Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

EASA-FAA FCL treaty indefinitely postponed (or maybe not)

Cobalt wrote:

I have first hand experience on how this works between France and Germany

It is quite refreshing to read first hand accounts like that on forums. Thanks for sharing!

LFPT, LFPN

Peter wrote:

The CAA disposed of it by writing me a stiff letter, CCd to the DGAC, and that is as far as it goes in such a case

Very similar to how I suggested the Irish would most likely deal with a request from the UK CAA to suspend an Irish licence

EIWT Weston, Ireland

Cobalt wrote:

I have first hand experience on how this works between France and Germany.

Thanks for relaying the story. And it just seems to be another case showing that the UK CAA will struggle to get other CAA’s to suspend licences on their behalf.

While I can understand the French don’t want people taking off in poor weather, asking for action to be taken against you isn’t a good idea either. All it does is encourage pilots, who having made a bad decision to depart, to keep going in the hope (and expectation) that they make it safely to their destination, and thereby avoid the attention of the law.

This is one thing that I think the UK got right with their Strasser scheme, or the US with their voluntary reporting scheme (administrated by NASA if I remember correctly).

EIWT Weston, Ireland

That is a rather naive interpretation of what happens in courts. …(snip)… I would say that most people who are found not guilty are probably guilty.

Naive, or perhaps just old-fashioned, but not guilty is not guilty. Just because, as in the last three I’ve been involved with, a trial is stopped before the prosecution has finished giving evidence, it doesn’t mean the accused is less guilty than not guilty.

I would say that the phrase “probably guilty” is as abhorrent as its bedfellows, civil penalty and punishment without trial.

Last Edited by Jacko at 07 Jun 22:52
Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

Jacko wrote:

I would say that the phrase “probably guilty” is as abhorrent as its bedfellows, civil penalty and punishment without trial.

As you know Jacko, here in Scotland there is the third finding of “not proven”….the bastard verdict…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

Last Edited by AnthonyQ at 08 Jun 00:03
YPJT, United Arab Emirates

Please keep this on topic.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

dublinpilot wrote:

This is one thing that I think the UK got right with their Strasser scheme, or the US with their voluntary reporting scheme (administrated by NASA if I remember correctly).

The UK also has CHIRP, which is pretty much identical to the US ASRS (the NASA scheme of which you speak) even down to the printed copies being on blue paper (although I think printed copies are a thing of the past now)

Andreas IOM

Soon after getting my PPL on a trip to France, I did a pretty bad bust of Orly’s TMA, accentuated by the fact I wasn’t talking to anyone (due to a combination of factors won’t digress on here). I was actually only told upon landing (at another airfield) the the tower of the landing airfield.
I went to the tower and asked if possible to talk to Orly’s tower, had a chat with the tower “Boss” (who IIRC told me they had to cancel some approaches because of me), apologised and explained why things had happened that way. He mentioned a report would need to be made for this type of bust, but he’d mention that I had called and my reasons.
I kept the documentation I had on the case for a couple of years, until on my last move thought it was probably late and wouldn’t hear about it. not sure if:
- no communications between authorities (doesn’t seem to see the case)
- they communicated but CAA didn’t bother talking to me
- apology did the trick and DGAC thought no need to pursue.

I feel an extra level of apology / proactivity often is a lot of help in situations like this, even if one is right (In this case, I wasn’t, and there is no way to even make it like I was)

An article on this topic has appeared in a recent copy of FTN (a UK flight training business news paper). It is out of date but it does contain some interesting background on what might be holding it up. I can drop in a few quotes:

As I often say, for every winner there is a loser. And if the losers are sizeable businesses, they often run a lot of actions behind the scenes to minimise their losses.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Timothy wrote:

(3) Invoke a unilateral 61.75 type arrangement

I am not a betting man, but if I had to, I would put my money on (3).

I’m not sure what would be the benefit of that.

  1. EASA already has conversion and validation of foreign licences which is, to me, in line with ICAO’s idea of conversion and validation. 61.75 is neither, it has elements of both. While there is a space for such a hybrid, I wouldn’t bet on it.
  2. It wouldn’t address the issue of EASA and FAA treating “sub-TR” aeroplanes differently. As an example, say I have an EASA PPL with SEP class rating. 61.75 based on that would allow me to fly N-reg turboprop singles (like TBMs) provided I meet FAA requirements (HPA, high altitude endorsement, etc.). Which is great because the FAA regime is less restrictive (insurance companies take up the slack). Applying this the other way around would, however, suck IMHO. You’d be in the same boat as holders of standalone EASA licences.
  3. I wouldn’t count on EASA changing the way exams are done. And if they do, I would expect existing validation and conversion to benefit from it as well.

Right now, about the only advantage I can think of would be the option of avoiding EASA medical without having to go through validation every year (not to mention that some countries have a funny interpretation of this limit). Perhaps the 100 hour requirement wouldn’t be carried over, but that’s not that relevant to most people I imagine. In conclusion, my view is that 61.75 is so nice chiefly because of the way FAA does things. 61.75 transplant IMHO wouldn’t change how EASA goes about its business and it would lose its appeal.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top