Has the FAA done a deal with EASA to do ramp checks on N-regs?

Aviathor wrote:

a clear path for US license (or certificate) holders to obtain EASA licenses based on their US license

There is already a way to get you licence validated (and has been there since the beginning IIRC). There is a difference between validation and being able to get credit for your previous experience and training by foreign-licenced instructors when you apply for a standalone licence.

The basic difference where EASA wants to rely more on organizations than individuals IMHO won’t go away (it was discussed for example when they were working on CB IR).

Rwy20 wrote:

Is lack of oversight even an actual problem that needs a solution?

Well, the bigger it is, the more it flies, the more people it carries, the more the authorities will want to regulate it. I really believe that privately operated biz jets are their main target. The commercial side of things is buttoned up. And it has been the case in the past that regulators simply didn’t care about the impact on light GA. Or it looked that way. Case in point is JAA IR.

FAA faced the opposite problem – they have a load of planes around the world and found out they might not be able to determine who is responsible for their maintenance, who has the logbooks, etc. They were thinking of ending the whole trust business IIRC (in the end, they just decided to collect information on “operators”). It’s not surprising EASA might not be willing to trust foreign authorities. If FAA allowed such a circus, who knows what others are doing (or not doing).

However, I’m not saying that’s the whole story. We’re, after all, talking politics.

Neil wrote:

I’m not commenting whether intentions were “good”, but I think visitors to the EU are worrying unnecessarily.

I think the operator isn’t defined because the definition would be too complex if they tried to catch just those they want. So they’re leaving a room to maneuver for a judge to decide when it applies. That sucks because there won’t be enough cases to get a decent picture of what is fine and what isn’t. But I think I already wrote all of this. How will they determine on the spot whether the “operator” of that particular aircraft resides or is established in the Community is an interesting question.

Rwy20 wrote:

hurting other great principles like those that ICAO is built on

I think it’s actually written in there somewhere that they want to respect ICAO principles. Or something like that. After all, they are trying to police their own people, so to speak. I’m not sure ICAO has a problem with that. Such practices, however, don’t spring “freedom” into your mind.

@Peter I recently read part of your write up about this and I think you got this wrong:

So the emphasis in the derogation provisions has shifted from the residence of the operator to the residence of the pilot. This is of little consequence to the typical private owner-pilot but would affect larger operators. It’s not clear whether this is intentional or is a drafting cockup.

That relates to Annex III of 1178/ 2011. That simply tells you where you should apply if you need your foreign licence validated in EASA-land. Not when you need it. It talks about pilots because, well, somebody has to fly the plane and it’s a regulation about aircrew. So if an UK resident flies for an operator based in Germany, he is supposed to get his licence in the UK. If the pilot is an US resident, he is supposed to get his licence in Germany. Third option is where the plane you intend to fly is registered.

Remember that paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Basic Regulation states that pilots of aircraft mentioned in paragraph 1(b), (c) or (d) have to comply with that regulation. If such a pilot wants to have his foreign licence validated, then he follows the Annex III of the aircrew licensing reg.

AnthonyQ wrote:

Is it just me, or do others associate the words “pilot papers” with negative iron-curtain or even nazi connotations?

Hände hoch! Papieren ausziehen! I’m sorry, you reminded me of lessons in German language back in elementary school. Germans might not think it’s funny, but we thought German was great for bossing people around. It has that serious, commanding tone.

AnthonyQ wrote:

I personally don’t like the term….most probably couldn’t care less I suppose

In some countries, papers is simply a colloquial for (identity) documents. Because they were made of, you know, paper. I think you’ll find it in a dictionary. No negative connotation that I’m aware of.

Rwy20 wrote:

Is lack of oversight even an actual problem that needs a solution?

The Europeans have a different approach to regulations, or rather regulating, than the US. Having lived in the US for a while, I do however note that also US citizens complain about ever-increasing regulation and how that kills their competitivity. But in Europe we got a head start on regulating since the US was founded only in the late 19th century… on the premise that the federal government should interfere the least possible with the individual states.

Rwy20 wrote:

You and Neil have both said similar things. You think that EASA had “good intentions” with this regulation, so the side effects that this has on international pilots coming to Europe are just an “accident”. But you have to judge rulemaking by its results, not by its intents.The article I linked to makes it clear that for people like C210_Flyer

Reading the article, it strikes me that the situation today does not look as bleak as it might have in 2012. In the meantime we have obtained an acceptable conversion path from FAA IR to EASA PPL/IR (the CB-IR) and there is a conversion path for the FAA PPL certificate to EASA PPL in the works

Concerning C210_Flyer, as others have pointed out, I think he can make a case that he is not a EU resident (on the other hand what I think in that respect is worth next to nothing since I am not a lawyer, and even less specialised in European law/aviation law). Those of us who live more than 6 months, work, own property and pay taxes in a EU country, less so.

Neil wrote:

I’m not commenting whether intentions were “good”, but I think visitors to the EU are worrying unnecessarily.

There is no regulation preventing FAA certificate holders visiting the EU to fly around to their heart’s content as long as they do so on N-reg, either one they brought from the US, like C210_Flyer, or one rented locally. I do not understand why anyone would worry about that. The rub is that as of today, they cannot fly an EASA-reg airplane while visiting the EU, and that’s a shame. There is a way to obtain an EASA PPL on the basis of a third-country license, but it requires that the applicant passes a TK exam in Air Law and Human Performance before taking a skill test. Compared to the FAR 61.75 route where you apply for a foreign license verification, then obtain the license at the FSDO and just need to complete what was formerly known as the BFR with an instructor (you do not even need a FAA medical), the EASA way is a significant undertaking.

Peter wrote:

The smaller country CAAs are bewildered by the thousands of pages of drivel from EASA, and they have nobody who can read it let alone understand it.

When I first applied to the Norwegian CAA for the CB-IR skill test (EU 245/2014 had been adopted by Norway just a couple of months prior), converting from the FAA IR, they insisted I had to be presented by an ATO. It took a little while, and internal meetings in the FCL department, before they gave me the go.

EDIT: One of the problems pilots who acquire a EASA PPL by converting from a third-country license will be facing is maintaining their rating(s) or else they will need to go through the whole process all over again… Getting hold of an EASA instructor or examiner in the US is certainly not as easy as finding a US instructor in Europe…

Aviathor wrote:

There is no regulation preventing FAA certificate holders visiting the EU to fly around to their heart’s content as long as they do so on N-reg, either one they brought from the US, like C210_Flyer, or one rented locally.

Well, this could actually be a problem. As was discussed previously, when you rent a plane, you shouldn’t be an operator. Whoever rented it to you should be (no broker involved, to keep it simple). So if you have an N registered aeroplane that belongs to a UK resident, FAA papers might not be enough (after it’s in force).

Aviathor wrote:

you do not even need a FAA medical

You don’t need an EASA medical either if you do it in reverse (an FAA medical will do if you validate an FAA certificate). Conversion requires it, but not validation.

Another difference is that the validation is only for one year. It can be extended (once) if you’re training to get a standalone EASA licence (or something like that, not sure about the wording). IIRC, I read somewhere (PuF?) that one of the problems EASA faced at national level was that some NAA(s) interpreted it as being allowed only one validation, period (that is they wouldn’t validate a licence a second time, say your next vacation there two years later). Unbelievable. Which brings up another question: if you did the validation before, do you have to take the theoretical exams again? I don’t recall that ever being mentioned. That would seem excessive.

Martin wrote:

You don’t need an EASA medical either if you do it in reverse (an FAA medical will do if you validate an FAA certificate). Conversion requires it, but not validation.

Please educate me on the license validation because I cannot remember having seen any such thing in the regs. A reference to an EASA document would do. I wonder whether this is still at the discretion of the NAA for a transition period… There are so many “derogations”…

ICAO Annex 1, Chapter 1 describes the difference between Validation and Conversion of a foreign license:

All contracting states must have their own means of complying with these requirements…

Aviathor wrote:

Please educate me on the license validation because I cannot remember having seen any such thing in the regs.

Take a look at Annex III (page 208) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 and you’ll find A. Validation of licences and B. Conversion of licences. The requirements are almost identical (for non-commercial activities/ licences). C is Acceptance of class and type ratings.

If you want to shake your head in disbelief, take a look at validation for non-commercial activities with and without IR. Notice the difference concerning class and type ratings. That’s got to be some cock-up.

Who knows how are these things implemented at national level.

@Peter Well, Annex III isn’t relevant to the issue aside from the fact that it provides a way to validate your foreign licence or convert it to an EASA licence if you need/ want to for whatever reason. It then gives some instructions concerning in which member state you shall apply for validation. So a UK resident isn’t supposed to go to Spain to have his FAA licence validated, he is supposed to do it at home, in the UK. But it says nothing about when you need it. Actually, I don’t think it makes sense for a resident to use validation except as a temporary measure (or if you really don’t want to get and maintain an EASA medical). This doesn’t in any way change what the Basic Regulation says. There is no shift from operator to pilot residence. Those things are not related.

PS: I would probably drop that part of the text. It has nothing to do with “EASA is screwing N-regs.” It has to do with “how to convert or validate your licence in EASA-land.” But you might want to ask @bookworm for a second opinion.

Actually Martin I think Peter had the phrase “EASA is screwing N-regs” exactly right.
All the operator tosh / pilot qualification quoted isn’t relevant for at least another year and probably not even then.

Silvaire wrote:

Using two passports and keeping a non-EU passport visa stamp free would also provide a possible solution to that issue, if you’ve got the

How do you keep a Non EU passport Visa free? They always stamp it when I come in country.

The US requires that you leave and re-enter the US on a US passport if you are a US citizen, but otherwise has no issue with you carrying two passports. If you happen to have another one (maybe from a Schengen or EU country?) you could use that to enter and leave the EU. I have two, although in truth my non-US passport is now expired. If I need it again in the future for some reason like this, I’ll renew it.