Thanks Peter, 2 of your 5 categories above probably apply although said A&P will remain nameless.
I probably do have time (and the inclination) to read the EASA documents . . . if I can find them.
The last link in my post above (just edited) has refs to EASA FCL and that is the only current “anti N-reg” position.
Today, one would probably not do the FAA PPL/IR route from zero. It was very popular say 10 years ago but today the advantage is a lot smaller, for most prospective aircraft owners.
As it doesn’t apply to me, I didn’t read the whole thing in detail, but there was a brief article in either AOPA or FLYING online last week or so about the FAA and EASA reaching and signing a list of mutual recon agreements. I have no idea if relevant to this discussion, but IIRC it did mention maintenance and certification issues. Should be easy to dig out.
Schilke wrote:
However it did come from an FAA A&P I/A and CFII so I can’t just ignore it . . .
Sadly, as Peter mentioned, many of my fellow A&P/IAs are clueless, and THAT was the main driving reason I got my own licenses !
Here’s what the FAA & EASA have been talking about recently:
On September 15, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) signed agreements with two international regulatory partners, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and Transport Canada (TCCA) that allow the authorities to rely on each others regulatory systems. The agreements will eliminate duplicate processes, get safety enhancing equipment installed on aircraft more quickly, and save time and money for both industry and the regulatory authorities involved.Strong partnerships are a key to consistent safety standards around the world. Based on more than a decade of FAA cooperation with EASA and over fifteen years with TCCA, the agencies have established confidence in each others regulatory systems. Rooted in that confidence, the new safety agreements allow reciprocal acceptance of the majority of Technical Standard Order (TSO)-approved articles. This change benefits U.S., Canadian, and European aerospace industries organizations by eliminating the need for applications, additional validation and administrative review by each party.
The new agreement with EASA also facilitates acceptance of the classification for basic Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs). An audit process will ensure that technical classifications continue to meet established criteria, and make sure standards are being met.
More information on the new agreements can be found at: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/international/bilateral_agreements/baa_basa_listing/
Select EASA to view FAA-EASA Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement, Revision 5 of the Technical Implementation Procedures
Select Canada to view FAA-TCCA Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement, Amendment 1 of the Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness
All looks pretty hunky-dory to me !
That is, AIUI, for mutual acceptance of certification (airframe and components), not for pilot licensing, and not an anti N-reg drive in Europe.
It also stops short of an automatic FAA STC acceptance by EASA. If that was agreed, it would be dynamite. Only Australia has to date done that, AFAIK.
Agreed.
So what are the others getting their panties in a wad about then ?
Some of the things Schilke suggests would have required changes to the FARs…
Perhaps not. The owner of the air and the ground can impose whatever rules he likes. For example Belgium could mandate the wearing of yellow knickers. Nothing the FAA can do about it…
Most of the 3rd world bans long term basing of foreign reg aircraft.
That is, AIUI, for mutual acceptance of certification (airframe and components), not for pilot licensing, and not an anti N-reg drive in Europe.
BASA IPL is coming Peter. I hope you’re in good appetite. :-)
The owner of the air and the ground can impose whatever rules he likes. For example Belgium could mandate the wearing of yellow knickers. Nothing the FAA can do about it…
Gets even more complex if you bring third countries into it. What if the knickers were French?
Only Australia has to date done that, AFAIK.
Ooh. First I’ve heard of that. Reference please?