We are not talking, at the moment, of foreign aircraft, but foreign licences.
dublinpilot wrote:
But that’s never going to apply to foreign licence holders.
That would be the point though, wouldn’t it? I am making this up as I go along, because I know nothing, but I do know how regulators work and I know how courts and road traffic legislation works, and it makes sense to me that an EU resident flying in EU airspace has to have an EU licence, which could be piggy backed onto a foreign licence.
Then, if they do something naughty, the NAA suspends the piggy back, thus rendering their foreign licence unusable in EU airspace. Is there something wrong with the logic (with the logic, not with the rights and wrongs of wanting to do it, which I am neutral about.)
ICAO does allow each Contracting State to block it’s citizens from exercising the privileges of foreign licenses in it’s airspace. (No reference, sorry).
If it didn’t allow that, nobody would have signed it because it would demolish national sovereignity.
Civilised countries rarely exercise that right but rumour has it that the UK CAA has done it on rare occassions when Pilot X got his UK papers pulled (usually that requires one to stick a middle finger up at the CAA “interview”; there seem to be people mad enough to really do that) and continued to fly on say FAA ones (which back then was OK for a G-reg, VFR, or IFR OCAS), or Pilot Y lost his UK medical and continued to fly on say an FAA one. And X and Y did it openly, publicly, and made sure they rubbed the CAA’s nose in it. Then the CAA had no option but to act.
So that option has always existed.
Today it may be more difficult to exercise that option anyway because most pilots can just silently downgrade to the NPPL (or LAPL). I know one fairly aged chap who went to his doctor with chest pains. Nothing was found in tests (a blood test and an ECG I guess; this is the NHS after all… cost/benefit etc 
). His doctor signed him off as OK to drive. The CAA wanted consultants’ tests and reports (before even looking at him again for a Class 2) which would have cost him thousands, so he carried on using the NPPL. He does only burger runs in rented G-regs so he is happy.
But one lesson is that if you want to fly close to the law you don’t rub the CAA’s nose in it.
I guess an “EASA 61.3” would enable the plug to be pulled on a pilot more simply, but there are various more subtle issues there because most sensible N-reg pilots over here have standalone papers….
Then, if they do something naughty, the NAA suspends the piggy back, thus rendering their foreign licence unusable in EU airspace. Is there something wrong with the logic (with the logic, not with the rights and wrongs of wanting to do it, which I am neutral about.)
The logic part that I don’t follow is how will the UK CAA suspend a French issued EASA licence (irrespective of wether it’s stand alone or based on a foreign licence)?
The only ones that they could have any authority over is CAA issued licences.
Of course the UK CAA could request the French authorities to suspend the French issued licence, but I suspect they French would shrug their shoulders and bin it. The Greeks could take forever to deal with it. The Spanish would want it in triplicate with the correct stamps and signatures before looking at it. The Irish would call in the pilot, give the pilot a stiff talking to and send him on his way saying that they’ll acknowledge the UK CAA’s letter and say that they’ve taken the appropraite action, and please don’t cause any more trouble or they’ll need to do something more next time.
The UK CAA really has no authority over licences not issued by them.
dublinpilot wrote:
The UK CAA really has no authority over licences not issued by them.
Yes but as they are all under EASA (at least for now) they can request another state to get involved. Not so for US certificates.
I just hope they sort it out this mess satisfactorily sooner rather than later. You can still fly G-reg non-EASA aircraft on a 3rd country license, personally I still fly with my FAA one, and will continue until this mess is sorted out. I would get an EASA piggyback license tomorrow if they implemented something like 61.75, but with the rules seemingly in constant flux all the time, I really don’t want to go through all the expense and hassle of maintaining both an FAA and EASA one until things are settled, which means for now I’ve resigned myself to simply not flying any EASA types for at least the foreseeable future.
Timothy wrote:
We are not talking, at the moment, of foreign aircraft, but foreign licences.
Yes (thought in the wrong direction), but the logic still remains. You cannot take something that’s not yours to take.
LeSving wrote:
You cannot take something that’s not yours to take.
Exactly, which is why, I think, they want to make an element of it theirs.
There is a similar logic in road traffic legislation.
Yes but as they are all under EASA (at least for now) they can request another state to get involved. Not so for US certificates.
Jason, they are all EASA licences, but they are still issued by individual states. EASA sets the rules, but they don’t issue (or suspend) licences themselves.
I can see no way for the UK CAA to suspend anyone else’s licence, no matter what rules they were issued under (EASA/JAR/FAA).
Thinking about it further, if a foreign Eg Irish/French CAA agreed to suspend a licence based on a request from the UK CAA, I can imagine that being challenged in their home country. After all, it’s an “offence”, allegedly committed in another country, over which the home CAA has no evidence, no powers to investigage, and will not have any evidence to defend.
Imagine for a moment, the UK CAA thought I had a serious infringement in the UK. They wanted to suspend my licence pending investigation. They found that I didn’t have a UK licence, so they wrote to the IAA and asked them to suspend it. For some reason the IAA were minded to do so (I could never see that happen). If I took an injunction to stop them doing that, my reason would be either “Because I never infringed and the investigation underway will show that” or “Because I had a valid excuse for doing what I did and the investigation will show that”. The judge asks the IAA what evidence they have that I committed an offence, and their answer will be a letter from the UK CAA saying that I infringed and they are currently investigating. The IAA would be forced to say that they do not have any verified evidence, never will, and will never be able to present to the court any evidence that I infringed other than the word of a foreign authority. I just can’t see it sticking.
If things like that could happen, then we could have all sorts of accusations coming from foreign states without evidence, being acted upon.
To clarify one point, the official news on the BASA is:
The negotiations on the new Annex 3 are almost completed but additional dialogue is needed for one point that is valid across all annexes. As soon as this is resolved the adoption procedure will be launched.
I would describe that is “stalled” not “postponed”. There is still intent.
JasonC wrote:
Yes but as they are all under EASA (at least for now) they can request another state to get involved. Not so for US certificates.
This is the bit I don’t get. That’s what the EU member states all say. In fact, there’s an FAA Flight Standards guy sitting in Brussels waiting for the phone to ring to ask for the FAA to do something about a miscreant pilot. Compared to those nice people in Gatwick, I would never want to tangle with the FAA, but I would really, really not want to be the example case they use to prove to the EU that they have teeth they’re prepared to use against miscreants based in Europe.
Although they are not completely analogous, it is worth looking at the cross border driving exchange of information and ECRIS
I assume that they demonstrate that where there’s a will, there’s a way.
