Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

EASA FCL (anti N-reg provisions) postponed to April 2019 - not quite!

If it excludes commercial operations, then it’s easy to comply with. Because I hope the CAA realizes that most business aviation is both commercial and part 91. They better get really good at convincingly defining the world commercial, because the word commercial does not mean charter. That’s also why you won’t find it referenced as such much in the FAR’s for part 135.

Last Edited by AdamFrisch at 14 Apr 06:07

By way of background – I’m a UK resident but an FAA Private Pilot with Instrument Rating, without any kind of UK/EASA papers. I have well over 50 hours PIC/IFR, but Class 3 FAA medical (expiring in 12 months). I fly perhaps a dozen days a year in the UK and a few more in the EU (all in a G-reg).

This is only peripheral to this debate but I don’t think you can fly a G-reg on FAA papers anymore, in the UK or anywhere else. That UK CAA concession ended in 2012, I think?? You can still do it in a “non EASA” aircraft – see here.

Information I have received (which I can’t post) indicates that the CAA were forced to implement this (by the DfT) and were given only days to do it, and everybody in the business regards it as a complete shambles (due to a near total lack of competence in FCL in present-day CAA), and illegal for a long list of reasons, some of which are that the CAA is acting outside the area in which they have ANO-delegated powers to create regulations.

The question thus arises as to why the timing? Was it done to pre-empt some event or deadline? Maybe it was done to pre-empt the EU 2019 derogation coming out? Maybe the N-reg haters in the DfT saw a short window of opportunity. In any case, just like the anti-N-reg EASA FCL stuff, this has all the hallmarks of a poorly thought-through “private project” by a very small number of individuals.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA

Englishfarm wrote:

Anyone have a view on where the legality of the 28 days threshold comes from?

It is actually in Annex III of the Aircrew Regulation, inserted as an amendment by Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/445 of 17 March 2015. You may be using an older version of the Aircrew Regulation.

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the paragraphs above, Member States may, for, competition flights or display flights of limited duration, accept a licence issued by a third country allowing the holder to exercise the privileges of a PPL, SPL or BPL provided:
(a) prior to the event, the organiser of the competition or display flights provides the competent authority with adequate evidence on how it will ensure that the pilot will be familiarised with the relevant safety information and manage any risk associated with the flights; and
(b) the applicant holds an appropriate licence and medical certificate and associated ratings or qualifications issued in accordance with Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention.

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the paragraphs above, Member States may accept a PPL, SPL or BPL issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country for a maximum of 28 days per calendar year for specific non-commercial tasks provided the applicant:
(a) holds an appropriate licence and medical certificate and associated ratings or qualifications issued in accordance with Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention; and
(b) has completed at least one acclimatisation flight with a qualified instructor prior to carrying out the specific tasks of limited duration

The intention of 7 was to allow pilots with third-country licences to come to the EU and fly EU-registered aircraft in events. Similarly, 8 was to facilitate hire of an EU-registered aircraft while e.g. on vacation in the EU. I think the 28 days were intended to be consecutive, but it doesn’t say they have to be. 8 certainly wasn’t intended to provide relief for permanently based third country aircraft to be flown with third country licences, but it looks like the CAA has been creative with its application of this legal tool..

Someone has been asking me for a summary of this situation taking it literally as the UK CAA has published it.

Would it be right that for a UK pilot with purely FAA papers he can continue for two more years if he gets a Class 2 medical (FAA or EASA) and gets that form filled in?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA

It looks like Germany moved and declared a preliminary opt-out

A famous German aviation magazine as well as German AOPA section report issuance of NfL 1-990-17 (“NfL” means Nachrichten für Luftfahrer – Notices to Airmen). I haven’t seen the full original text, so I can’t verify it – so please take it with a pinch of salt:

Reportedly, that NfL prolonges the opt-out until 31 December 2017 and further comprises a note that it is just preliminary while awaiting a new (hopefully longer) opt-out deadline to be set by the EU. It seems to relate to all third-country licences, not just FAA.

At least a step in the right direction.

Peter writes:

Would it be right that for a UK pilot with purely FAA papers he can continue for two more years if he gets a Class 2 medical (FAA or EASA) and gets that form filled in?

That is how I read it and is what I am doing.

Rochester

Peter_G wrote:

That is how I read it and is what I am doing.

Me too.

EGTK Oxford

This CAA reply (to a question whose content was not shown) was posted on a UK site:

So the CAA appears to be asserting its right under ICAO to control what a certain category of pilots (I believe ICAO limits this category to UK passport holders) can do in UK airspace. That’s a very 3rd World approach…

OTOH “everybody” except the CAA thinks that the FAA Class 2 is equivalent to ICAO Class 2… so it looks like we can carry on?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA

Peter wrote:

OTOH “everybody” except the CAA thinks that the FAA Class 2 is equivalent to ICAO Class 2

The IAA (Irish Aviation Authority) too this view a number of years ago, and haven’t moved from it since. They too believe an FAA Class 2 medical is required, at least for flight in an EI registered aircraft.

EIWT Weston

Sorry – I made a typo. I meant to say

OTOH “everybody” except the CAA thinks that the FAA Class 3 (THREE) is equivalent to ICAO Class 2

The IAA (Irish Aviation Authority) too this view a number of years ago, and haven’t moved from it since. They too believe an FAA Class 2 medical is required, at least for flight in an EI registered aircraft.

The Irish CAA position on the FAA Class 3 has been under dispute AFAIK, with the FAA being definitely unhappy about it. I recall they imposed it for Irish citizens – basically N-regs based in Ireland. They cannot impose it on anybody else.

For EI-reg, the Irish CAA can demand whatever they like… that’s a different situation.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top