AnthonyQ wrote:
Another argument is that the term “Operator” refers to AOC holders
If that were the case, Anthony, they would not use the term “Operator” in Part-NCO (NC=non-commercial)
‘operator’ shall mean any legal or natural person, or company operating or proposing to operate one or more aircraft;
That still doesn’t define an Operator. That text is circular 
But then they would also have prevented EU-resident commercial pilots to fly for third-country operators in/out of the community…
There seems to be an understanding that if you get an AOC then you get an implicit permission for whatever you want to do, including FCL. For example you can operate an N reg under an AOC so long as the crew has EASA papers and the plane is under Part M.
But sometimes, when you interpret legislation, you need to understand the spirit of the law. And sadly, the spirit of the law is to force pilots that reside in the EU to get EASA papers
In a country with a proper justice system the ambiguity would be construed against the party relying on the regulation.
So in the UK
I think this is a deliberate case of FUD.
I still think it is pretty far fetched to think that a PPL holder will manage to justify that he acts as PIC on a flight for an operator who is not himself. I do not believe that argument will fly for two seconds.
I agree. However if you had a syndicate with a booking site, and the owner, based in say Jersey or post-brexit UK, had a veto on any booking?
Well that’s the only official wording of Operator available for the regulation.
Interestingly an aviation colleague has just advised that his insurer stipulated that he is only insurable for his N reg aircraft as long as he follows the FAR’s based on the FAA being the state of registry of the Aircraft. All of you that post on this forum that you are flying N reg aircraft primarily with an EASA licence now (instead of your FAA licence) should be extremely careful. In the event of accident / incident you could be stitched up and end up prosecuted for not following the regs from the State of registry of your aircraft (I am assuming FAA for most of you)
My colleague stipulated that his insurer told him to put his aircraft on the EU registry if he is flying primarily with his EASA licence.
As I said before all of this is a legal void and I am sure that the enforcement branch of the FAA would clamp down hard if a pilot flying an N reg aircraft chose not to follow the FAR’s
Here from EU 1178/2011 (Air Crew). This is the derogation we are discussing:
4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of this Regulation until 8 April 2016 to pilots holding a licence and associated medical certificate issued by a third country involved in the non-commercial operation of aircraft as specified in Article 4(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.
And that is the derogation that supposedly shall be postponed to April 2017.
I’ll make this brief. A pilot flying aircraft on an EASA licence in the state the licence was issued flies in according with the FARs, in particular FAR 61.3 (a) (1).
And he/she certainly does not have to abide by all FARs. Which parts of the FARs apply to whom is normally explicitly stated – for example, a US aircraft does NOT have to apply the Part 91 general rules when flying outside the US.
Your colleague needs a different insurer…
So you reckon 91.175 doesn’t apply? 
I agree about needing an insurer who knows what he is talking about.
I’ll make it ‘not so brief’
There are many Part 91 rules to comply with for N reg outside of the states.
For example,
Each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States shall —
When over the high seas, comply with annex 2 (Rules of the Air) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and with §§91.117(c), 91.127, 91.129, and 91.131;
Except for §§91.307(b), 91.309, 91.323, and 91.711, comply with this part so far as it is not inconsistent with applicable regulations of the foreign country where the aircraft is operated or annex 2 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation; and
When operating within airspace designated as Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications (MNPS) airspace, comply with §91.705. When operating within airspace designated as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace, comply with §91.706.
(b) Annex 2 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Ninth Edition — July 1990, with Amendments through Amendment 32 effective February 19, 1996, to which reference is made in this part, is incorporated into this part and made a part hereof as provided in 5 U.S.C. §552 and pursuant to 1 CFR part 51. Annex 2 (including a complete historic file of changes thereto) is available for public inspection at the Rules Docket, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591
Another friend advised me recently of a high time corporate pilot around 5 years ago flying an N reg corporate jet predominately on his European licence which included the type rating, within Europe and occasionally to America. His FAA licence stipulated the type rating as VFR privileges only. He was reported to the FAA enforcement section, lost his FAA licence and was apparently prosecuted.
The direction of this thread is worrying…….
I think that postings here seem to be inciting pilots to fly N registered aircraft with a predominately EASA licence, against the state of aircraft registry
This whole thing is such a mess. Makes the migrant situation look like an easily solved problem.
The question comes back to why people want to register their planes as N. That is the problem. Fix that, and the whole N reg goes away.
If you are a US citizen or resident that owns their own plane and has an FAA lic (Im referring to private not commercial) there is no good reason you shouldnt be able fly a N reg plane.
Phobos wrote:
Perhaps the thread needs forwarding to the FAA investigations team, we shall see
Oh yes, they love hot tips from foreign amateur private detectives.
Feel free to think that Silvaire
