynched for not complying with some airspace rule.

[Pace]

not withstanding that the flight would be 100% legal anywhere else in the world). We will need to wait for a case to be decided where the insurer elects not to pay and is then litigated to know the answer.

MM

That would be very interesting ? Having to hold licences which are themselves illegal on the aircraft in question?

Those licences have about as much relevance as holding a train drivers licence alongside your flying licences and then having an insurance company refusing to pay out on the fact that you dont hold train drivers licences.

These are state requirements not aircraft requirements or safety based requirements.

As for legal? The avarage car driver breaks the law every time he sets foot in a car but car insurers pay out.

There has to be a seperation between state requirements which are technical infringements and licences and qualifications required to safely fly an aircraft and meet insurance requirements.

But really it just shows how ludicrous the whole EASA thing is and what a complete NON SENSE it is.

A supposed safety mandated organisation (joke) which has constructed regulations using devious loopholes and ridiculous non safety based manipulations to achieve a totally political end.
The whole organisation makes me sick.
Pace

[IO540]

Having to hold licences which are themselves illegal on the aircraft in question?

Those licences have about as much relevance as holding a train drivers licence alongside your flying licences and then having an insurance company refusing to pay out on the fact that you dont hold train drivers licences.

Yes; it is mad.

But it is objectively no less mad than requiring the carriage (the regs don't specify the use of) an ADF for IFR enroute. Or requiring the wearing of brown underpants; in fact those might be more applicable to some types of flying than an ADF.

IF, when all this comes to pass, I can get my insurer to confirm I am insured on my FAA papers alone, I will be happy to fly with that. But, I have found, insurers refuse to spend money on their own lawyers, and they even refuse to spend their own time to think about something you ask them. They just say you have to be "legal", which leaves them with all the options, which is exactly how they want it.

[proudprivate]

They just say you have to be "legal", which leaves them with all the options, which is exactly how they want it.

That is not necessarily true. For example, when an insurance broker is faced with losing some nice hull, 3rd party and pilot insurance premiums in the amount of say, £ 5000 or even £ 10000 per annum (I wish I had that shiny armour), it might be worthwile to negotiate with them. It is the insurance contract that counts, not whether the activity is legal.

For example, I know of insurance companies that offer employer's insurance for "domestic staff", even when there is no contract and everything is paid under the table. At the end of the day, the letter of the contract stands, unless the contract is made explicitly void by law. So the contract is the place to look for license requirements, brown underwear and the slaughtered goat in the back.

Undoubtedly many insurance companies will lose out if this terrrible legislative proposal were to make it past the EP Transport Committee. Are Aviabel / BNP Paribas / Global Aerospace / Hayward Aviation etc... aware of what the Neazis are up to ?

Not a bad idea to call your insurance company now and ask them what their stance is going to be and if they don't like what's coming, would they mind informing the transport minister of their thoughts etc...

Meanwhile, back in Belgium :

Aerials :
Someone just told me that the Transport Minister to contact is Theresa Villiers, as opposed to Philip Hammond, but you get the jest of it.

[IO540]

unless the contract is made explicitly void by law

Yes, and my insurance is so.

I don't know if every UK aviation policy requires the flight to be "legal" (the wording is a bit longer than that, along the lines of complying with all licensing and airworthiness requirements) but I think most of them do.

Anyway, Haywards own most of the UK GA market

[S-Works]

That would be very interesting ? Having to hold licences which are themselves illegal on the aircraft in question?

They are not illegal. Just not valid. There is a difference. You wont be required to replace your FAA licence, just have a corresponding European licence to meet the airspace requirements.

[Pace]

Bose

Sorry you are of course correct! Illegal if used in any form, shape or manner to fly an FAA aircraft Across Europe or the world.

On the basis of this discussion on insurance an EASA licence is itself illegal if used to fly throughout Europe.

You wont be required to replace your FAA licence, just have a corresponding European licence to meet the airspace requirements.

WHY??? do those airspace requirements expect a Brazilian FAA ATP to meet those requirements.It is blatant discrimination something which distastful in any other walk of life. May I add very expensive discrimination.



Pace

[Pace]

Silvaire

Good luck with the westward movement of the former east block

You said it Very crafty of Russia! forget the cold war just give Russia in big chunks to Europe and take over Europe through the back door that way

Pace

[S-Works]

On the basis of this discussion on insurance an EASA licence is itself illegal if used to fly throughout Europe

Yes but no one is saying that you have to replace your FAA certificate with an EASA certificate to fly an N Reg. You still have to hold your FAA Certificate and keep it valid so there is no relevance to discussing insurance.

The issue is around the fact that you will have to have an EASA licence that duplicates your FAA privileges in order to operate in EASA airspace in an N reg aircraft. In fact it is not restricted to the N reg it is an ICAO non EASA licence and aircraft.

So if we are going to debate the issue it needs to be around the actual facts rather than a tangent!

I don't agree with the dual licence requirements at all as I do not see a safety case for them in any shape or form and yet it is in the name of safety oversight that EASA or claiming they need this.

[Justiciar]

I think it is interesting that EASA appear to encourage the opposite, i.e. pilots will be "legal" if they fly N reg in Europe with a lapsed/expired/revoked FAA licence (no BFR) provided they have an EASA licence which is valid

[421C]

I think it is interesting that EASA appear to encourage the opposite, i.e. pilots will be "legal" if they fly N reg in Europe with a lapsed/expired/revoked FAA licence (no BFR) provided they have an EASA licence which is valid

WHY??? do those airspace requirements expect a Brazilian FAA ATP to meet those requirements.It is blatant discrimination something which distastful in any other walk of life. May I add very expensive discrimination

Its relevant if the FAA certificated owner/pilots concerned consider the EU licensing law unenforceable, and continue operations as-is. Its certainly looks that way to me unless the pilot's own national government assigns police to investigate and verify residency, after a ramp check identifies an FAA-certificated individual that they suspect is resident in Europe

I am sorry to write what I am sure will be annoyingly blunt comments. I think you are being delusional on some aspects of the EASA FRA regulation.

1. It is not in conflict with any FAA or insurance regulation. This is a simple point. EASA are not "encouraging" anyone to fly a US aircraft without current and valid qualifications. They are overlaying their own requirements. If you operate a US registered aircraft you must comply with 14CFR. If you are resident in the EU, you must meet additional EASA requirements. In respect of maintenance and operations, these are near zero. The critical one is the FCL requirement.

2. The EASA rule I believe is highly enforceable, to the extent that any regulation is. Let's face it, a pilot may fly with a valid medical but know he has a condition which renders him unfit, or with maintenance paperwork up to date and an aircraft which would pass a ramp inspection, but knowing there is an unairworthy condition etc etc. Some regulations are hard to enforce. This one isn't. A person's residency (EU or not) is not some vague and grey thing for 99% of people. All a ramp inspector has to do is get you to sign a declaration. At that point you can either own-up or lie. I don't believe anyone is going to take this risk flight after flight. It's just silly to suggest it. There is a question about the definition of "operator", which I suspect would easily be resolved to capture any bona-fide private or group flying.

3. As much as I don't like it, the EASA rules are not "discrimination" in any reasonable person's usage of the word. They are simply unneccesary over-regulation. (Wiki) 'Discrimination' is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. All EU residents are treated exactly the same: if they want to operate an airplane in the EU, they need an EU qualification. If that airplane happens to be on a 3rd country register, they also need to meet the 3rd country requirements. I am afraid trying to call this "discrimination" weakens rather than strenghtens the case. I think most reasonable people (say an MEP you wrote to) would dismiss it as false hyperbole and it would reduce the credibility of any argument you make. Discrimination is a serious matter. Unfair and unreasonable over-regulation is too. But don't mix them.

Let me suggest something to get annoyed about. It is a fact that European law since 2008 has imposed a requirement that EU residents operating 3rd country aircraft shall comply with EASA FCL. It is not worth contesting this.

However, what is worth contesting is the implementation of these requirements in Part FCL and the way that EU/EASA stakeholders have replied to concerns about the requirment, the FAA IR issue in particular. The general tenor of those replies is "we have to do it because of the Basic Regulation". This is disengenuous, often to the point of dishonesty. The FRA community are not opposing the BR - they are opposing the specific implementation in EASA FCL. I believe it is totally false for someone to claim EASA "had to" impose the restrictions in the way it has done. The FCL regulation could simply have said that 3rd country IRs could be added to an EASA licence restricted to 3rd country aircraft - exactly as it does with 3rd country type ratings. It could have (for the case of a commercial pilot flying a private aicraft) made the Annex III validation of a 3rd country CPL for use on 3rd country private aircraft a simple matter. It could have made the validation last indefinitely rather than 1 year. The list is endless.

The point is that EASA FCL contains a very onerous implementation of the Basic Regulation. There has been zero transparency in the debate over what this implementation should be - beyond the cursory replies to comment in the EASA CRD. There is no safety case, or any case, published to impose this huge (perhaps crippling) burden. That is what we should be annoyed about, and when stakeholders dishonestly hide behind "we are only obeying the Basic Regulation". If you write to your MEP, tell him that he or she will get the reply that the BR mandates the FRA restrictions, and anticipate this. Have them ask what case was established to select the current, very onerous implementation amongst the many better options which would have been equally consistent with the BR.


brgds
421C

[Justiciar]

Perhaps I did not express myself very well. My point is this: by international rules and by US law a pilot of an N reg aircraft must have a valid FAA licence, passed a BFR and hold a current FAA medical applicable to the type of flying he is doing. The imposition of a second layer of licensing which is not required in any other jurisdiction in the world means that as far as EASA land is concerned a pilot may be flying legally even though by any other international standard he may be illegal. This as a matter of principle seems wrong and violates what courts in international terms refer to as the comity of nations.

To make this work officials will it appears have to concentrate on enforcing EASA rules at the expense of the rules of the state of registry of the aircraft.

A person's residency (EU or not) is not some vague and grey thing for 99% of people. All a ramp inspector has to do is get you to sign a declaration. At that point you can either own-up or lie. I don't believe anyone is going to take this risk flight after flight. It's just silly to suggest it. There is a question about the definition of "operator", which I suspect would easily be resolved to capture any bona-fide private or group flying.

I don't think you can make such a sweeping statement without some evidence to back it up. The sort of people who will be caught by these rules are just the sort of people likely to have ambiguity over their residence or where they are established. So, if a pilot is asked to sign a declaration and refuses, the sanction is what? He has an address in New York and one in London! So far this year 60% of his time has been spent in London but his intent is to spend the rest of the year in New York. Where is he resident for these purposes? If last year most of his time was spent in New York is he resident their even though this year he may spend most of his time in London. A person may be resident or established in one state even if he lives most of his time in another, as his intention is always to be considered a resident of the first state. This is a concept known as domicile, which exists in common law jurisdictions but not in continental systems. One can go on and on. But, in the absence of a definition of when someone is deemed to be resident in or out of the EU how is a pilot to know and more importantly how is the official trying to enforce this to know. It will be a very subjective judgment in many cases.

[S-Works]

If last year most of his time was spent in New York is he resident their even though this year he may spend most

Moot point though as the minority who can claim this is infitesimally small. This legislation effects the majority of average N reg flyers who I am pretty sure don't keep apartments in New York........

The majority of N reg operators are ordinary people operating under a flag of convenience generally for the purposes of an IR. It is this people who are getting caught up in this.

[BEagle]

Originally we were told that it was the intention of EASA to make it 'more attractive' to operate an aircraft on a European register than on a 3rd country register.

It soon became obvious that the lying bunch of €urocratic shysters couldn't deliver on that, so they turned to compulsion. Or should that read blackmail.

Now we learn that, far from the 2-3000 pilots EASA thought this might affect, the figure is around 68000.

The whole damn nonsense of Regulation 216/2008 needs to be thrown in the bin and EASA needs to be scrapped. Then a more reasoned fresh start made. But regrettably that's somewhat porcovolant, so we must continue the political lobbying and public exposure of EASA madness.

[Pace]

Justiclair

How many N reg pilots in Europe have the luxury of spending big chunks of time in New York?
Most own a home in Europe and are probably employed not far from that home. They pay their taxes in Europe. Their Kids go to school in Europe. They bank in Europe
At best they may hold some sort of time share again in Europe.
They will be registered to a Doctor in Europe.

The government will know every detail about them even what colout socks they wear.

The guy who flits transcontinental in the way you describe probably makes up a fraction of a percent of N reg pilots in Europe.
Secondly the onus would probably be put on the pilot to prove he is not an EC resident rather than the authorities proving he is!

What 421C says makes a lot of sense but there has to be a concerted and powerful effort.

A few of us moaners in these forums wont hack it.

What is AOPAs latest moves and advice on the N reg situation and where we go from here to actually achieve something rather the rather disjointed firing off we are all displaying me included.

Pace

[421C]

as far as EASA land is concerned a pilot may be flying legally even though by any other international standard he may be illegal

No. It is simple. EASA are adding and not substituting. If you fly a 3rd country aircraft in Europe complaint with EASA but not the state of registry you are still illegal.

This as a matter of principle seems wrong and violates what courts in international terms refer to as the comity of nations.

It doesn't. There is vast precedent in ICAO and international law that countries have sovereignity over their airspace, and can impose regulations on their citizens, including not permitting them to operate 3rd country aircraft within their home state. I am sorry. There are plenty of, what seem to me, valid arguments, against what EASA are doing and "violating the comity of nations" isn't one of them. Isn't violating the rights of citizens not to have bad, politically-motivated regulation imposed on them enough?

I don't think you can make such a sweeping statement without some evidence to back it up. The sort of people who will be caught by these rules are just the sort of people likely to have ambiguity over their residence or where they are established. So, if a pilot is asked to sign a declaration and refuses, the sanction is what? He has an address in New York and one in London! So far this year 60% of his time has been spent in London but his intent is to spend the rest of the year in New York. Where is he resident for these purposes?

The reason I said 99% is that I think it reasonably captures the fact that a great majority of people impacted are unambiguously resident in the EU. Where is your evidence for the sweeping claim that "the sort of people who will be caught by these rules are just the sort of people likely to have ambiguity over their residence"? Hey, if people aren't resident in the EU and can establish reasonable grounds for this, I suspect they have nothing to worry about. It's the rest who are worried.

[IO540]

This has all been argued before...

Justiciar is right in that a lot of people do have ambiguous "residence". And there is a strong correlation between pilots of upmarket aircraft and people with an ambiguous residence. Half the TBM/bizjet owners I see have a house in Jersey, etc.

So it is the low end of GA that is going to get caught up.

This cannot be what EASA intended, because - to the America haters in Brussels - the most provocative part of GA (turboprops and jets) will carry on as before. So why are they doing it? There is no possible honest policy behind this. It is like an income tax collection system where everybody whose taxable income is above £1M is exempt from paying income tax (they have that in Greece, I believe). This whole thing is the work of several powerful, crooked, dishonest and deceitful individuals running a private agenda within the EU machine.

As to actual enforcement, there is absolutely no reason to think that anybody on the ramp is going to give a flying **** about some pilot's residence any more than they currently give a flying **** about whether he carries an ADF and a DME, having landed off an IFR flight plan. In fact the pilot's residence is a good one level of abstraction removed from airspace requirements which are crystal clear, documented in every AIP, and have been crystal clear since Day 1 (decades).

If they ask you to sign a form saying you are non EU resident you just sign it... so what? The vast majority of the forms one has to sign at a big foreign airport, or when renting a car, etc, are unreadable anyway. Get yourself a mailbox in Jersey and use that address. The penalty is going to be zero because the advantage you obtained by doing that is zero.

The only thing driving compliance will be the tendency of pilots to self police, for insurance purposes. And that will be only for pilots who see themselves as clearly caught up in whatever the final wording is.

It took me 5 minutes to work out a perfectly effective way around the 2005 DfT reg on booting out an N-reg after 90 days' parking on UK soil. It took me a similar amount of time to work out a way for a suitably structured syndicate to do the same under the new regs. And there are far better brains than me out there.

[421C]

Then we have nothing to worry about.....

With respect IO, what is the point of all this evasion/avoidance stuff? Either the EASA regs will not have a practical impact on FRA operators or they will. I happen to believe the latter.

The sort of people who will be caught by these rules are just the sort of people likely to have ambiguity over their residence

I disagree. I think the main intention of the FRA regs was to capture low-end GA. Turbine FRA have always been part of the scene in Europe. I believe it was the growth of light SEP on foreign registers that triggered some of the moves against FRA, perhaps when regulators realised the majority of non-training GA was going to end up on the N, flown by FAA IRs.