Jonzarno – did you find every UK firm willing to go along with Mike’s process?
It is very impressive but …. politically it must be “interesting”.
Do you know if the most high profile UK name (RGV) is known to go along with it?
Peter
My last two annuals were done by RGV and managed by Savvy.
I have always found RGV to be very professional and have been happy with their service. Their professionalism extends equally to their interaction with Savvy, I remain in close contact with RGV during the process and find it works well.
I always was slightly amused by seeing an American company effectively providing a CAMO service, at a reasonable price…
Of course to do that for European registered aircraft he would need all sorts of approvals. But I wonder whether this business model is viable in Europe – one could be based in a friendly CAA jurisdiction and even get approval to do maintenance programmes without having to go back to the CAA, so this could solve quite a lot of the Part M problems. The economies of scale on paperwork like this are enormous.
If one could include the approval to rubber-stamp minor mods as well, this could get enough volume to feed a small family.
I wonder whether this business model is viable in Europe – one could be based in a friendly CAA jurisdiction and even get approval to do maintenance programmes without having to go back to the CAA, so this could solve quite a lot of the Part M problems. The economies of scale on paperwork like this are enormous.
It would be except that most light aircraft owners continue to expect the maintenance of their aircraft to be managed by the maintenance company – for free. So it was and so shall it always be.
Whilst the owner of a small jet is willing to hand over vast sums to a company in the US to run the maintenance records, light aircraft owners seem happy with the status quo.
People have toyed with the idea of setting up stand-alone CAMOs for light GA but, as the CAA are happy to give every grass strip approval to run a CAMO, any standalone CAMO is unlikely to find any customers.
This whole “operator” seems easy to get around in reality. If a “non-EU” resident owned the aeroplane, then surely they are the operator.
I did wonder about starting a “non-EU” company and have that own and operate the aeroplane, but not sure if this is financially viable…and haven’t really looked into it. But if you started a US company, for example, and “operated” a number of aircraft through this company, then they would become the operator.
You could also hand over the aeroplane (or a share) to a trusted US citizen, for example, who then “operate” the aeroplane, even though they have bugger all to do with it. Host a booking site on a US server (or MyFBO type of thing).
Or you could do like I did, and get a visa for a country like Mexico which clearly states on it “the holder is a resident of Mexico”……Surely that “proves” I am not a UK based operator…..and would be pretty hard to untangle in court I’d imagine.
I am sure the wording in this whole business has been left deliberately vague to allow for loopholes. Same as the child benefit scheme which recently came into operation which stated that anyone earning over 50k would have a “tax charge” equal to the amount of CB paid…rather than just saying “you don’t get it if you earn over 50k”….. This allows for loopholes which still means people on high incomes can still claim it with some clever, legal, accounting.
FAA maintenance is well worth it because you can find out there freelance FAA IAs who work below the VAT threshold. This can save 20% off your bill straight away, and normally you buy the parts at cost yourself rather than being charged a 20% handling fee.
The other thing that is confusing is that the wordings in these Documents interchanges “EU” and Member States. We all know that the likes of Norway are not in the EU but are EASA member states. How does this work out? I have never really come across a clear answer and all the docs I have seen state “EU operator”.
Out of interest, when is the deadline for flying a N reg without EASA licence too? Originally it was set for 8th April 2014 but I thought I read somewhere it was extended to 2015 with an option of a validation for a further year? I can’t find the reference now. It doesn’t directly affect me as I have both EASA PPL and FAA CPL/IR, along with IRR, but one of my friends is flying on FAA only tickets and he is seriously considering just packing it all in (he is 67 and doesn’t think it is worth continuing).
It is now April 2015.
Yes – loads of “older” pilots will just pack in IFR altogether. Several I know have already done so and most of them have sold their planes.
The CB IR conversion is not hard for someone accustomed to the training process but it is a substantial step for someone who has been getting his BFRs done and been running the FAA IR on the 6/6 rolling currency, and now is facing a fresh initial test with a CAA examiner (with the training required to pass the hand flown NDB holds etc etc) plus an annual revalidation with another IR examiner.
I find this a pretty unfair complaint.
A lot of people have worked very hard to create the lightest of conversions possible and at last have succeded. It is a quantum leap ahead of what was there. True .. people will require recurrency training.. But I do not consider that a bad thing. If you want to fly IFR you either make sure you are current and up to date or you do not go there.
The only thing what can be said .. but I am not sure how that is dealt with … or if it is dealt with.. is that modern IFR is almost 100% GPS based. The current system hardly trains for that and I suspect that roughly 75% of all the IR instructors and examiners have no idea about PBN based navigation.
I suspect that within a few years all IR rated pilots will need to do a special training as an add on.
I suspect that within a few years all IR rated pilots will need to do a special training as an add on.
From what I recently read (can’t remember where) mandatory training is coming (via EASA) for flying any type of GPS approach. Hopefully it will be a signoff one can pick up from an instructor, and no mandatory FTO-classroom time which is usually a complete waste of time, with the subjects taught by ex air force navigators.
I find this a pretty unfair complaint.
I neither agree nor disagree. Let’s face it – I dedicated a chunk of my life to do it the old way. And perversely that “old way” is still the only way at this moment. I was merely reporting what I see and hear from many other pilots. Many will just give up. To the “hardened IFR” pilots among us… we would enter an egg eating competition to keep our IRs. The Big Q is what % of the “egg eaters” there is among Europe’s IR holders, most of whom are probably in their 50s/60s.
It’s true that the CB IR conversion route is a great achievement. But only because EASA threatened something much worse, so everybody is now grateful that didn’t come. I am sure the Romans knew that technique also 
The reason it is unfair is that you are taking someone with a perfectly good ICAO IR (good to the rest of the world that is) and forcing them to spend lots of money to now be able to exercise the same privileges that they did before….but ONLY if they are based in the “EU”. Joe Bloggs US citizen who lives in the UK can still fly his Bonanza IFR with the FAA PPL/IR , and in fact my wife could (if she could fly) as she has a Brazilian passport as well as a UK passport. Maybe she should own my plane, and “operate” it ;) (although judging by my last marriage then this is probably not a clever idea 
)…….
I appreciate that a lot of people have done a damn good job getting us the conversion we now have, so thanks for that, but it should be completely unnecessary. Even the FAA only have an “instrument foreign pilot” written test, and something along these lines would be fine.
From what I recently read (can’t remember where) mandatory training is coming (via EASA) for flying any type of GPS approach. Hopefully it will be a signoff one can pick up from an instructor, and no mandatory FTO-classroom time which is usually a complete waste of time, with the subjects taught by ex air force navigators.
The flying the approach is not what is hard. If properly setup it presents itself as an ILS. It is the understanding of the system and especially the precision aspect that is very important.
