EASA plans to hit European pilots flying on US licenses

P

peter-h

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
613
Location
UK
Display Name
Display name:
peter-h
http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/r/doc/CR ... nnexes.pdf

Page 18 etc.

This is an update of the previous proposal (pages 159-161)
http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc ... 08-17b.pdf

The full stuff is here
http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/r/r_crd.php
but it is thousands of pages. The "c" PDFs (CRC "c") are EASA comments to the responses. Their proposals have been absolutely comprehensively trashed by so many people, starting with the various national CAAs (you can start reading here
http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/r/doc/CR ... rt%20A.pdf
) but they still seem to be living in an alternate universe which only occassionally intersects this one.

Put simply, this proposes to require an EASA license for all operations in Europe by European resident pilots.

So, if you are an FAA PPL/IR (like a few thousand pilots of N-reg aircraft in Europe) then you will have to do the full 50 hours and 7 exams of the JAA IR training.

If you are an FAA CPL/IR (like many business jet pilots in Europe flying various aircraft registers e.g. N-reg, VP-reg etc) then you will have to do 55hrs for the IR plus 20 or so for the CPL plus 14 JAA exams.

NO CREDIT will be allowed for any previous qualifications so a 20,000hr FAA ATP who is resident in Europe or whose employer is resident in Europe, wanting to fly in Europe, will have to get through this.

Now, I know this sounds incredible but this proposal has been in the pipeline for a few years, has been through the comment/response period, and is heading for implementation for 2012.

EASA has apparently been trying to do a bilateral treaty with the FAA on mutual license recognition, but IMHO it is unlikely that in the current U.S. security climate the FAA is going to modify Part 61 to allow U.S. aircraft to be flown within the USA on foreign licenses. They deal with this by a very easy ICAO license validation (61.75) process but EASA pretends this doesn't exist and that a treaty is the only method acceptable to the Europeans.

The best thing anybody here can do is spread the news, to everybody involved in higher end operations (jets etc), to manufacturers of said heavy iron, and to U.S. politicians who are involved with European aircraft purchases e.g. purchases of Airbus aircraft.

I think Americans would be interested in knowing that Europe is treating U.S. licensed pilots in this manner (stripping them of all their privileges, purely because they are resident in Europe) while trying to sell Airbuses to America.

The only way to stop this EASA attack on U.S. licensed pilots is at the top political level. EASA can be stopped but only by an order from the European Commission.
 
Peter:

Does this mean that, if I were to love in the EuroZone on a temporary basis (as in, no plan to permanently relocate or change citizenship- perhaps as an expat employee), I would not be allowed to exercise the privileges of my FAA-issued certificate, flying my N-reg Bonanza?

---

Also, as a matter of idle curiosity: has there been a spate of unsafe operations in Europe, such ops attributable to holders of the apparently-inadequate FAA certificates?
 
I can't tell you how much the EASA sucks - sometime I have the feeling that they bring up new regulations just to say "hey look, we did something". Their other goal seems to be to get rid of this 'damned' general aviation as soon a possible. :(

You won't believe what restrictions the German airfields have to live with, mainly because of 'noise abatement'. Many have been closed over the last years, while it is in fact impossible to open a new one.
 
@Peter:

where did you read that EU residents will not be allowed to fly N-registered airplanes with a FAA license any more? All I found during a quick search was the regulation of how the validation of foreign licenses will work.
 
if I were to love in the EuroZone on a temporary basis (as in, no plan to permanently relocate or change citizenship- perhaps as an expat employee), I would not be allowed to exercise the privileges of my FAA-issued certificate, flying my N-reg Bonanza?
Click to expand...
That would be OK.

They have not defined "residence"... yet.

Also, as a matter of idle curiosity: has there been a spate of unsafe operations in Europe, such ops attributable to holders of the apparently-inadequate FAA certificates?
Click to expand...
No. Lots of people in the regulatory apparatus have looked for statistical evidence but nobody has found any.

EASA are doing this because they don't like the use of foreign licenses and aircraft.

Previous moves (France and UK) were to ban long term parking but these were abandoned.
where did you read that EU residents will not be allowed to fly N-registered airplanes with a FAA license any more?
Click to expand...
There is a bit there about residence of the operator. If EU resident, then EU licenses will be required. It is under "third country aircraft" somewhere. It is a lot of pages to go through.
 
A more detailed reply:

The concern stems from the wording of EC Regulation 216/2008 (better known as the "Basic Regulation"). This is wide-ranging legislation that essentially governs the regulation of all civil aviation in the EU. Amongst other things, it establishes EASA. It is long and tedious. Focussing solely on pilot licensing aspects:

1. By Article 2 paragraph 1(c) the regulation applies to aircraft "registered in a third country and used ... into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community". In other words if I am an operator established within the EU then my aircraft has to comply with the regs, no matter what its flag of registration. "Operator" is defined as "any legal or natural person, operating or proposing to operate one or more aircraft" - circular perhaps, but wide.

2. By Article 2 paragraph 2, "personnel involved in the operations of aircraft referred to in paragraph 1 ...(c) ... shall comply with this Regulation". In other words, if I fly an aircraft whose operator is established within the EU then I have to comply with the regs too.

3. Just in case that wasn't enough, Article 2 paragraph 3 provides that "Operations of aircraft referred to in paragraph 1... (c) ... shall comply with this Regulation".

4. Taken together, the upshot of the above provisions is that one can't opt out of EASA merely on the basis that one has N-reg planes and currently flies around under the privileges of FAA licences; to opt out one would need an aircraft whose operator resided outside the EU. It may be possible to set up some structure whereby the plane is operated by a non-EU resident...

5. Assuming that one's aircraft is operated by an EU-based operator (and one is therefore subject to the Basic Regulation), one needs to be licensed to fly in accordance with Article 7. Paragraph 1 of Article 7 states that "Pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) [1(c) includes EU-operated N-reg planes] ... shall comply with the relevant 'essential requirements' laid down in Annex III". Annex III is high-level stuff; what it means in practice an how it relates to the training and qualification route that FAA licence holders have gone down remains to be seen. Of more immediate practical concern is Article 7 paragraph 2: "except when under training, a person may only act as pilot if he or she holds a licence and a medical certificate appropriate to the operation to be performed". It is tolerably clear from the context that "licence" and "medical certificate" mean EASA licence and EASA medical certificate and not (for example) an FAA one.

6. But not all the news is bad. Article 7 paragraph 2 also stipulates that the requirements for licence and medical certificate issuance "may be satisfied by the acceptance of licences and medical certificates issued by or on behalf of a third country as far as pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(c) are concerned". Note that it does NOT say: "... may be satisfied by licences and medical certificates issued by ..."; the word "acceptance" is key. EASA could decide to accept FAA licences. But will it? EASA have made it clear that they will accept FAA licenses only via a mutual license acceptance treaty with the FAA. The FAA has a simple system for issuing 61.75 validations, but EASA pretends this does not exist; a treaty is their only acceptable means of doing this. And I don't think the FAA will go along with a treaty; firstly Europe is hardly significant in the global aviation picture, and secondly there is the present U.S. domestic security climate.

7. Article 12 paragraph 1, provides that "By way of derogation from the provision of this Regulation and its implementing rules, the Agency or the aviation authorities in the Member State may issue certificates on the basis of certificates issued by aeronautical authorities of a third country, as provided for in recognition agreements between the Community and that third country". This does not relate only to 4(1)(c) aircraft but more generally; i.e. this offers the possibility of mutual validation of licences. Whether it helps EU-based FAA licence holders depends on what (if any) recognition agreements are reached. But in principle, at least, it provides another route for existing privileges to remain.

We - EU residents - probably cannot avoid being covered by the Basic Regulation and therefore cannot avoid being EASA regulated. What that means in practice depends on what EASA choose to do. At one extreme we will have to rip up our licences and train all over again; at the other extreme, all FAA licences will be accepted.

Currently, in the EU, one can convert an ICAO IR to a JAA IR using the "15 hour conversion route" which means sitting all 7 (or 14 for a CPL/IR) exams and doing 15hrs of training (more if converting a CPL) and the JAA IR checkride. This leads to a pragmatic wait-and-see approach, with a key issue being the timing of any implementation: will we be able to judge what EASA is going to do before there is any chance of them killing off the current conversion route. If they killed off the conversion route (and that is indeed their current proposal) then an IR conversion would mean 50/55 (SE/ME) hours of training. The implementation date is somewhere in 2012 but may well slip.
 
icao to FAA license conversion

i have ICAO cpl licence with 737ng endorsement and about 1700 hrs on type. And i just completed my check ride of FAA ATP on 737ng simulator . And when i asked the school that will i get ATP with 737ng endorsement with license (which i presumed i will ), they just refused it and told me that i will just get ATP with multiengine land on it ..no 737ng.
now i m so confused and they offered me another course (TYPE RATING )for around 9000usd for 737ng endorsement on my FAA ATP. i don't understand, when i have already 737ng endorsement in my ICAO cpl with 737ng and have so many hours on type, why not rating just transfer from my other license and why school offering me so expensive course again. Now is there any rule which will by pass this issue and get me endorsement on 737ng.
please help !!!!!!!
 
There are hundreds if not thousands of aircraft based in Europe with FAA registration to dodge EASA's maintenance rules.
 
Re: icao to FAA license conversion

flyflyboy said:
i have ICAO cpl licence with 737ng endorsement and about 1700 hrs on type. And i just completed my check ride of FAA ATP on 737ng simulator . And when i asked the school that will i get ATP with 737ng endorsement with license (which i presumed i will ), they just refused it and told me that i will just get ATP with multiengine land on it ..no 737ng.
now i m so confused and they offered me another course (TYPE RATING )for around 9000usd for 737ng endorsement on my FAA ATP. i don't understand, when i have already 737ng endorsement in my ICAO cpl with 737ng and have so many hours on type, why not rating just transfer from my other license and why school offering me so expensive course again. Now is there any rule which will by pass this issue and get me endorsement on 737ng.
please help !!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Welcome to POA!!!:cheers:

You might want to start a new thread that is specifically about your issue rather than digging up a four year old dead thread that is vaguely related...
How many posts do you have to have before you can start a new thread? Anyone?
 
Just an update on the thread as the implementing dates for the EASA Crew licencing rules have been postponed from 2012 to 2014 and now to 2015.

Just as a reminder and to put it in a simple way and to make certain all have understood the bright idea behind the EASA crew licencing rule:

It does make the privileges of a Pilot in command depend on where he lives!
YES - That is all it means.

You want to conduct a "N"ovember registered aircraft and you reside in the E.U, then you need an E.U pilot licence.

You reside outside of the E.U: You just need your F.A.A licence and you're not concerned!

Very smart no?! What a brilliant idea, so now my good friends 10 miles away from me in Monaco, (which is not Europe) can conduct business as usual but for me, leaving in the E.U I've got to retake all my E.U ATP exams.

What a joke! Fully in line with the competency of the EASA actors and E.U commission people from whom we have been able to appreciate the efficiency over the last 2 decades!

Luckily, there are several ways around the most stupid ruling... and it will NEVER be applicable ;-)


Fly Safe, Be Happy,
 
peter-h said:
That would be OK.

They have not defined "residence"... yet.

No. Lots of people in the regulatory apparatus have looked for statistical evidence but nobody has found any.

EASA are doing this because they don't like the use of foreign licenses and aircraft.

Previous moves (France and UK) were to ban long term parking but these were abandoned.
There is a bit there about residence of the operator. If EU resident, then EU licenses will be required. It is under "third country aircraft" somewhere. It is a lot of pages to go through.
Click to expand...


Both for taxation and qualification reasons. One of the big issues I recall was the difference in IFR recurrency requirements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top