LeSving wrote:
I have never seen or heard about this “4/2016”. Is this a new regulation, any reference?
Wasnt this the date the EASA regs to shaft N reg were postponed to?
Yes.
Maybe some one could explain this one….
With an EASA licence you need a Class Rating to fly a Piper Meridian ceiling FL290 but you dont need one to fly a Piper Malibu ceiling FL250 because of the perceived additional training required because of the difference in altitude capabilities.
However you will still need (after April 2016) a Class/ Type rating to fly a Cessna P210 Silver Eagle that only has a ceiling of FL235.
Is this correct, or am I missing something?
Peter wrote:
Yes; what I was getting at is that the particular bit of EU law (the italic text I quoted) does not apply because, simply, Switzerland, Norway, and the others are not in the “Community”. For example Egypt could sign up to EASA FCL totally but still that clause would not apply to an operator based in Egypt. If the UK left the EU then the same would happen to UK based operators (would be rather useful!).
As it has been communicated in Switzerland ever since we joined EASA hook, line and sinker, is that any EASA member has to fulfil EASA rules to the letter, nonwithstanding if they are EU members or not.
In reality, this appears to pretty much be the case, with the restriction that EASA rulings have to be officially ratified by the country in question rather than becoming law just by edict of Köln. That has advantages but also disadvantages. At the same time, in recent years, it has become evident that not even EU members always comply with EASA fully. That is particularly true of “goldplating” issues, but also of certain national CAA’s puprosefully dragging their feet on EASA rulemaking they don’t like. EASA recently apparently came down like a ton of bricks on Germany on the issue of CB-IR competence for flight schools, which had been purposefully delayed. Switzerland currently struggles with ELA1 and TBO. Two examples of many.
But in principle, anyone who joins EASA even if he should establish a republic on the Moon, would have to fully comply with EASA.
As it has been communicated in Switzerland ever since we joined EASA hook, line and sinker, is that any EASA member has to fulfil EASA rules to the letter, nonwithstanding if they are EU members or not.
The wording of the rule specifically exempts non EU countries. The word “Community” means the EU.
A restrictive regulation has to be read as it is written.
Peter wrote:
or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community
Yes; what I was getting at is that the particular bit of EU law (the italic text I quoted) does not apply because, simply, Switzerland, Norway, and the others are not in the “Community”. For example Egypt could sign up to EASA FCL totally but still that clause would not apply to an operator based in Egypt. If the UK left the EU then the same would happen to UK based operators (would be rather useful!).
As far as to the text in italic goes, I agree that it does not concern residents of Norway.
Unfortunately Norway has found other ways of screwing N-reg 
as has been extensively debated here.
LeSving wrote:
Peter wrote:I don’t think Norway or Switzerland are in the EU… they may subscribe to EASA FCL but the reg has to be read as it is written, and “Community” = EU.
That is correct, but exactly which regulations are in effect, when they are in effect, and how things are handled “in the mean time” has been a complete mess here during the last 20 years regarding pilot license. You could ask the N CAA about it, it would be interesting to see what they answer.
I am not sure this is a completely fair statement. What I think is true is that insight into the whole legislative process has become a lot more obscure than before EASA unless you do some actual research to actively find the information. Legislation is also in perpetual flux and it is hard for a small NAA to keep up.
Although Norway is not a EU member state, they have joined the European Economic Area, as have the other former EFTA countries, and AFAIK every bit of EU law in the areas of social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law and statistics are adopted by the EEA states including Norway.
As such Norway participates in the EU commitology and expert groups, but has no representatives in the European Parliament and therefore cannot vote in favour or against any law passed by the EU.
In its capacity of EAA member, Norway is also an EASA Member State and adopts regulation in that domain although it enters into force following a process that may feel lengthy from time to time. The appropriate authority elaborates a position statement (or opinion) about the proposed regulation and presents it to the EEA committee for review. In most cases EU legislation is adopted without the involvement of the parliament, solely by the government and administration. The review process does however take some time. As an example, adopting the regulation pertaining to CB-IR and EIR (EU regulation 245/2014) took 12 months – it was adopted in December 2014 – 8 months after it went into force in the EU.
No matter what pilot you talk to, he/she will have a beans with the NAA. When it comes to NO CAA, overall my experience with them is positive. One must keep in mind that Norway is a small country with 5 mill inhabitants, and the NO CAA is proportionately small. As any organisation it relies on individuals, and in the case of NO CAA, a small number of individuals with the advantages and drawbacks that entails.
For example when I first approached them to convert my FAA IR to EASA using the CB route, it was very clear that they (at least the person I talked to) were absolutely not familiar with EU regulation 245/2014, particularly the fact that no FTO training nor TK exam was required for candidates with more than 50 hrs PIC in IFR. Once they got a chance to review the regulations, it posed absolutely no problem.
quatrelle wrote:
With an EASA licence you need a Class Rating to fly a Piper Meridian ceiling FL290 but you dont need one to fly a Piper Malibu ceiling FL250 because of the perceived additional training required because of the difference in altitude capabilities
It is not because of the altitude capabilities, it’s because the Malibu is a piston engine aeroplane, and the Meridian is a turboprop.
Whatever your opinion they had to draw the line somewhere and turbine engines were the line they chose.
Neil wrote:
It is not because of the altitude capabilities, it’s because the Malibu is a piston engine aeroplane, and the Meridian is a turboprop.
Whatever your opinion they had to draw the line somewhere and turbine engines were the line they chose.
You are right, they think that they needed to draw a line somewhere, personally (if there was no option) I would have made it the piston aircraft that needed the rating as by comparison to the turboprop (as you know) it is a much more difficult aircraft to operate.
Also most turbocharged 250HP+ SEPs will do FL250 and probably FL260 in say ISA-10 conditions, especially if light.
The piston PA46 just does it more comfortably because it’s pressurised, etc. but then a good number of the pistons are pressurised too, with say the Cessna 421 being capable of at least FL300, and none of these need a Type Rating.
Peter wrote:
with say the Cessna 421 being capable of at least FL300
At this altitude the heat from the turbochargers must be well and truly cooking the engine
