A declaration with a deadline creates a criminal offence at the deadline plus 1 day, plus an uninsured aircraft, so there is no practical difference.
“We” have two options:
Option #2 is attractive – it is similar to flying an SR22 with no ADF/DME.
One chap with good CAA connections says it is FUBAR.
Can anyone throw any light on the approach being adopted by their NAA?
A German pilot has just told me that Germany has published a derogation to 2019.
Can someone explain why on earth I would need to get that form signed to prove ATC/air-law knowledge, if I already hold at least an EASA/CAA PPL in addition to an FAA license?
In other words, section 4 of that form should be “Not Applicable” if you already hold a EASA/UK PPL or above?
Peter wrote:
A German pilot has just told me that Germany has published a derogation to 2019.
Question is whether such a derogation is legal in the eyes of EU regulations. There is currently no provision in 1178/2011 for any such extension.
ortac wrote:
why on earth I would need to get that form signed to prove ATC/air-law knowledge, if I already hold at least an EASA/CAA PPL in addition to an FAA license?
quatrelle wrote:
does anyone see anything wrong with this statement?
Nope. But all those that for example have an FAA IR on a 61.75 piggyback license are kind of screwed. But again we all have known for some years this day might come.
ortac wrote:
Can someone explain why on earth I would need to get that form signed to prove ATC/air-law knowledge, if I already hold at least an EASA/CAA PPL in addition to an FAA license?
I had the same discussion with the CFI at my local flying school, but based on my CAA PPL and related exam passes he signed Section 4 of the form. My guess is that the CAA simply haven’t thought about the situation where pilots have more than one licence.
Harry is right. The CAA simply didn’t think things through and obiously don’t have people involved who understand anything about flying!
Could someone who does please take them to task!
This appears to be a DfT (Dept for Transport) initiative, and they indeed don’t know much about the practical aspects of aviation, especially GA. But the DfT “owns” the policy on the N-reg business. See particularly file #3 here (article 115 was back then the one prohibiting “aerial work” in non-G-regs).
Aviathor wrote:
all those that for example have an FAA IR on a 61.75 piggyback license are kind of screwed
I cant see the difference between a 61.75 and full FAA licence (irrespective of an IR) if you have EASA Licence, but maybe I am wrong?
I just wish someone would just spell the whole damm thing out in plain unambiguous English so that everyone knew exactly where they stood.
How many pilots in Europe do you think will just give up, and consider that effect on maintenance organisations, airfields, etc.
If I had run my business along the lines of CAA / DfT / EASA it would have gone under 30 years ago.
As far as Europe is concerned, they couldn’t care less about your FAA papers if you hold the required EASA papers.
It is the State of Registry (the USA) which requires you to hold the FAA papers. So IMHO a 61.75 PPL plus an IR will be fine.
The problem is that some large % of European N-reg pilots do not hold the EASA papers, or have an EASA medical. And some % cannot get an EASA medical, and some % can’t get the FAA Class 2.
As everybody who flies in Europe knows, the N-reg community is big and usually the best and best maintained planes one sees at some airport are N-reg. These pilots fly the furthest and they certainly know how aviation works in Europe. So a demand for an examiner certification of their knowledge is not driven by any reality.
In years past, the DfT asked the CAA to produce evidence that N-regs were less safe! The CAA replied that there is no data supporting that. The DfT got p*issed off but could not do much about it. That was c. 2005 when some twat in the DfT came up with the 90-day long term parking limit for N-regs in the UK. That proposal ran for a year and caused a number of N-reg pilots to (a) move back to G-reg, at some huge cost, and (b) abandon flying for ever. One pilot I know went N to G and back to N but IIRC never finished his IR and flies VFR only; must have cost him 5 figures. Eventually somebody had a proper look at it and killed it off, moving the DfT official responsible sideways to another job. No apology of course, ever. A year before that, France did the same thing but abandoned it a bit sooner and blamed it on an out of control civil servant.
This measure looks like the DfT is up to its old tricks again.
