Jason, I am sure you have researched this, and I agree that I believe I know what the intention of the rule is (to shaft N reg pilots essentially without causing a diplomatic crisis). Can you post some of what you have found out please, because I really don’t see how this is absolutely enforceable for all cases. Thanks.
Alan,
Nothing is ever absolutely enforceable however the problem that we will have is that should some ramp check take place, it could be a problem. And based on how operator is typically seen (person who controls where and when and with whom an aircraft travels), a private owner who lives in the EU will be hard pressed to argue that they are not the operator. I think a good test is whether you are treated as a resident for tax purposes (not domiciled, resident). If you are then it is hard to say you aren’t based in the EU.
Of course if Britain leaves the EU all bets are off.
we should all be honest with ourselves about the actual risk we are taking
What would the consequences be for failing a ramp check? eg Flying FAA IFR with current FAA IR licence but EASA IR not held after April 2015?
At the very least, the pilot would be grounded and have to find someone else to fly it home.
But penalties could be anything from an admonishment (and requirement to get at least an EASA PPL before flying it VFR again) to a fine to loss of the aircraft?
Are these penalties dependent on the air law (ANO) of each individual country, rather than being European standard?
I’m not suggesting anyone should break the law but presumably initially penalities would be on the minimum side.
Peter was right about the “fear” thing working.
My view (as usual) is that it could not be determined at a ramp check legality of a flight unless there is an obvious discrepancy. We talk about Tax resident – how can this be proved at a ramp check? We talk about passports – surely this is irrelevant as you can easily be a brit based in the USA over on holiday. We talk about aircraft ownership – N reg’s are owned by a US trust, there may be more than one actual owner. A pilot of an N reg aeroplane who holds an FAA Certificate and IR is legal in all respects to act as pilot in command of that aeroplane under IFR, UNLESS the operator is EU based. So the Ramp check will have to prove the “operator” is EU or Non EU based, and that task will be next to impossible because no one knows absolutely what “the operator” means.
The to complicate matters further you have FAA IR holders who also hold an EASA (no IR) certificate, like myself. Would they, at a ramp check, check your flight rules too? I can imagine a CAA inspector might, in the same was as an FAA inspector might, but at a casual ramp check this wouldn’t be checked.
To muddy waters even further, how about someone with FAA IR and IMC (Note to moderators: This forum doesn’t accept an R in brackets like IR IR-Restricted) on the EASA certificate. Just say for a minute you flew back from Jersey and you flew in Q41 and shot an approach into Bournemouth. Would it be determined that the flight was illegal and by whom?
Forgive me, but I like clear rules! In law it should be stated absolutely unequivocally and clearly defined. This law is completely open to interpretation and whether or not that interpretation has legal standing we will never know until someone is prosecuted.
Anyway I agree it is not worth the risk (so EASA have won) and I will convert my IR to the CBM IR when I get the opportunity within the next 2 years.
I can’t believe any EU country is going to be enforcing this on the ramp. It’s too damn complicated to establish the pilot’s residence, in many cases, especially with pilots. I know so many pilots who move around the place. You would only need to pull out a Bolivian passport and you would confuse the hell out of any airport policeman. It would need a system where a policeman can operate “solo” and can effectively harrass people. I cannot see anybody attacking this unless there is an organised action, ordered from the top, and with briefing packs for the policemen telling them what to look for. I think this for N Europe this would be possible in France, maybe Germany, and nobody is going to give a damn in S Europe.
The problem would be with insurance – if you don’t comply with [somebody’s interpretation of] EASA FCL then your insurer can avoid a payout because he can say you were not licensed to do the flight. I doubt they would bother however unless it was a big claim. Last year I phoned up the head of UK’s biggest GA insurer and asked him if he knew what this “operator” business means and he said he has no idea and doesn’t know anybody who has any idea. I asked him if he would avoid a payout and he said that they would not, if nobody knows what this means. The context here was that the CAA (who I spoke to earlier) told me they didn’t have a definition for it either.
So if you think you have a non EU operator, tell your insurance company in full. It’s going to be difficult for them to not pay out after that.
of that aeroplane under IFR
Remember the EASA stuff also applies at the plain-PPL level so an N-reg pilot who has an FAA PPL and no EASA PPL is also in the same situation. I think the 100hr route is his simplest option.
This forum doesn’t accept an R in brackets like IR IR-Restricted
Yes I know… Converting ( R ) and ( C ) – without the spaces – into the special characters (C) (R) is one of the functions of the text processor, which we probably don’t want on EuroGA… Just use spaces around the C or R.
Jason mentions that mutual licence recognition is not possible under US law, but isn’t there a mutual recognition arrangement already in place between the US and Canada?
Neil, I believe that is a simple conversion process not recognition. By recognition I mean allowing you to fly their aircraft on an EASA licence and vice versa.
Wouldn’t conversion be just as good?
The FAA already allows that. If EASA allowed the same ie a reverse 61.75, it would be fine. But that would negate the whole point of the recent IR changes so seems unlikely.
