Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
#1592453
Genghis I'm not sure how you can disagree with me on the specific point of the wording of Annex II, my statement was a fact about the structure of the way the BR is written - military aircraft (as opposed to ex-military) are not listed in Annex II. I wouldn't rely on the CAA website, since it is a simplification. Annex II does not contain the exact words you highlight. To understand the scope of EASA rules you have to read Articles 1 and 4 of the BR along with Annex II.

Forgive me though, it was somewhat pedantic point - I wasn't really disagreeing with the general point you were making about the implications of excluding time on aircraft outside of the EASA system. The view of EASA legal on this issue could have implications for things like time on 3rd country aircraft outside of the EU (even if those aircraft are EASA types).

However, I wouldn't really spend too much time worrying about it, these sorts of inconsistencies in the way (its usually the Commission rather than EASA) legal interface issues are understood are not uncommon and provided no one shouts too loudly about them they normally go away.
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1592473
JoeC wrote:
Paul_Sengupta wrote:How much money is going into draughting EASA rules ....


It seems like very little...


Two ways of looking at it - if they did nothing and everything stayed the same then everything would be fine. The more they do, the more they seem to shaft us, despite assurances to the contrary from the leadership.

You could look at it from the point of view that they're getting it wrong and should spend more time on it, but that assumes stupidity rather than malice, and we keep getting told that they have some of the finest minds in aviation working on stuff.
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1592485
CRD 2014/29(A)
494 comment by: CAA of Poland representative
1. Referring to point 2.4.3. concerning FCL.035(a)(2) – CAA Poland is interested in a more detail explanation from EASA on reasons why crediting of flight hours on aircraft listed in letters a-d of Annex II to the Basic Regulation has been taken into consideration excluding letter e – i.e. ultra-light aircraft (below 495 kg). The question is justified due to lots of queries from the aircrew environment concerning crediting of flight hours obtained on ultra-light Annex II aircraft.


EASA response:
Not accepted
After consultation with the EASA experts, the decision taken was to remove the text amendment in FCL.035(a)(2) proposed with NPA 2014-29 because with this amendment the requirements of the Basic Regulation would have been altered. If deemed necessary this should be done in the Basic Regulation itself rather than in its implementing rules. EASA has prepared an AMC and proposed it with NPA 2014-29(B) and this AMC will be published after the adoption of the amendments to the Aircrew Regulation as GM.


NPA2014-29(B)
A new AMC is added after GM1 FCL.135.A;FCL.135.H:
‘AMC1 FCL.140.A Recency requirements; FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) Revalidation of class and type ratings — aeroplanes
All hours flown on any aircraft registered in an ICAO Contracting State shall count in full towards fulfilling the hourly requirements of this Part as long as the aircraft matches the definition and criteria of the respective Part-FCL aircraft category as well as its class and type ratings.’


Pilot und Flugzueg 14 April 2015

Generally EASA states that with regard to flight time requirements for the revalidation of the LAPL or SEP class ratings all flight time anywhere in any applicable aircraft should be counted. Quote:

All hours flown on any aircraft registered in an ICAO Contracting State shall count in full towards fulfilling the hourly requirements of this Part as long as the aircraft matches the definition and criteria.

This was actually necessary, because some authorities came up with the concoction that flight time in e.g. a US-registered C172 in America does not count towards the revalidation of an EASA SEP-rating or that Annex-II aircraft somehow don't count. Again, at times we don't envy EASA for their job of herding this bunch of competent authorities...
#1592487
they have some of the finest minds in aviation working on stuff.


Well there must be some great minds that allow us to fly EASA aircraft in the UK on a Medical Declaration (till 8/4/18), an EASA aircraft with EASA PPL and class II Med, in say a PA 28 with 4 persons, or an EASA licence with LAPL medical in say a PA28 with 4 persons. :wall:

Or with an EASA PPL fly a Spitfire, Mustang, etc but become unsafe and a danger to the public in schools and puppy farms if you want to fly a C150 without "EASA" hours logged.:wall:

Even Sir Humphrey couldn't invent this sort of bullcrap that is being trotted out in the name of "SAFETY"
Last edited by FlarePath on Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1592488
All hours flown on any aircraft registered in an ICAO Contracting State shall count in full towards fulfilling the hourly requirements of this Part as long as the aircraft matches the definition and criteria.


That directly contradicts the statement being quoted by the other flying magazine, which excludes Annex 2 aeroplanes - as the UK is an ICAO contracting state, and so are I think all other members of EASA.

G
#1592489
Paul_Sengupta wrote:You could look at it from the point of view that they're getting it wrong and should spend more time on it, but that assumes stupidity rather than malice, and we keep getting told that they have some of the finest minds in aviation working on stuff.


Is your 'dog now Annex II?

If so I can fully understand your (and others) real concern and anger if this isn't sorted.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1592495
@patowalker, the quotes you give are dated 2014 & 2015.

It seems that something has changed, if the OP news story is accurate (and I don't really doubt that, given the people and organisations that they quote).

It's possible that the 2014/15 EASA statements are no longer definitive - regardless of how they were worded and interpreted at the time.
#1592501
One thing I have learnt over many years dealing with the EU system and EASA in particular is that one needs to identify carefully who are the friends and who are the enemies. Or put another way, try to understand who is responsible for what so that the arrows are aimed properly. At the same time, unlike the expectation of several forum-ites one has to be pragmatic and accept that individuals and organisations are not perfect in their performance. Things are not always (if rarely) delivered on time and will not suit all parties, for a wide variety of reasons.

EASA is trying to solve the problem (hence friend in this context) but is constrained by the legal construct of the system. And guess where their riding instructions come from? The Basic Regulation and in-house lawyers, of course. Not just in EASA, where they have a large degree of independence, but also the Commission’s legal services unit. The lawyers are obliged to create the standardised EU with considerations of ‘level playing field’, free movement etc etc. In their mind, for example, you cannot have training schools using non-EASA aircraft for pilot training for an EASA licence because that does not create a level playing field. It’s mad, annoying, economically stupid but not necessarily illogical in the context of the EU’s guiding principles. But that’s the fact as they see it.

I can do no better than endorse completely what Ed Bellamy states in posts 1592407 and 1592453 above. Also patowalker in post 1592371 above has things spot on and rightly points out the relevant article 4(b) in the soon-to-be new Basic Regulation. EASA has known about this issue for at least 9 years (see also my post 1588317 under “Possible EASA bombshell” - link in post 1592356 above).

The recently quoted article from another mag (first post in this thread) is based on out-of-date material. Maybe we shall have a better clue as to the battle over this issue between certain member states and the lawyers when we hear back from today’s EASA committee meeting (of member states) where I understand the topic was for discussion.

Not that anything that is written on these forums has any real direct impact on the debate at European level; only face-to-face discussions with the ultimate decision makers has any real influence. But the forums discussions - or least some of them - are useful for informing those from the alphabet organisations who do make representations face-to-face. And that’s when your market intelligence of who is an enemy and who is a friend becomes very useful.
Paul_Sengupta, kanga, rohmer liked this
#1592509
As a former delegate on an EASA Rule Making Committee, I say David Roberts has nailed it. I recognise all the traits described and the utter frustration felt by many at the way the 'system' changed things after the EASA Opinion had been published.

I'm still not sure what comitology is, but whatever it is, I think it's part of the problem not the solution.

One of the problems UK delegates came up against time and time again was national positions on rule making in general. At the risk of sweeping statements stereotyping certain countries, those southern EU MS favour hard law and prescribed regulation. The further north one went the soft law, appropriate rules based on risk type of thinking prevailed.

France did what France does.

As more and more people leave the UK CAA, its sphere of influence deflates and opportunities to intervene not only for our good but other fliers too diminish. I'm hoping for the best whilst fearing for the worst.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10