FAA IR for Europe based pilots

@Alanb ..

in your example you talk about your wife and Joe Bloggs… Both are UK residents (judging from the way you present it) and thus both will need EASA licenses as far as I understand.

Let’s hope the BASA will sorten some of the issues.. and true.. EASA is wrong for having created the mess in the first place.. Thanks mr Gouddou or should we say Golddiger.

Both are UK residents (judging from the way you present it) and thus both will need EASA licenses as far as I understand.

This is the interesting part, to me. EASA uses the location of the “operator” to delineate whether the FAA pilot, flying an N-registered plane, requires their additional/redundant EASA licence within EASA territory. Obviously in commercial air transport (where one assumes EASA is focused) the word ‘operator’ means the owner or lease holder for the aircraft. In more common everyday English language usage, the ‘operator’ of a vehicle more often means the person at the controls. To my knowledge, EASA has never defined what they mean and so its interesting to conjecture on their intent: do they intend that since the ‘operator’ in the air transport sense hires the pilots, the operator is therefore responsible for pilot training, and only in their own jurisdiction? That would make logical sense. Or do they intend that anybody who lives in the EU, who flies any N-registered plane in the EU should be licensed by EASA for that flight? That would on the other hand align with EASA’s political motivation.

I’m assuming EASA will clarify their intent someday – which I can imagine they may have forgotten by now since they have a track record of imprecise, over-complex, unprofessional, and ambiguous regulation. My own intent is to never have official EU residency, having been established elsewhere for a long time. However, years from now circumstances may drive me in that direction for part time stays – in which case I’ll do all my PPL flying outside of the EU if it requires an EASA licence.

I have come across two schools of thought on why EASA used the word “operator”.

One is that the got very clever lawyers to work out a cunning and brilliant definition.

The other is that they (essentially) worked it out in a bar in Cologne.

I know a few UK lawyers, some specialising in aviation, who all think it was done in a bar. I know just 1 person who thinks it is something very clever.

Personally I think it was worked out in a bar. It has after all been widely reported as having been a “private project” of 3-4 people inside EASA.

However, and a couple of lawyers have pointed this out to me, much of European law is simply badly drafted. The UK has a centuries old tradition of lawmaking and going through stuff carefully before it reaches the books. Consequently the UK has almost no laws which are unclear. Plenty which people don’t like, of course, but there is very little which is ambiguous. Europe doesn’t have this tradition so a lot of crap reaches the books.

So this could just be a bunch of people in Cologne and Brussels doing their best…

EASA employs a large number of expats on ~ €100k and for that money these will be very competent people, but they have taken on a huge amount of work, much of which is beyond their understanding. Only a few people there have ever flown a plane.

The enforcement of this stuff will be down to the national Courts and there is every indication that nobody will want to be testing it. I asked a senior UK CAA person last year whether he knows what that EASA phrase means and his reply was that he has no idea and EASA hasn’t told them.

in your example you talk about your wife and Joe Bloggs… Both are UK residents (judging from the way you present it) and thus both will need EASA licenses as far as I understand.

Yes I suppose that is one way to look at it. However, if, for example the aeroplane was owned by the US trust company and the “real” owner was the wife or Joe Blogs who each have the facility to register their ownership abroad, then presumably the “operator” of the aeroplane is no longer in the EU?

Clearly the operator cannot directly mean “pilot” because if it did then you suddenly have a number of pilots flying for foreign air carriers but residing in the UK (for example) who would be out of a job.

EASA could have made it very easy for everyone by including one phrase….“For aircraft over 5700 Kg engaged in Aerial Work or Commercial Air Transport”…….

Alan, your scenario is clearly an operator in the EU. The trust is irrelevant. Passports are also irrelevant.

Is it “clear” though? Would they decide it is clear at a Ramp Check? Who would decide if it is “clear”?

I am guessing the ONLY way it could be decided is in the event of a court case. How is residency tested in the UK? By what rules does one become a “resident” of the UK? Is it tax residency, owning a house, or what. I spend more than 200 days out of the UK each year…..

I don’t think it is as clear cut as imagined.

It’s as clear as mud to anybody who understands the English language and the ambiguity of the term ‘operator’ in English. An unambiguous statement by EASA on their intent and legal basis would be a good idea, one that could itself be reviewed for legality at the EU level. You’d hope a professional EASA would want to be clear, but their actions say otherwise – political power through fear and ambiguity is apparently fine with them.

Philtheflyer wrote:

I have recently passed the FAA IR Theory exam

Well done Phil, I left the test centre at FSI before you were finished and I wondered how you did! I am following pretty much the same route as you except I am using a dual EASA/FAA CPL CFII in my N reg….and yes, I have the dft approval….I am going down to Le Touquet tomorrow in preparation for my private and instrument check rides with Capt Hughston….am a bit nervous!

Anthony

Under faa rules I believe the operator is He who decides that the aircraft will fly (the reason andthe decision) ..

In Alan’s example the operator is also the pilot .. Thus …

The trust is not the operator.

No idea how EASA will look at this .. But I believe it will be rather close to the FAA definition.