COMMISSION OPINION of 26 April 1993 concerning the application of Article 4 (2) of Council Directive 91/670/EEC on mutual acceptance of personnel licences for the exercise of functions in civil aviation Equivalence of French, Irish and Portuguese pilot licences (Only the French text is authentic)

(93/245/EEC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/670/EEC of 16 December 1991 an mutual acceptance of personnel licences for the exercise of functions in civil aviation (1), and in particular Article 4 (2) thereof,

Having regard to the request of the French Government,

Having requested the Member States involved to submit their pilot training schemes and programmes,

Whereas:

1. By letter of 12 January 1993 registered by the Commission on 15 January 1993, the French authorities requested the Commission, on the basis of Article 4 (2) of Directive 91/670/EEC to give an opinion on the equivalence of pilot licences granted by the Civil Aviation Authorities of Ireland, Portugal and France.

2. Directive 91/670/EEC requires a Member State to accept, without undue delay or additional tests, any licence issued by another Member State together with privileges and certificates pertaining thereto. Licences issued by another Member State can be accepted on the basis of either equivalence (Article 4 (1) to (4)) or experience (Article 4 (5)). Article 4 (1) provides that the requirement of acceptance shall apply where a licence issued by the home Member State is based on requirements which are equivalent to those of the host Member State. According to Article 4 (2) (a) of the Directive, any Member State may ask the Commission for an opinion on the equivalence of a licence presented to it for acceptance, within three weeks of receiving the request.

3. Pursuant to the French request the Commission wrote to the Irish and Portuguese Governments on 21 and 26 January 1993 respectively requesting full details of the requirements for the issue of commercial pilot licences and air transportation pilot licences in their respective countries. The Irish Government transmitted their requirements on 11 February 1993 which were registered by the Commission on 16 February 1993. The Portuguese Government sent the details requested on 12 March 1993 which were registered by the Commission on 15 March 1993. In view of the time taken to gather the relevant information, the Commission sought, by letter of 12 March 1993 to the French authorities, a one month extension of the consultation procedure, as well as, on 7 April 1993, another extension till 28 April 1993.

4. The Commission has examined the respective French, Irish and Portuguese requirements for the issue of an air transport pilot licence (ATPL) and evaluated them in accordance with three essential criteria:

(a) general minimal requirements;

(b) skill requirements;

(c) theoretical knowledge requirements.

5. (a) An examination of the respective general minimal requirements of the French and Irish authorities for the issue of an ATPL licence shows no significant differences.

(b) As regards pilot skill, the French regulations require approved training, by a suitably qualified instructor, on the ground and in flight, followed by manoeuverability tests and tests in flight on a multi-turbine airplane requiring a pilot in command licence to exercice the function as commander on board in public transport or on an approved airplane of equivalent performance. The Irish authorities require a single flight test for trainees who don't possess a commercial pilot licence and authorize all types of airplane for this test. However, each type rating as pilot in command includes tests equivalent to the French tests. Differences arise on account of the absence of 'integrated' training requirements and the type of aircraft authorized since the complexity, the higher speeds and inertial effects are generally more pronounced on heavier aircraft. Therefore, the Irish ATPL is equivalent for skill requirement only when the licence includes a PIC-type rating (Part of the licence) on multi-engined airplanes of more than 5 700 kg (JAR/FAR 25 category) or any other plane considered as equivalent by the French authorities.

(c) Examination of the theoretical knowledge required reveals only minor differences and can be discounted particularly if the licence-holder possesses a type rating as defined above.

(d) The difference in philosophy between the Irish and French systems makes it difficult to take a single element of the Irish licence from its national context for direct transposition into its French equivalent. Therefore, equivalence between the two licences can only be assessed in relation to their totality by which overall equivalence is achieved. If the conditions outlined in (b) above are fulfilled the licences can be considered equivalent.

6. (a) An examination of the respective French and Portuguese general minimal requirements for the issue of an ATPL licence shows no major differences. It is to be noted that Portuguese standards have markedly improved since the Commission carried out its examination of comparative requirements.

(b) Pilot skills required by the French authorities are set out in 5 above. The Portuguese administration requires flight tests on the basis of a similar programme but on a twin-engined airplane. Differences arise because the complexity, the higher speed and inertial effects are generally more pronounced on heavier aircraft. The pilot skill requirement of the two licences can be considered as equivalent when the approved training and practical tests have been carried out on multi-engined airplanes of more than 5 700 kg (JAR/FAR 25 category) or any other airplane considered as equivalent by the French authorities.

(c) The theoretical tests transmitted to the Commission by the Portuguese authorities show a narrowing of the differences between the requirements in the two Member States since the Commission asked for information to prepare the report on comparative requirements laid down under Article 4 (1) of the Directive. Portugal requires that air law is studied prior to the issue of the licence whilst in France this examination is required, by operational regulations, after the granting of the licence. Other subjects which can be considered as comparable, or which in both countries are not tested, include air safety, loading and alignment, radio-navigation, turbine motors and performance.

As regards meteorology, aerotechnics and flying technique, France requires a greater breadth and depth of knowledge than Portugal. Hence, the Commission has to assess whether those differences between the two scheme could prejudice their equivalence under the Directive.

As regards pilots, the fundamental principles of free movement of persons and freedom of establishment and to provide services, enshrined in Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EEC Treaty, have been implemented by virtue of Article 3 (1) of the Directive (2). That Article provides for mutual acceptance of pilot licenses.

Nevertheless, Article 4 of the Directive makes the mutual acceptance of those licences subject to a possible procedure of verification of equivalence between the requirements of the host Member State and the issuing Member State when reasonable doubts as to the equivalence of the licences concerned are raised. Article 4 thereby aims at ensuring the safety of air transport services, to which explicit reference is made in the sixth recital of the Directive. However, use of that procedure must not go beyond what is strictly necessary for achieving the overall objective of safety of air operations and must, therefore, not prejudice the effective exercise of the abovementioned fundamental freedoms of the Treaty.

regard to the principles set out above and on the basis of the available information, the Commission could not identify any reasons why the Portuguese requirements on meteorology, aerotechnics and flying technique could be viewed as a threat to the safety of air transport services. In particular, they satisfy the internationally accepted standards of ICAO.

For those reasons, the Commission concludes that the theoretical knowledge requirements are equivalent in the two Member States.

7. On the basis of the foregoing analysis,

HAS ADOPTED THIS OPINION:

Article 1

The Commission considers tht an Irish ATPL licence and a Portuguese ATPL licence can be considered as equivalent to a comparable French licence if they include a PIC-type rating on multi-engined airplanes of more that 5 700 kg (FAR/JAR 25 category) or any other airplane considered as equivalent by the French authorities.

Article 2

The present opinion is addressed to the Republic of France.

Done at Brussels, 26 April 1993.

For the Commission

Abel MATUTES

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 373, 31. 12. 1991, p. 21.

(2) See also judgments of the Court of Justice in the cases of Heylens of 15 October 1987, Case 222/86 - Vlassopoulou of 7 May 1991, Case C-340/89 - Kraus of 31 March 1993, Case C-19/92.