Noe wrote:
It’s completely unsurprising they break them.
“Liberté, égalité , fraternité” is the basis of the French society (or so I am told). No one is outside the law, not even the secret service. Especially not in France. We get ramp inspected and reported for ridiculous stuff (like aircraft registration which is painted in letters which are 5cm too small) in France all the time. Yet they think they can break every international aviation regulation whenever they want?
I think you can’t take it to the letter. Someone in prison, for instance, doesn’t have Liberte.
Do you expect them not to use forged documents abroad, for instance? Or to necessarily land at a “port of entry” in Syria?
Noe wrote:
Do you expect them not to use forged documents abroad, for instance? Or to necessarily land at a “port of entry” in Syria?
No, of course not. But if they do illegal flights for the benefit of France, why not use at least French registered airplanes? Why break a few more rules and charter N-reg?
Peter wrote:
But what is an EASA member state?
The easy part is the EU. But a state outside the EU can have a treaty with the EU and become a member state (there is an article about it in the Basic Regulation). They don’t get to vote, but they get to be members. 
Switzerland is an example. EASA has a section on their website with a list of states and the relationship with them. Currently, AFAIK, it’s EU+EFTA.
what_next wrote:
Why break a few more rules and charter N-reg?
Perhaps they’re less conspicuous? It’s not as obvious it’s the French? They acquired them like that? Or was it easier to equip them as N-regs (not that I would expect them to bother with this kind of thing; this is not the kind of plane you bring to your local friendly A&P)? Shouldn’t it be possible to make arrangements to do this legally? Governments usually can make exceptions. Although an informal understanding should be enough for this kind of work.
So the North Africans blame the US, rather than France? Won’t make any difference to their feelings for the US, and might help France’s relationships.
One interesting topic, not settled in previous threads, would be whether the FAA Common Purpose rule applies in an N-reg worldwide.
If it does, you can forget the UK ANO Article xxx Aerial Work etc etc stuff, or whatever reg exists in any other European country, because most of the flights concerned would fail on the common purpose rule alone
The “common purpose” requirement is in FAR 91.501 so unless someone can establish that 91.501 is not valid outside the USA, that is another block to most cost sharing in N-regs.
I wonder if @NCYankee might know about this?
Based on some old notes I have on 91.175 (the ability to fly DIY approaches) in N-regs, it looks like 91.501 is applicable outside the USA. I guess the phrase 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 is the key bit…
That’s not the “common purpose” rule. FAR 91.501 applies only to large and turbojet powered aircraft.
The common purpose requirement has been established by precedent. See for example, Bobertz and Haberkorn for ways in which this is applied.
The statute simply says:
§61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
Peter wrote:
One interesting topic, not settled in previous threads, would be whether the FAA Common Purpose rule applies in an N-reg worldwide.
I don’t see why not. It essentially limits what you can do with a private licence and when you need a commercial licence. Why should that be limited geographically? I can see how local law could further restrict it, but not how it could expand the privileges FAA grants you.
Except that you may act as PIC on a N-reg without excercising the privileges of a US certificate, nor actually hold one. So unless FAR 91 prevents cost-sharing…
