Clipperstorch wrote:
The wording reminds me of our Zuverlässigkeitsüberprüfung bullshit in Germany.
I mistakenly thought that the ZÜP is valid for 5 years, not 7 as I assumed (it’s in paragraph 7 of the LuftSiG law, that’s were I got this number in my head from…)
Afaik I’m grounded now without a valid ZÜP. Extremely annoying. I sent papers to the relevant state aviation authority immediately upon realising my mistake, but no answer yet, three weeks later. They’re probably all on holiday…
MedEwok wrote:
Afaik I’m grounded now without a valid ZÜP.
Why grounded? If you don’t need a new license, rating, etc. from the competent authority I don’t see a reason not to fly …
Malibuflyer wrote:
Why grounded? If you don’t need a new license, rating, etc. from the competent authority I don’t see a reason not to fly …
Doesn’t one need a current ZÜP to fly legally? My license etc. are still valid for a while…
MedEwok wrote:
Doesn’t one need a current ZÜP to fly legally?
Not according to part-FCL. National authorities have no right to add requirements to EASA rules.
They can make background checks when issuing a license. (The Swedish CAA does too and I suppose they all do.)
MedEwok wrote:
Doesn’t one need a current ZÜP to fly legally? My license etc. are still valid for a while…
I don’t see that requirement in any regulation.
Regulation says you have to get one before a license is issued and that it is your duty to apply for renewal every 5 years – but as far as I see there is not a single rule somewhere that says that you are not allowed to fly if you have not applied for a renewal in time.
Therefore the CAA for sure won’t issue you a new license without a valid ZÜP. And it might be an administrative offense not to apply for renewal in time – but flying w/o a valid ZÜP is not an offense by itself.
Consequentially I’ve never been asked during a ramp check to show proof that I have a valid ZÜP – which I had to if that was a requirement for performing a specific flight…
Airborne_Again wrote:
They can make background checks when issuing a license. (The Swedish CAA does too and I suppose they all do.)
As German is very pedantic even when it is about the rights of its own authorities, the German CAA can’t – the whole point of the discussion on the German ZÜP is, that the German CAA can’t just do what every other CAA on the world does, but the pilot has to go to the police himself to ask the police doing it.
Malibuflyer wrote:
As German is very pedantic even when it is about the rights of its own authorities, the German CAA can’t – the whole point of the discussion on the German ZÜP is, that the German CAA can’t just do what every other CAA on the world does, but the pilot has to go to the police himself to ask the police doing it.
I see. But it makes little difference in practise. Once the license has been issued, an NAA can suspend it if there is a legitimate cause. But I can’t see that a legitimate cause would be that the pilot doesn’t submit paperwork that there is no requirement in part-FCL to submit.
Anyway, in MedEwok’s case the authorities have apparently not suspended the license, so it remains valid. Go and fly, @MedEwok!
Thank you guys, I was ill informed. I read the respective law and couldn’t find an obligation to maintain a valid ZÜP in order to continue to fly, either.
I could have flown last week…:(
Airborne_Again wrote:
Not according to part-FCL. National authorities have no right to add requirements to EASA rules.
The EU has no competence to regulate for the national security of member states. See eg art 4(2) TEU and art 72 TFEU. The subject is addressed in The Law of the European Union and National Security Exceptions of the Member States. Legal expertise presented to the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Estonia.. Prof. Dr. Stefan Kadelbach, Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main. 29 Jan 2018. (PDF link). local copy
Qalupalik wrote:
The EU has no competence to regulate for the national security of member states.
You mean the ZÜP is motivated by national security!?
alioth wrote:
The FAA, by the way, does the same.
How so ?
