Qalupalik wrote:
Not true. It is left to the national authorities to determine
That’s a cool block diagram 
, reminds me of this:
I rephrase it then to any aircraft that can be flown with an EASA FCL. It’s really about ancient old legal principles.
mh wrote:
And yet, plenty people have been told and seem to think more of this national stuff will cure this mess. The opposite is true though, obviously.
It’s not that simple. Again, ancient old legal principles of rights and privileges of free men and women in a state. A license (EASA FCL or national) is a privilege or a right depending on semantics. When given a privilege, the state cannot simply “take it back”, not for any reason other than you have misused that privilege somehow, and even then it’s usually only temporarily. The state (the King or Queen or whatever) cannot render old licenses invalid either, and whatever privileges one license grants at the time you obtain it, they will all follow when you get new versions of that license. Sometimes it is not even necessary to have a license, and when a license or change in the rules is introduced, it cannot work back in time. It’s probably what is called grandfather rights in English, but I’m not sure if it’s legally exactly the same. If you have never used your old privileges or rights, you cannot claim them either for instance.
I would guess that large parts of Europe don’t have any tradition with “grandfather rights” (or equivalents to them), and this is why EASA seemingly thinks it’s OK to change privileges and rights any way they chose. The problem is, EASA cannot do that, not EU, not anyone, not where I live. EASA (ratified by the state) can give you more privileges, but they cannot remove old ones. I regularly use my privilege to fly Annex I planes (Cub and Safir), with my EASA FCL, and EASA cannot simply take that away (even if they believe they can, in Germany or wherever). If they do, the state will have no option but to issue me a national license, and we get a situation as described in that block diagram. It’s EASA and EASA alone that causes this situation (although national CAAs also make headless regulations from time to time). We already have a separate “Part NCO” for Annex I, which basically is the old national regulations, and if EASA figures out it’s a great idea to restrict the privileges of the EASA FCL, the CAA will have no option but to start issuing pure national licenses.
For microlights it’s different. The state don’t issue licenses for microlights, and the state don’t hold the register for microlight aircraft. There are no licenses in the legal sense. What we have can be translated as “proof of competence” that is valid inside an organisation approved by the CAA. Everyone has the right or privilege associated with flying a microlight (as from birth), you only need a paper showing you are competent. It’s very much like the military in fact, no licenses there either, only grades of competence.
This is one example where EASA has done what MH sais but the problem is, how do you enforce this. Privileges are taken away all the time and unless this is challenged in court, then how to keep them? And I am not so clear about the fact that the states are any better, seeing how e.g. Germany has treated some licence holders in the past.
Generally, in recent years it has been EASA who enforced improvements to GA (Part NCO and ELA1) against renitent CAA’s. Here we unfortunately see the opposite. What is missing in Europe is a strong interest group which has the money to tackle such stuff and take it through the courts up to the European court.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
What is missing in Europe is a strong interest group which has the money to tackle such stuff and take it through the courts up to the European court.
What’s missing is an interest group that take all private/recreational activity in Europe under it’s wings. I cannot see how that’s ever going to happen though. Way too much “class and cultural conflicts” in general. In Norway, Sweden etc we have done this, because we can, and it is working. It’s all gathered under one single interest group.
In theory it may work though. What’s needed is people getting involved in different things. In principle there is nothing stopping us creating an organisation for aviation that includes it all, licenses, airfields, fuel, the whole infrastructure and the needed “industry and economy” around it. In many places we have bits and pieces of it already to larger or smaller degree. This has happened, not because of EASA, but in cooperation with local (national) CAAs. Maybe what’s also needed is some more headroom by the local CAAs. Things are done different here and there, but this doesn’t mean “we” are right and “they” are wrong. It’s just different. Maybe in a 1000 years, certainy not in my lifetime.
I am not sure, if I understood what priviliges EASA is trying to get revoked, but a mere two weeks ago I got the information (in writing) of our national organization for all things aviation (Austro Control) that said the hours flown in a microlight counted normally very much the same as any other plane. This was in regards to XC-hours as PIC to get an EASA IR.
This has been confirmed on a roadshow for Part ML by other employees of Austro Control when they visited our airport for a very informational evening.
I can’t believe that all of the sudden those hours would not even count towards renewing a run of the mill EASA PPL. Is it possible that this interpretation would be a national thing in some countries and not in all of EASA-land?
So if I understand what you say,nothing is decided ?
Rallye wrote:
So if I understand what you say,nothing is decided ?
Was that intended for me? If so, I have no idea. I was just posting the information I got from Austro Control.
My understanding is also that hours in an Annex II aircraft (now Annex I) definitely do count normally the same as any other plane. At least it is my understanding that any hours on all the old-timers operating under the previous Annex II with EASA registrations are accepted toward the 12 hours required every two years.
What document says anything different? The quote in the OP doesn’t make any mention of counting hours per the thread subject, that I can see. Perhaps my old eyes are failing me. ;-)
ASW22 wrote:
So if I understand what you say,nothing is decided ?
Was that intended for me? If so, I have no idea. I was just posting the information I got from Austro Control.
No it was not specific for you,but for all the threat
I still don’t understand what exactly is undecided here. Is it UL only?
I have a revalidation by experience coming up, with all but a few (too few) of my hours flown on my Annex II (now I) Jodel.
I have written an email inquiry to the UK CAA’s GA department, asking whether hours logged on Annex II (now Annex I) aeroplanes will be recognised for the purpose of revalidation by experience. I will update once I hear back.
