Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Anti N-reg provisions - EASA FCL and post-brexit UK FCL

Phobos wrote:

not enforceable by a non ICAO entity such as EASA

Well, EASA can’t do anything about it directly but it hardly matters. It can’t on its own even change existing “hard law” regulations or pass new ones (AFAIK). It’s the EU who has the power.

Also, there is a lack of clarity about who is an EASA MS resident. Does that mean a Mexican who is living in Paris temporarily (say on consulting assignment for a few years) is a resident or could he keep flying his N reg aircraft with his FAA IR in europe and be ok claiming he is not a European resident and therefore, the rule does not apply?

It’s a great Q and one of many cases where nobody will know the answer.

The Q of “residence” and “basing” has definitions in some contexts (taxation is a popular one) but no EASA regs have addressed it.

The reg seems to have been drawn up in a pub in Cologne but the fact is that they have managed to get it passed into law. It was done by subterfuge and deceit (bogus assurances were given by EASA officials under the table to the EU Transport Committee on a “forthcoming” EASA-FAA treaty which would support mutual license recognition – hey what a laugh this is!) and eventually they got enough votes to swing it. But that doesn’t reduce the validity (if any) of the law. We now have to live with it.

My view would be that the above example would not be an EU resident.

But we won’t know till sometime after April 2016 if any country wants to enforce this.

My speaking to some UK CAA officials a year or so ago suggests they think it is useless wording and they won’t touch it. The CAA anyway has a long history of not prosecuting stuff which they may lose, because case law created by the prosecution losing a case is nearly always unwelcome They prefer to deal with it off the court system.

But France for example works differently. Look at this for example. And you are in a poor position to argue with a policeman at an airport…

Insurance is the other thing. This vague law enables an insurer to walk away, in theory. But at least it is possible to get your insurer to state whether they are OK with your situation… in theory.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I suppose what is so stupid about the whole thing is that people are actually so ready to sit another licencing systems exams (and associated costs) which bear no relevance on their own aircraft registry, when already flying for years in Europe with the correct qualifications for their registry. Where is the fight ? Where is the logic in just accepting this ? What will you be accepting next ?

The aircraft and crew are fully insured either way as you are complying with the licencing requirements of where the aircraft is registered. Residence, location, that’s a new one, reading EASA bile and it states Operator location (nothing to do with the Pilot) and what does this have to do with anything ? Why is Operator location such a big deal ?

As for the Police don’t make me laugh. “Well Officer here are my papers and legal aircraft docs and I have been flying in Europe for x number of years, and am fully compliant with the licencing laws of where the aircraft is registered”

I rather think they have better things to do, but yes it is right and proper that the whole thing should be left alone by the authorities. It would be too difficult and a legal minefield to prosecute and they may end up with a lawsuit for the rest of x number of pilot’s careers and annual salaries.

Good morning,

I was in contact with the FAA yesterday regarding a draft that is on the FAA website and points to an even simplified outcome.

The answer I have received is:

Good Morning,

The draft was posted last spring, and we continue to work toward finalizing and implementing the agreement. If all goes according to plan, the agreement should be in place and the procedures implemented by April of 2016.

Kind regards,

-Mike
Michael W. Brown
FAA Flight Standards
General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS-800

So…I continue to wait for another while before taking action as I am a pure FAA product.

Kind regards,

EGKB LFQQ EBAW

Thanks David,

Is the draft of what is being proposed available?

Do you think we could get a simple paper conversion from FAA IR to EASA IR?

The other hassle for FAA PPL/IR holders is that before doing the conversion, you have to first get an EASA PPL so that means writing the Air Law and Human Performance exams and a PPL checkride. Time and money that seems a bit of a waste.

Then you have to train and do the EASA IR checkride, again not cheap and then update each year (not a bad thing)

Have I got that right?

EGKB Biggin Hill London

Hi Cirrus-Man,

The draft is on the website and here is the link:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs800/media/Pilot_Licensing_Summary.pdf

It reads a much simpler conversion process to me.

I agree with you on the rest and you can add a new medical….that’s why I am still waiting :)

Cheers,

David

EGKB LFQQ EBAW

here

Currently if you have only FAA papers then yes you need to get a standalone EASA PPL and medical (Class 1 medical, or Class 2 with the Class 1 audiogram) and then to convert the IR via the CB IR conversion route you do an oral exam with the IRE (FE actually for the initial) and a checkride.

If the FAA-EASA treaty gives you all above as a straight swap that would be amazing.

But, longer term, you will still need to run two medicals, and do the EASA IR checkride every year. The FAA IR can be kept current on the 6/6 rolling currency. So escaping the initial IR checkride is not a big gain (though the UK CAA charge about 800 quid for it!).

Historically, FWIW, the ICAO license conversion “landscape” has usually involved an initial checkride, and sometimes an air law exam. For obvious reasons (forgery) it has rarely been possible to get fresh standalone papers just by showing existing papers issued by another CAA, without proving you can actually fly a plane. It has been done and I know this for a fact, but is rare.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter,

Was the draft from the FAA a document known to you? I discovered it a couple days ago so I don’t know if it should create some hope for us or if these good intentions have already been downgraded…

I am really not opposed to following the actual path as it is quite clear to me. I am fortunate enough to be surrounded by the right people to do it but still…I just don’t like to loose privileges I have enjoyed for so many years just because.

Cheers,

David

EGKB LFQQ EBAW

Was the draft from the FAA a document known to you?

No; it was posted here, in that thread I linked, and that was the first I saw it. That was a long time ago.

EASA was obviously aware of it but they kept it secret. The FAA blew the secrecy

As regards what to expect, I don’t know any more than you. Some say I am a “glass half empty type”, or a “black hat” but that works really well for me (most women hate a bloke who is cautious ) so I am just telling people to expect less.

And normally you do get less. The only exception in my memory was the ICAO IR to CB IR conversion route whose total lack of written exams took everybody by surprise. I don’t know how that got through. Of course it is very fair (the FAA IR is hard; mine was much harder than the JAA IR) and you have proven you can fly, so why prove it again for Europe? But still nobody expected this.

Together with the re-introduction (in the UK, at least) that currency on an ICAO IR prevents an EASA IR lapsing totally (for up to 7 years), a lot of N-reg people have stopped revalidating their EASA IRs, with a plan to start again just before April 2016.

There are increasing rumours that the April 2016 will not be met with the treaty (for FCL swap) so the date will be postponed by another year. I have no idea whether this info is good but it’s a fact that the EU Transport Committee voted on the FCL proposals having been given an undertaking (dishonest IMHO) that the treaty will be ready by April 2012. So maybe somebody honourable is leaning on EASA to deliver this OR they must delay the anti-N-reg implementation. It would make sense.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

At least we all agree that we don’t know… :)

First one who hears something can shout!

Let go flying then…

EGKB LFQQ EBAW
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top