| FAA brevetten in Europa |
| vrijdag 08 oktober 2010 21:47 | |
|
EASA is voornemens nieuwe regelgeving te introduceren, waarbij vliegers woonachtig in de EU, vanaf 2012/2013 verplicht worden een Europees (EASA) brevet te hebben voor internationale vluchten, ongeacht de registratie van het vliegtuig. Een 'gelijkstelling/ontheffing' wordt voor maximaal één jaar verleend. Dit voorstel wordt al op 13/14 oktober voorgelegd aan de EU commissie.
Voor de Europese vliegers met FAA-brevetten betekent dit nieuwe examens inclusief nieuwe theorie!
Hoewel EASA het argument 'safety' hierbij hanteert, lijkt het meer ingegeven door een vorm van protectionisme.
Hier de reactie van IAOPA:
IAOPA presses the EC to delay EASA's N-register attack
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.
En hier de eerste reactie van IAOPA naar EASA/EC:
Brief van IAOPA aan Mr Goudou and Mr Calleja
Re: Third Country Licences. 7 th October 2010
I am concerned that the European General Aviation Community is feeling extremely worried about moves by your Agency to curtail the use of third country licences in Europe, notably, but not exclusively, FAA issued Airman Certificates. In effect Europe is sending a message to pilots outside of Europe (i.e. USA, Australia, Canada etc.) that they are no longer considered safe enough to fly here. What is absurd about the proposal is that it validates such licences but only for one year.
EASA, in its opinion to the Commission is suggesting that from 2012 anyone who is domiciled in Europe can only fly if they have a valid European licence.
There are more than 10,000 Europeans holding a third country licence and in order to continue flying they will need to convert to the EASA Part FCL Licence post implementation (April 2012) of the new system. The financial impact will be huge particularly for those who hold an Instrument qualification. They will have to re-sit a number of exams and do a flying course prior to being confirmed as ready to take the flight test. The work of FCL 008 may introduce some changes but this part of FCL is expected to follow on after the main licensing rules become law in Europe - this is unsatisfactory.
EASA has not provided any safety justifications for these proposals which deviate significantly from the existing rules. Part of the rule making process requires EASA, by law, to produce a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) to support their opinion. It is unclear as to whether or not these costs and therefore social impact have been properly considered. On this point I believe that the Commission must set aside this part of the FCL opinion until further work has been done, so that the real impact is fully understood.
The Basic Regulation, which the Agency often cites as being the 'will of the European Parliament' does not specifically direct EASA to make proposals in respect of Flight Crew Licences; indeed as a Safety Agency it would be appropriate for EASA to support such proposals with a detailed safety case - they have not! Clearly this is a policy matter and therefore outside the remit of EASA. It should also be noted that this proposal has an impact on member states' ICAO obligations.
Whilst EASA is not currently suggesting that an individual can not own an aircraft which is registered in a third country, the FAA licensing system requires pilots to hold an FAA Airman's Certificate in order to be able to fly internationally in their foreign registered aircraft.
These EASA proposals will restrict aircraft owners to flights within their State. Aircraft owners in States like Malta will be unable to fly anywhere other than around their islands. This is a restriction of the individuals freedom of movement, is an imposition that doesn't currently exist and is in contravention of the Treaty of Rome. Foreign registered aircraft whichhave paid import duty and VAT are, under EU Customs and Excise rules,legally able to move (fly) around freely throughout Europe.
If these proposals are accepted by the Commission it will lead to major cost increases leading to a further economic downturn in activity.
Finally, it has been suggested by EASA officials that European organisations need to work with their American counterparts to put pressure on the US Government to conclude the current EU/US bilateral agreement, a debate which has been on-going for at least 18 months. Furthermore, Flight Crew Licences should be subject to EU/US bilateral agreement on the basis of mutual recognition of each others licences..
This suggests that this issue is not a safety matter but a political/policy matter and therefore the Commission should set this matter aside until the EU/US bi-lateral discussions have been concluded.
Europe must obviously take great care to avoid retaliatory measures from non-European states which could be a serious set back in terms of international aviation relations.
I look forward to your earliest reply as I understand there is a deadline of 13/14 October in respect of the Commission delivering its response to the EASA opinion.
Yours sincerely
Martin Robinson
Senior VP IAOPA Europe
En hier de eerste reactie van AOPA-NL naar Verkeer & Waterstaat:
Aan mevrouw drs. E. Bien
Directeur Luchtvaart
Ministerie van verkeer en waterstaat, DGLM
Postbus 20901
2500 EX Den Haag
email:
Dit e-mailadres is beschermd tegen spambots. U heeft Javascript nodig om het te kunnen zien.
Verzenden per e-mail en post Lelystad, 8 oktober 2010
Betr.: EASA voorstel aan de Europese Commissie: 10.000 Europeanen verliezen geldigheid vliegbrevetten.
Geachte Mevrouw Bien,
De Senior vice president van IAOPA heeft een brief gestuurd aan de heer Daniel Calleja, Directeur Luchtvaart van de Europese Commissie, waarin hij namens de Europese piloten bezwaar maakt tegen de door EASA voorgestelde Implementing Rules for Flight Crew Licensing (FCL). IAOPA heeft tijdens het opstellen van deze regels herhaaldelijk bij EASA bezwaar aangetekend, de bezwaren zijn echter niet overwogen noch weerlegd.
Hieronder vatten we de bezwaren in het kort samen:
Na invoering van de EASA FCL in april 2012, zijn de Europees ingezeten piloten, die nu op een geldig buitenlands brevet vliegen, verplicht om een geldig EASA brevet te behalen om binnen Europa te mogen vliegen. Omdat de gelijkstelling van de Amerikaanse (FAA) of andere buitenlandse brevetten voor Europeanen niet toegepast wordt door EASA, zullen deze duizenden piloten opnieuw examen moeten doen nadat zij aan de opleiding eisen (instructie-uren onder EASA regels) hebben voldaan. De kosten hiervoor zijn enorm en hebben geen enkele toegevoegde waarde voor de veiligheid, de piloten hebben immers hun brevet dat voldoet aan de ICAO eisen.
Daarnaast is een indirect gevolg dat alle in Europa opererende vliegtuigen op een registratie van een derde land belet worden te opereren. Immers het land van registratie verlangt een brevet van het land in kwestie en dat wordt dan dus niet meer erkend door EASA.
Ook dit heeft enorme financiële gevolgen voor de eigenaren en de markt van zulke vliegtuigen. Dit terwijl al deze vliegtuigen geheel volgens Europese regelgeving zijn geïmporteerd en waarover ook BTW en douane rechten zijn betaald. Juridisch mogen zij zich vrijelijk verplaatsen cq vliegen in Europa.
De luchtvaart is van nature een mondiale aangelegenheid, wereld leiders hebben met het verdrag van Chicago ICAO opgericht om de veilige uitvoering van de luchtvaart te harmoniseren en daarmee te waarborgen. Er is geen sector waar de harmonisatie zo ver is doorgevoerd met gestandaardiseerde eisen (ICAO) met alle positieve gevolgen voor de veiligheid. Lokale situaties mogen tot afwijking van de ICAO regels leiden indien de veiligheid dit vereist. Daar is in dit geval geen sprake van; er is zelfs geen safety assessment uitgevoerd.
Het is merkwaardig dat de EASA, waar de ‘S’ voor safety staat, regels voorstelt die geen enkele relatie met veiligheid hebben, er lijkt een politieke reden te zijn waar deze regels voor gemaakt zijn, dat kan markt protectie zijn.
Een FAA brevet is een mondiaal breed geaccepteerd brevet dat bovendien tegen veel lagere kosten behaald kan worden omdat de luchtvaart in de VS veel minder belasting en accijns hoeft af te dragen dan in Europa het geval is. Bovendien is een FAA brevet verplicht om een door de FAA geregistreerd vliegtuig te mogen besturen. De Amerikaanse vloot is vele malen groter dan de Europese. Dat betekent dat veel piloten dus dubbele brevetten op alle niveaus in stand moeten houden om aan de FAA en EASA eisen te voldoen.
Het vrije verkeer van personen en goederen dat de basis is van de Europese Unie wordt door deze voorstellen aangetast.
Het gaat hier niet om een veiligheids issue maar om een politieke, beleidskwestie en hoort derhalve niet in veiligheidsregelgeving thuis.
Op 13 of 14 oktober as wordt de EASA Opinie aan de Europese Commissie voorgelegd er is dus haast geboden om EASA voor deze dwaling te behoeden. Ondergetekenden vragen u om vanuit uw positie in EASA de aanneming van deze maatregelen uit te stellen en te laten aanpassen aan regelgeving die de veiligheid dienen en geen buitensporig kostbare eisen aan de vliegers en vliegtuigeigenaren opleggen.
Hoogachtend,
Namens de gezamenlijke GA in Nederland,
J.G. de Vries
Voorzitter AOPA Netherlands
Deze brief werd opgesteld door het Overleg Platform GA met instemming van:
KNVvL, NVL, NACA, EFHA, NVAV en de motorvliegclubs in Nederland
Afschriften van deze brief worden per e-mail verzonden aan
|
