UK CAA allows ab initio training on Annex 1, EASA doesn't like it, and Annex 1 hours acceptability towards EASA licenses

Another article on the subject.

http://www.pilotweb.aero/news/easa-rule-would-exclude-hours-flown-in-vintage-aircraft-homebuilts-1-5402155

Malte, please realize this is not some invention of some panic ridden people but it is a draft rulemaking by EASA which will have massive implications if it goes through. And it would not be something that CAA’s rise official objections to if it was only an invention of some bloggers.

I hope some of our EASA experts like bookworm or others can point the actual text of this rulemaking but rest assured, this is real enough and needs to be stopped. It can’t be that in this day and age it goes up to the national authorities to save their pilots from this kind of decision.

What I am wondering is this: Annex II means that those airplanes are under the jurisdiction of the national CAA’s. So would the national CAA’s have the authority to acknowledge the hours flown on them for EASA licenses issued in their jurisdiction or not, i.e. to overrule this country by country? I suppose at least the French and some others where a huge part of base training is done on Annex II airplanes would have to react unless they wished to have their flight schools and clubs collapse by April 8th.

Cobalt wrote:

The abusive husband does not deserve credit just for beating the wife a little bit less.

If this were what happens with EASA, it would be understandable. But all in all, Europe, including EASA, has made flying, owning and designing/manufacturing a lot cheaper than in pre-JAR times. There is much motion for even more simplification and that demands our support.

Jacko wrote:

despising an EU institution like EASA for the gratuitous harm it has done to GA

Harm like easier maintenance, easier acceptance of licenses, easier rules in the air, easier access to flying, easier international flying, easier changes to aircraft, easier design regulations, easier flight training, easier IR, more rights, easier training towards licenses?

“What have the romans ever done for us?”

Jacko wrote:

Why do we need Part-FCL ratings and approved training schools for glider and banner towing, or for aerobatics, or for mountain flying?

For Mountain FLYING you don’t need anything, the MOU-Rating goes way beyond this. For aerotow, aerobatics or glider towing, a DTO is enough. Furhtermore the requirements have been lowered for all of these rating in comparison to most PPL throughout Europe. So hardly anything to claim “evil EASA”. Similar for the IR. It is much easier for most pilots in Europe and it even becomes more easy still.

Peter wrote:

Here’s your chance to balance the content of this community-contributed site, MH:

Please look at post #6 of that thread. Thank you.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Malte, please realize this is not some invention of some panic ridden people but it is a draft rulemaking by EASA which will have massive implications if it goes through.

But is IS panic ridden invention. I don’t see anyone, neither the pilot mag, nor the bloggers named here, give a single source where to check their interpretation. You have a couple of known EASA-apocalyptics writing some stuff no-one can proof, since no sources are given. So is this really information, or rather a political motivation that chimes in the UK anti-EU mood? How should I know? Furthermore, I have only found articles linking to the same editorial, giving no sources, basing the “reports” on an sourceless interpretation. Usually you see this kind of sourceless articles from flat-earthers or creationists, but not aviation magazines reporting about regulations.

I have read the draft and I do not read there what is claimed here. They don’t even get the Annexes right. Hence my questions.

So if it all were as bad, how would you interpret these text passages (http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15689-2017-INIT/en/pdf):

Article 2
Scope
1. This Regulation shall apply to:
(a) the design and production of products, parts and equipment to control aircraft remotely by a natural or legal person under the oversight of the Agency or a Member State, to the extent not covered by point (b);
(b) the design, production, maintenance and operation of aircraft, as well as associated engines, propellers, parts, non-installed equipment and equipment to control aircraft remotely, where the aircraft is or will be:
(i) registered in a Member State, unless and to the extent that the Member State has transferred its responsibilities pursuant to the Chicago Convention to a third country and the aircraft is operated by a third country aircraft operator;
(ii) registered in a third country and operated by an aircraft operator established, residing or with a principal place of business in the territory to which the Treaties apply;
(iii) an unmanned aircraft, that is registered neither in a Member State nor in a third country and that is operated within the territory to which the Treaties apply by an aircraft operator established, residing or with a principal place of business within that territory;

Training and experience on aircraft not subject to this Regulation may be recognised for the purpose of obtaining the pilot licence referred to in paragraph 2, in accordance with the implementing measures adopted pursuant to Article 21a.

According to Jan Brill and AOPA Germany, there is a reaction by EASA:

“We do not know where this is coming from. We will publish an answer. Flyers will publish something to clarify.”

Folks, I am very wary about the sudden denial published by AOPA Germany.

It looks to me as if some people in EASA got a rude awakening when CAAs and AOPA came calling on this issue and now behave like someone having been caught with their hands in the cookie jar: “We don’t know what you are talking about?”when they know very well but want to sweep it under the carpet.

Well, if the end result is that this thing blows over and reason returns, so much the better. And maybe some people have learned something.

But lets wait for the official response EASA has announced.

This from Avweb:
European homebuilders and classic aircraft groups are mounting opposition to a rule proposed by the European Aviation Safety Agency that would invalidate flying hours on so-called Annex II aircraft from counting toward EASA ratings and even renewal of existing licenses. The proposed rule would affect thousands of pilots in Europe, according to Pilot Magazine. In France and the U.K. alone, almost 6,000 Annex II aircraft are flying and 2,500 more are under construction. Hundreds are used by flying clubs for basic and advanced training and most countries allow even advanced ratings to be obtained on classics and homebuilts.

James Tannock, of the European Federation of Light, Experimental and Vintage Aircraft, said the EASA initiative is driven by its legal department. “The basis of this move is apparently a legal opinion that Annex II aircraft are not suitable because they are not regulated by EASA,” Tannock said in a statement quoted by Pilot. “EFLEVA’s view is that this move would be seriously damaging to European GA, with no benefits apart from the satisfaction of a few lawyers.” Civil aviation regulators in the U.K., France and Scandinavia are reportedly preparing formal opposition to the proposed rule and if three countries oppose an initiative, EASA has to reconsider the idea.

They just have to poke their noses in.

The last thing I heard, which was today, is that they will allow Annex II aircraft with a normal CofA. But it will be up to the national CAA to make this possible since EASA can not regulate those national aircraft.

The CAA are hardly going to issue thousands of C of As to permit aircraft.