Alledgedly EASA inserted the Opt-out option as compromise, because there was a lot of resistance against the Annex 1 by some large EU member states. It’s reasonable concern that the next EASA step will be “one new European Basic Regulation for all Member States”. That will be effective in about 6 to 8 years from now, so check their road maps.
Anyone know what is meant by this?
I don’t know what the whole piece of text may be about but there is clearly resistance to Annex 1 getting what some countries see as “excessive” privileges. My guess would be that they don’t like the near total lack of local CAA oversight. You also see this on certified N-regs, with the EASA FCL move and e.g. the UK CAA SRG2140/2142 process which is nothing other that pointless pilot harrassment.
There is certainly a general move to clamp down in some parts of Europe, and make Annex 1 as “national only” as possible, while allowing people to still do short trips abroad (subject to getting a permit).
It’s still difficult to catch the meaning. “EASA” wants harmonization of Annex 1. Yet, “some large EASA member states” do not want this. Who are these “large member states”? France, Italy and the UK? while “EASA” basically means Germany + possibly Netherlands? What kind of harmonization are we talking about?
Annex 1 aircraft are by definition nothing to do with EASA so what they might want has no relevance unless they change the law whereapon they will no longer be Annex 1
Annex 1 aircraft are by definition nothing to do with EASA
That’s not how I see it. If there were no EASA, there would be no Annex 1 aircraft. It’s an EASA legal construct, and it’s up to EASA to fill it with whatever they want.
I can’t find the source for that text on the Europa owners site. It could be some press release from IAOPA but nothing appears via google.
The definition of Annex 1 is done by EASA, but the regs concerning privileges of Annex 1 are all national and each country can do what they like with it.
Different people can put different interpretations on the intent behind this.
My feeling is that some countries are unhappy with large numbers of foreign reg Annex 1 being based there. I am certain that all the owners who did this knew perfectly well that there could be problems but decided to go ahead after weighing up the risks. It’s not much different to me going N-reg in 2005; that scene was always a calculated risk but perhaps safer than Annex 1, due to the big commercial interests behind it, etc. Notably, there are a lot of PH-reg Annex 1 planes based outside the NL which were also “technically banned” not long ago in France where there was a significant benefit in doing this (link posted above). In the UK, most Annex 1 are G-reg so not really an issue.
As to IFR, there have always been powerful political interests against all forms of “private IFR” which is why stuff like the CB IR take so many years and in the end deliver so little. Throw in Annex 1 and you end up with a whole army of vested interests (airlines, airline pilot unions, ATC bodies, CAAs, are the usual ones) getting hot under the collar over it. “VFR only” has always been the quid pro quo which, together with calling it “sports flying etc etc” facilitates most deregulation, and it has worked because a VFR aircraft can always be denied entry into CAS without giving a reason.
I don’t know what the whole piece of text may be about but there is clearly resistance to Annex 1 getting what some countries see as “excessive” privileges.
Or excessive EASA restrictions. It works both ways. Some countries have quite liberal Annex I national regs that they don’t want to give up.
As operators of an Annex 1 aircraft on an AOC I feel any attempt by the government of the Netherlands to ban our operations in an EU state would be in conflict with a number of EU laws and is also in conflict with parts of the 1944 Chicago convention.
because a VFR aircraft can always be denied entry into CAS without giving a reason.
Says who, or what? IME it’s all about FP.