Michael <usenetreplies@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> There would be obvious work-arounds for the most common scenarios e.g.
>> business jets. The owner would merely need to fire his EU-based crew
>> and replace them with non-residents or non-EU pass****t holders. Plenty
>> of such pilots are to be found in Europe.
>
>And very easy to im****t them from the US anyway, given that the US
>airlines are not exactly in great shape. So basically the bizjet
>folks wouldn't care too much.
>
>The real losers in this game are going to pilot-owners of N-registered
>airplanes in the EU who went that route to avoid the extremely onerous
>requirements of the JAA instrument rating.
Exactly right. However, this also means you are dealing with a small
group of pilots.
A lot of "EU business" is concerned with symbolism. Some of it is
basically good, like the consumer protection laws (unless you are a
manufacturer ;) ). But a lot of what we see here is an emotional
reaction to America, which many self proclaimed European intellectuals
regard as the land of John Wayne, and George Kennedy in the cowboy
"airline disaster" movies where he yanks the throttles of that 707
stuck in snow :) This means that N-reg business jets are much more
provocative than little N-reg piston planes. They are certainly far
more visible. As are all the other jets on Bermuda, Cayman, Aruba and
similar registers.
But they will not be able to hit the big jets with this attack on
pilot licenses. Most bizjet owners are not pilots; they have a rented
pilot, and he can come with any pass****t as required.
Most European N-reg owners (fixed wing) went N-reg for the IR. My
estimate of the total European population of instrument rated piston
owner/pilots is of the order of 1000-2000. This figure would stagger
an American but I am very sure of it. A part of the reason is the
geographical distribution: the UK is the biggest GA scene, Germany is
fairly big too, France well down, and the rest of Europe is barely
significant. By the time you get to Greece, the *total GA* number is
about 200, of which only a few are IRs. Last week I had lunch with a
bunch of Greek pilots and I am sure that between them they personally
knew every other private pilot in Greece.
Out of the say 2000 IR pilots, perhaps 1000 are FAA IRs. The trend is
much more FAA in recent years; most Euro IR holders I know did their
IR decades ago. In recent years, most of the growth has been under the
FAA system.
You can search the FAA pilot database for pilots with European
addresses with an FAA IR and a current FAA medical. Somebody I know
did this a while ago. And not all of them by any stretch will be
owners.
So, in the end, EASA will hit of the order of 1000 planes, most of
them light pistons.
Makes one wonder whether it is worth doing!
The upshot, if this really happens, is that pilots will either give up
flying, or do the Euro IR and transfer the plane to Euro-reg,
sometimes at a huge cost. In many cases it won't be economical e.g.
the 12 year engine life is enforced when moving *to* an EASA register
for the first time.
I am keeping my N-reg TB20 fairly original but many owners have
im****ted used direct from the USA and got a plane full of 337 mods.
These would all have to be recertified from scratch.
>Peter, I know you already know this, but for US pilots following
>along, there is a fundamental difference in policy between the FAA and
>JAA with regard to the instrument rating. In the US, the FAA would
>basically like every private pilot who actually goes anywhere to have
>an instrument rating. They make this as easy as possible - minimum
>experience requirements (now down to just 50 hours XC time, and under
>141 that's not even required), minimum instructional requirements (no
>formal ground school required, and you can do as little as 15 hours
>with a CFII and the rest with a safety pilot if you're up to it), and
>minimum equipment requirements (any plane with a nav/com that has GS
>and p***** a pitot/static check can be used for the checkride). You
>can literally go to a weekend class, pass your written on that basis,
>and then take a 2 week vacation to someplace that specializes in
>accelerated courses and come back with a rating.
>
>Such a thing is totally impossible under the JAA rules. The
>requirements are quire onerous, and not really feasible for a normal
>person with a job and a family. That's why there are pilots who opt
>to own N-registered planes and fly on US credentials. I have a
>feeling the JAA wants them to go away - or at least not to have any
>more of them being produced.
>
>> Flying an on FAA license is no different
>> to flying on a JAA license. Neither IR prepares you for e.g. the weird
>> and wonderful world of Eurocontrol airway routings
>
>Or East Coast (US) airway routings, for that matter.
My take on the JAA system, and the pre-JAA national IR systems before
JAA, is that they were designed for and run by airline pilots.
The key difference is that while the USA has a "private IR" system,
Europe historically does not. So while I did 1 exam for the FAA IR,
the JAA PPL/IR is approx 9 exams (some are doubled up so the exact #
can be argued) or 14 exams for the CPL/IR or ATPL. (The JAA ATPL is
unreachable for the private pilot because it requires c. 200hrs multi
crew cockpit time). These are packed with ATP (or jet type rating)
material e.g. the FMS in a 737.
Another key difference is attitude to individual rights. The FAA
trusts the pilot, hence the 6 month / 6 approaches rolling IR
currency. Europe assumes the pilot is forging his logbook, hence an IR
checkride every year.
There is a widely repeated story, which I am certain is correct, that
the European airlines have run the IR as the "last defence to stop
undesirable characters going to the airlines" (re****tedly the actual
words of one CAA official.
With that sort of attitude, there is little hope!
OTOH, on the good side, EASA has brought some good things. There will
be a pan-European PPL, with a doctor-only medical (considerably more
lax than the FAA Class 3). Certification is being streamlined - though
they have a long way to go before they will accept FAA certification.
A lot of EASA attitude is reciprocity. I met one of their top
rulemaking officials earlier this year; he explained that if FAA would
accept EASA licenses then EASA would accept FAA licenses. The problem
is that the reciprocity game is being played across a wide range of
topics and EASA wants reciprocity across the board, which they are not
going to get.
My take on the next 4 years is that we have seen draconian proposals,
which were drawn up in a committee in Brussels (whose members signed
nondisclosure agreements to prevent leaks and the resulting direct
lobbying) and which have some difficult side effects. This is the
"stick".
The "carrot" is going to come out later, and will be tailored (by the
exceedingly politically competent committee animals in EASA) according
to how much sh*t hits the fan when the consultation starts on the
"stick".
Things have to be done in this order. First you hit people hard and
only then talk about concessions.
My guess is that the "carrot" will be some kind of acceptance of FAA
licensing and perhaps certification. Maybe on a one-off basis. They
have 4 years - plenty of time for the 1000 or so pilots to worry like
hell - to develop the "carrot".
|
