Read the EASA basic regulation. It stipulates that all pilots residing in the community need to be adequately qualified according to “this” regulation regardless of the registratiinof the airplane operated. In other words you can no longer fly an N-reg in EASA MS solely with a FAA license. You need EASA license and appropriate ratings.
Individual ME were given the opportunity to derogate from this until April 2016, now extended to Apr 2017.
I don’t know where you are based Aviathor but I can assure you that you are wrong (and this is directly from at least two individual CAA’s)
For the benefit of those who simply don’t know, or are guessing or just want to try to create stress then I will list it again,
Reference is here,
SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS
Article 4
Basic principles and applicability
1. Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance, which are:
(c) registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations by an operator established or residing in the community
So, nothing / nada / zilch / zero to do with where the pilot lives, the original EU blurb supports that, so please don’t post otherwise inaccurate b*llshit as it makes you look silly
Le Sving, I think the OP wants to point out for some reason that if your country where your Operator is based didn’t apply for the derogation that you can’t fly in Europe any more, and if they did then you can. However, we are led to believe from Brussels that the latest derogation from April 2016-April 2017 may even possibly be a Europe wide Derogation meaning that individual states are legally binded to accept it without applying for the additional year. We are waiting to see.
Moving your operator location outside of Europe is an obvious way around this. You would then be classed as say an American crew with Operator outside of Europe flying for example FedEx but pilots living and based in Europe, and of course this type of thing is permanent and causes no issues.
Phobos wrote:
So, nothing / nada / zilch / zero to do with where the pilot lives
Unless the pilot is also the operator, of course, which will almost always be the case with aircraft owned by individuals.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Unless the pilot is also the operator, of course, which will almost always be the case with aircraft owned by individuals.
In the case of N reg, couldn’t you just argue that the operator is the US trust that’s listed as the aircraft’s owner, and if this trust is based in the United States then the operator is not based in Europe?
C210Flyer was making a broader point….one which I agree with…
Phobos wrote:
I don’t know where you are based Aviathor but I can assure you that you are wrong (and this is directly from at least two individual CAA’s)So, nothing / nada / zilch / zero to do with where the pilot lives, the original EU blurb supports that, so please don’t post otherwise inaccurate b*llshit as it makes you look silly
Oh boy. I feel that you are going to end up in my blacklist of contributors with an attitude, @Phobos
This thread is a continuation of several other threads like this example.
If you had bothered to read just a little closer, you would have noticed the text emphasized in bold:
1. Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance, which are:
(a) designed or manufactured by an organisation for which the Agency or a Member State ensures safety oversight; or
(b) registered in a Member State, unless their regulatory safety oversight has been delegated to a third country and they are not used by a Community operator; or
(c) registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community; or
(d) registered in a third country, or registered in a Member State which has delegated their regulatory safety oversight to a third country, and used by a third-country operator into, within or out of the Community
shall comply with this Regulation.
2. Personnel involved in the operations of aircraft referred to in paragraph 1(b), (c) or (d) shall comply with this Regulation.
3. Operations of aircraft referred to in paragraph 1(b), (c) or (d) shall comply with this Regulation.
When you as a private pilot fly an airplane, you are the operator.
Apology accepted if presented.
Well if I do Aviathor, then I do. But perhaps it’s a good idea not to deal in absolutes, and perhaps to support your fellow pilots with alternative means by which they can continue to fly and remain legal. If my postings are not acceptable to you then fine I wouldn’t want to upset your Sunday and be on your blacklist, and I won’t bother posting again should the owner of the forum not wish that either (I am only trying to help others)
However, I and many others feel that there is much scaremongering and inaccurate information being posted here.
Your response above still does not deviate from my original argument that it is ‘Operator location’ and you have even wrote that yourself.
Alioth your posting is absolutely correct and I would suggest having that American address listed on your tech log with Operator name clearly visible.
Good luck to all
Actually I think we are all holding our breath to see where this will all end up and what the US-EU bilateral will hold. Some of us have bitten the bullet and gotten EASA licenses and ratings (converted from FAA).
There has been a lot of debate about what being a resident means, or who the operator is.
Phobos wrote:
perhaps to support your fellow pilots with alternative means by which they can continue to fly and remain legal. If
that it is ‘Operator location’
One company has offered to set up an operator in Morocco, but I do not think anybody seriously believes it would work because as a private pilot you are the operator, and if you live in the Community, then you will need EASA paperwork.
For the moment we have yet another year, and who knows what the future will hold after that.
Although the contents of the IPL is not yet known, we know the BASA (working document published on the FAA web site – search for “Pilot licensing annex to US-EU agreement on cooperation in the regulation of civil aviation safety”) will provide ways to obtain EASA licenses and ratings based on FAA license and ratings, but will need to fly with an examiner for assessment of flying skills. We do not know whether that will be equivalent to a skill test or a renewal. Obtaining the IR based on the FAA will be equally simple provided that you have 50 hrs PIC in which case no written TK exam will be required.
This is not scaremongering. These are facts. Some may try to imagine creative solutions to get around the regulations. You may choose to believe these solutions are legal, but you may want to seek legal advice before going down that path.
I am all for supporting fellow pilots, but not by providing dubious “legal” advice. What I think is that by the time the relevant parts of the basic regulation goes into effect, there will be a relatively easy way to obtain EASA papers based on a FAA license. I wish it would be something similar to FAR 61.75, but it does not look like it.This has been done to death…
Some people believe that somebody who – either directly or indirectly – owns an aircraft, and has day-to-day control over when and where it flies, is the operator. This includes some aviation authorities.
Some people believe that non-EU trusts or non-EU company structures get around this, and that the non-EU entity is the operator.
There is no useful definition of operator in the law that helps to decide this one way or the other.
So if someone relies on the interpretation that an EU company/trust is fine, and gets inspected by an authority who interprets this differently, he/she will finally provide what we all need – a nice court case that clarifies this. I wish to thank that individual in advance for the years of pain and legal expense he/she incurs on all our behalf as this gets fought at multiple levels on its way to the European courts.
The prudent and pragmatic ones just get dual papers.
Very good summary of the operator debate, Cobalt.
I wish EASA had a “Chief counsel” who would issue opinions like the FAA has.
