Europe screwing US licensed pilots

peter-h

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
613
Location
UK
Display Name

Display name:
peter-h
The following might be of interest to people in the USA who are wondering about Airbus selling hardware to the U.S. military... this is what the other hand of the "European Union" is doing to the thousands of private pilots in Europe who trained in the USA:


EASA to move against the N-register


EASA has finally shown its hand on the issue of N-registered aircraft based in Europe, and the news is bad. The Agency intends to make it illegal for pilots domiciled in Europe to fly perrmanently in Europe on American licenses, which will come as a hammer blow to holders of the FAA Instrument Rating. An estimated 10,000 European pilots will have to convert to JAA or EASA licenses, by a process and at a cost that has yet to be established. In the case of the Instrument Rating, it is not clear whether any credit at all will be given for having an FAA IR when applying for a European equivalent. It will certainly mean substantial and costly additional training and the sitting of seven examinations. The number of pilots driven out of general aviation, or declining to come in, is likely to be high.
IAOPA is particularly aghast at the sweeping nature of EASA’s intentions because they have nothing to do with safety. Over the decades in which the current system has pertained there have been no safety issues with oversight, with instrument flying, with maintenance or any other factor. General aviation is being sucked into a trade war involving the big beasts at Boeing and Airbus, with protectionist tactics grinding up our own GA industry in pursuit of political point-scoring.
A European pilot who obtains a licence or rating in the United States will be required to undergo as-yet unspecified validation and checking on his return, and within two years will have to have converted the FAA document to the EASA equivalent, a process which will not be straightforward or inexpensive. In the case of the Instrument Rating, EASA plans to require the applicant to study for and pass all seven written exams and undergo flight training which will probably cost tens of thousands of euros even for pilots who've been flying safely for decades on FAA IRs. While it will still be legal to own an N-registered aircraft, the market in such aircraft will shrink, with some that have been modified to FAA STCs being rendered unsaleable in Europe. Those pilots who have American PPLs but cannot attain JAR Class II medical standards will also be adversely affected.
The plans, set out by EASA’s Deputy Head of Rulemaking Eric Sivel in a note to AOPA UK, confirm IAOPA’s fears that political chauvinism is taking precedence over safety and good sense. M Sivel says the proposals are stipulated in the Basic Regulation which covers everything EASA does. However, in talks with EC Transport Commissioner Daniel Calleja and others over the past five years IAOPA has been given to understand they could be flexed at the Implementing Rule stage. In its response to EASA’s consultation on the implementation of its Flight Crew Licensing proposals IAOPA pointed out that if a state has issued a licence and a medical in accordance with ICAO standards, other states should accept it without adding onerous requirements. Now, however, we are being told it is set in stone.
The end result will be that if EASA gets its way, going to America for a PPL will be pointless; but how many of those who were contemplating it will now get EASA licenses instead? Of the FAA licence and IR holders now in Europe, how many will pay the money and take the time to covert, and how many will simply walk away? And at the end of it all, what will have been gained?
IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson is meeting IAOPA’s lawyers in Brussels next week to discuss options.

This will also make it difficult for e.g. U.S. pilots to fly to Europe - if they want to remain in Europe for any length of time e.g. on a work assignment. They will be effectively stripped of their ability to fly their own (or rented) N-reg aircraft.

I suggest you pass this to anybody in U.S. Government who is involved in dealings with the EU.
 
This will also make it difficult for e.g. U.S. pilots to fly to Europe - if they want to remain in Europe for any length of time e.g. on a work assignment. They will be effectively stripped of their ability to fly their own (or rented) N-reg aircraft.
It seems that I heard somewhere recently that the FAA was trying to crack down on N-numbered airplanes held by a trustee for foreign individuals or corporations which spend more than a certain percentage of time outside the country. Whatever happened to that?
 
What we have to do is clamp down on EASA issued IA ratings for european pilots here.....or oh wait! maybe tehre are none!?
 
It seems that I heard somewhere recently that the FAA was trying to crack down on N-numbered airplanes held by a trustee for foreign individuals or corporations which spend more than a certain percentage of time outside the country. Whatever happened to that?

According to a presentation by an FAA lawyer which I attended recently, what the FAA is doing is stopping trusts which are set up to conceal the Trustor's (Beneficial Owner's, in UK language) identity.

They are 100% happy with the use of trusts and have said so.

Many airplanes are held by trusts, including many flying mainly or wholly in the USA, because many people with big money don't want to show it; a trust enables them to pretend they are leasing it in, etc. Also many companies prefer to conceal the ownership of a jet for PR reasons. I have known of several airplanes held by Delaware trusts when all the pilots were US citizens who could have simply owned them directly.

There is a different ownership structure whereby a company (one not controlled by U.S. citizens) owns the airplane directly, and in that case there is a minimum % on the time spent in US airspace. This is outside my area of knowledge, because it doesn't apply to the normal use of N-reg trusts.
 
What we have to do is clamp down on EASA issued IA ratings for european pilots here.....or oh wait! maybe tehre are none!?

That was my thought as well.

One thing, though, is that this doesn't seem like it would impact me flying my Aztec to France, should I be so inclined, provided that I was there on a vacation and then left. Of course, what defines a vacation? When my mom goes to her apartment there on vacation, it's for a month or two usually. I'll go for a week.
 
There is a different ownership structure whereby a company (one not controlled by U.S. citizens) owns the airplane directly, and in that case there is a minimum % on the time spent in US airspace. This is outside my area of knowledge, because it doesn't apply to the normal use of N-reg trusts.
I'm not sure that I would necessarily call it "normal" but it is definitely used. This company even advertises it.

Equity trustee. We serve as owner trustee for a variety of equipment and real estate financing. You can use owner trust structures and voting trusts to secure U.S. registration of aircraft for non-U.S. citizen corporations and individuals.
https://www.wellsfargo.com/com/corporate-trust/lease
 
That was my thought as well.

One thing, though, is that this doesn't seem like it would impact me flying my Aztec to France, should I be so inclined, provided that I was there on a vacation and then left. Of course, what defines a vacation? When my mom goes to her apartment there on vacation, it's for a month or two usually. I'll go for a week.


It probably won't affect folks like you but guys like Peter could get totally screwed.
 
It probably won't affect folks like you but guys like Peter could get totally screwed.

Yes, and I agree that is a problem.
 
So, what happens to all the European registered GA planes permanently based and flown in the USA?

Or the professional pilots trained and licensed elsewhere with foreign medical certificates flying for US carriers?

The huge manatee! Seeing how the US has carefully and lovingly supported ICAO rules, regulation and initiatives lock stock and barrel, all these years, it's amazing that more support for US training and licensing doesn't exist out there.
 
The stupidity of the EASA proposal is evident from the fact that the papers which EASA will require would not meet ICAO (State of Registry) requirements for the aircraft.

For example FAR 61.3 allows an N-reg to be flown in the UK on a UK issued license, but if you were to fly it into Germany you would need a German issued license. This has been confirmed by two FAA Chief Counsel opinions (I have the refs) and by an FAA lawyer whose presentation I attended a few months ago. Yet EASA will require an "EASA" license (which will still be issued by one particular country) for all of the EU, despite that fact that this paperwork will be invalid to fly the aircraft in all countries except the one which issued it.

EASA may as well insist on the pilot to have a ship's captain certificate; it would be as relevant under ICAO.
 
This whole EASA thing just sucks. It really feels as if they continuously work on getting rid of this "annoying" GA!
The issue with the FAA licenses is just one small part of all the "great" improvements which they are currently working out.

I read in this context, that there are around 10.000 pilots in Europe who permanently fly N-registered aircraft with their FAA licenses.
If one only holds a private pilot's license it is not a too big deal to get it converted into a European license, even though two or three written exams, some flight training and a checkride are required. Some guys might however get grounded because they can't fulfil the stricter requirements for the European medical.
The European PPL is also only issued for a few years (I think 5). It expires, if one doesn't fly for a longer time.

The instrument rating could theoretically be converted to a European license - after receiving full 200 hours (!!) of theoretical training in a classroom (no self study) and, depending on the country, at least 15 hours of flight training + a written exam and a checkride.

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that none of the higher licenses can be converted to an European license. As there are quite a few people who fly commercially smaller twin engine aircraft and jets, their basis of existence would in fact be destroyed.

As far as I know, there have never been any problems with FAA pilots in Europe.

Cheers, Oliver
 
The UK currently offers an ICAO IR to JAA IR conversion which does not require the mandatory ground school attendance. You sign up with a ground school outfit (I was looking at GTS in Bournemouth EGHH) who for slightly over GBP 1000 will spend a few hours with you and then send you to Gatwick to sit the 7 JAA PPL/IR exams.

The flight training is still 15hrs, of which about 10 can be done in a sim (though a sim is probably no cheaper than a real aircraft). Then you have two checkrides; the 'check' one and the real one.

The UK CAA requires the aircraft to be modified with window screens so you cannot see out. Only the examiner can see out. Other European countries do it under the hood. I have done a bit of research and there are schools in Spain which are a lot more relaxed about it but most/all of them do ME conversions only.

It is a lot of hassle... and yes it is harder for corporate jet pilots because a CPL/IR needs to sit 14 exams. 14 exams which are about 90% total bollox in content. Name of a wind blowing in Hong Kong (yeah you really need to know that).
 
So this only applies to persons who reside in Europe permanently? How is that defined and how would they check?
 
No definition of "operator residence" has been proposed.

Under ICAO Annex 1, any member state can stop its "nationals" (citizens) flying on a foreign license/medical, and EASA's choice of the word "resident" which has a completely different meaning has puzzled a few people. One assumes they got legal advice on this... In any case, any ICAO member state has total jurisdiction within its borders, but that kind of thing is rarely exercised by a non third world country.

At a guess, if this became law as it stands, the interpretation of operator residency would be up to the courts of each EU country, as would be the decision whether to really enforce this at all.

Ramp inspections would be tricky because there is no way a policeman will be able to determine whether the operator is EU resident. There isn't going to be a "certificate of non EU operator residency" which you could carry around. Residency can be a complex matter - as anybody with an ambiguous tax residency will tell you :)


This has just come out:

EASA's eleventh-hour attempt to bounce the industry into accepting
disastrous regulations aimed at killing off the N-register in Europe have
shocked the aviation world and led to frantic last-minute moves to stop the
Agency bulldozing new rules through the European Commission.
When the Agency finally showed its hand on the N-register it was through
proposals on Flight Crew Licensing which will make it impossible for
European citizens to fly in Europe on American licences, render worthless
the FAA Instrument Rating and blow the bottom out of the market in
N-registered aircraft. If they are adopted, the plans will force thousands
of pilots to undertake new training courses costing millions of euros and
slide the already-depressed used aircraft market into the mire. The safety
benefit will be zero.
After years of discussion, the details became clear just two weeks before
the EC was due to make a final decision on EASA's proposals. IAOPA is asking
the Commission to set the issue aside to allow time for its impact to be
properly assessed.
The plans fly in the face of every assurance given by EASA's principals that
while they wanted European pilots to fly on European registers, they would
properly address the reasons why they did not. EASA's Executive Director
Patrick Goudou promised in 2005: "We will ensure there are no special
advantages to being on the N-register." He has not kept his side of the
bargain. Few of the compelling reasons why European pilots are driven into
the arms of the FAA have been addressed, and those that have been looked at
have been skimmed over in a desultory and unsatisfactory way.
EASA's claimed motivation for attacking the N-register is safety, but that
is a smoke-screen for political chauvinism. Aviation is a trade battleground
between Europe and America, and pilots and owners are caught between the
trenches. There has never been any evidence, or even any credible claim,
that the N-register is unsafe. With this move, EASA has gone far beyond its
safety remit and stepped completely into the realms of political
protectionism.
IAOPA-Europe met in Amsterdam at the weekend to plan a response. Delegates
from 17 European countries debated emergency tactics, and Craig Spence, Vice
President of Regulatory Affairs for AOPA US, flew in from Washington. He
left with a full understanding of the gravity and urgency of the matter.
AOPA UK's Pam Campbell outlined the issue which, she said, had come as
"something of a bombshell". To fly an aircraft in Europe, no matter what the
country of register, would require an EASA licence and if applicable an EASA
Instrument Rating, if you were domiciled in Europe. A stop-gap validation on
a non-European licence would be available from national aviation
authorities, valid for one year. The pilot would have to apply to the
authority of the nation in which he or she resided. There would be a test
for the validation, and no repeat validation would be possible, although an
extension would be granted for a maximum of one year if the pilot could
prove that training to convert the licence or rating has been commenced.
The minimum requirements to convert a third country PPL would be to pass an
examination in Air Law and Human Performance, a PPL Skills Test and a Class
2 medical. It would also be necessary to demonstrate English language
proficiency, and to have a minimum of 100 hours. That would convert the
licence to a PPL with an SEP rating. Higher qualifications would be granted
subject to additional training at the discretion of the service provider.
The holder of an FAA Instrument Rating would have to study for and sit seven
theoretical knowledge exams, which are currently the greatest barrier to the
IR for private pilots. EASA is tinkering with theoretical knowledge
requirements but there will be few game-changing amendments. It is unclear
whether there would be any credit for American training or hours flown.
Emmanuel Davidson of AOPA France said there were more than 10,000 European
pilots holding FAA licences flying in Europe. "We have to bear in mind that
if your American licence is made illegal and you have an N-registered plane,
when you fly it on a European licence you will have to apply both European
and FAA regulations, which would mean you can only fly in the country that
has issued your licence. It will be illegal to fly, say, from France to
Germany or England to Belgium. Those aircraft which have been modified to
FAA STCs may not be able to go on the European register and will have to be
sold, but to whom? A glut of aircraft will come onto the market, and the
only place you'd be able to sell them would be America. There will be
massive compensation claims against EASA and the EC."
IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson said this had been sprung on the
industry at the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour, and that all
assurances given by EASA and EC figures that the situation was not as dire
as it seemed had proved valueless. "We are facing a firing squad which has
its rifles cocked," he said. "EASA has consulted on Part FCL, and in
response to IAOPA's specific comments on third country licences it responded
with one word - 'Noted.' That is all. EASA sends its work as an opinion to
the European Commission, which has a time frame in which to accept or
reject, and the hearing for that is on the 13th and 14th October."
IAOPA has already met with MEPs and European Commission figures and more
meetings are scheduled with the aim of getting the Commission to allow more
time to discuss the issue. "Our first objective is to get the EC wound up to
'park' the issue so the ramifications can be looked at," Robinson said. "In
the short time we have available, there is no other option. Then we have to
work on how we modify the text to get a proper resolution.
"There is no guarantee that the EC will listen. They could say we've had our
chance, but we can demonstrate that our comments simply haven't been
listened to. The regulatory impact of this will be enormous, and I believe
they are poorly understood, even at EASA. I cannot believe they have done a
proper Regulatory Impact Assessment on FCL. If they even begin to work out
how many people would be driven out of aviation by this, EASA and the EC
would recoil from it."
There is little individual AOPA members can do at this late stage to
influence events. Martin Robinson said: "If you feel strongly about this you
can write to Mike Smethers, Chairman of the EASA Board of Management, at the
CAA in Kingsway, with a copy to your local MEP. But time is so short that we
can only take emergency measures at this stage."
IAOPA will keep members informed of progress as it happens.
 
Last edited:
This whole EASA thing just sucks. It really feels as if they continuously work on getting rid of this "annoying" GA!
The issue with the FAA licenses is just one small part of all the "great" improvements which they are currently working out.

It seems to me that is the attitude that a lot of people have, not just in Europe. Japan seems to have successfully limited all but commercial aviation to the point that JAL has to import 747 captains and train native pilots from stratch. It wouldn't surprise me if Europe is heading that way.

We have continued to see extra restrictions get added in America, but that said the only ones that I find to be excessively difficult and harsh are the ones surrounding the DC SFRA, simply because of all the wasted man hours and money on enforcement actions.

EASA is an interesting organization, that's for sure.
 
This whole situation is an example of what happens when vast power is vested in the hands of essentially-unaccountable organizations; the further-removed from the individual, his or her vote and elected representative, the less-likely a result will be reached which serves any purpose other than the perpetuation and expansion of the bureaucracy.
 
A glut of aircraft will come onto the market, and the
only place you'd be able to sell them would be America.

Well...for those of us on this side of the pond...

But seriously, best of luck on quashing this...If I had any clue who my MEP was (I hold Irish citizenship), I'd write him/her...
 
And just like with "line up and wait" the US will do absolutely NOTHING about it, and just let it happen. Have we become early 20th century France so soon?
 
IMHO, using ICAO English phraseology is not a bad thing, because quite a lot of people from outside the USA do fly into/within the USA, so it is a safety issue.

At least American ATC can understand and speak "English", which is more than I would say for some European countries, especially some of the more southern ones :)

On the EASA licensing issue, I hear there is some heavy lobbying going on at the last minute. Hopefully the heavy brigade (corporate jet ops) has finally got their heads out of the sand where they were firmly stuck for the last few years. I hope somebody is also raising this issue in US circles connected with military procurement from Airbus... that would work wonders.
 
Here is a good summary with some example cases.
 
An update:

There was a committee vote on this on the 15th Oct in which parts of EASA's proposals appear to have been thrown out, but nobody will discuss any details.

The anti N-reg stuff appears to have been delayed for another vote in December, pending an investigation of economic issues resulting from such a move.

The EU is claiming
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/431024-important-explanation-european-commission-my-letter.html
that they are fighting the USA on the business of mandatory inspections and mandatory drug testing for FAA Repair Station employees, which is bizzare because the FAA inspects foreign RSs every 12 months anyway already, and drug testing is hardly an issue to fight over. There is probably another agenda...
 
An update:

There was a committee vote on this on the 15th Oct in which parts of EASA's proposals appear to have been thrown out, but nobody will discuss any details.

The anti N-reg stuff appears to have been delayed for another vote in December, pending an investigation of economic issues resulting from such a move.

The EU is claiming
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/431024-important-explanation-european-commission-my-letter.html
that they are fighting the USA on the business of mandatory inspections and mandatory drug testing for FAA Repair Station employees, which is bizzare because the FAA inspects foreign RSs every 12 months anyway already, and drug testing is hardly an issue to fight over. There is probably another agenda...

As always, a pi$$ing contest with regular people stuck in the middle.
 
Back
Top