I have huge respect for the FAA and it’s avowed mission “to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world”.
The FARs are pretty well established and understood, but the FAA has shown that it can interpret them in a pragmatic and liberal way. The Administration’s “Coleal interpretation” of 14 CFR 43 is a shining example.
I think that a reasonable case could be made for asking the FAA to reconsider its previous interpretations of 14 CFR 61.3 in relation to Union airspace and the Single European Sky.
Comming back to the original question.
Let‘s practically assume you fly an n-reg with a EASA-license issued by the Franch CAA in the German airspace (w/o having a FAA license as well).
If you don‘t have an accident, one could argue that FAA-opinion on this fact is completely irrelevant.
First of all they will never find out about this flight and second – and more importantly – there is nothing they could do: As you don‘t have a FAA license, the FAA can not do any license related action. They don‘t even know you.
Therefore if an authority wanted to act ist could only be the French or German CAA. The French, however, can not do anything either, as there whole point would be that you can‘t fly this plane in germany on a French license therefore they would say themselfes, that it has nothing to do with the French license.
So it‘s only the Germans: They needed to claim that a) a French EASA-license is not the same as a German EASA license (which is in direct contrast to basic regulation) and b) therefore the French EASA license is not adequate for this flight. They will not win this case in front of an EU court.
Only question therefore if insurance is a problem in case of an accident: That depends on the terms of the insurance but I would expect (haven‘t seen that as I‘ve never owned an n-reg) that most US policies relate somehow to FAA regulations.
In Europe, and certainly UK, insurance policies say “the flight has to be legal”.
IMHO, therefore, they would not pay out and you would have to sue them.
You would need to do a better job than this guy @Jacko but I have every faith in you!
This legal opinion is not applicable because the Person who wrote it obviously has no clue about European licensing especially the fundamental changes that happened when we moved from JAR to EASA.
As long as we talk About EASA License there is no such thing as a “UK License” that is “recognized” by another member state under a “common licensing scheme”. There are no longer UK, French or German licenses but only one EASA License. This license might be issued by different CAA (or other administrative units) but that is done alwas on behalf of the EASA.
Stating that a UK License is recognised by another memberstate makes as much sense as if this FAA official stated, that FAA licenses issued by the Los Angeles FSDO are also recognized by the New Yor FSDO.
WilliamF wrote:
You would need to do a better job than this guy @Jacko but I have every faith in you!
Start with this “Specifically, you have asked whether a pilot who holds an EASA part-FCL can operate a US-registered aircraft in an EASA country” 
then let Jacko finish the work !
Thanks William, that’s a useful reference. I’ll also try to find the other two interpretation letters.
The most recent of those letters was six years ago, since when the process of European union has changed our airspace; now we have not only EuroControl but also SERA, the Single European Sky, the requirement for EU residents to have an EU licence…
It is fair to say that the EU is not directly represented on the ICAO Council, but Article 218 TFEU provides for the Council to adopt common positions binding “the Member States of the Union that are members of the ICAO Council, acting jointly” to express the Union’s position. So, for the purposes of its airspace, the EU acts as a single country (albeit with some regional differences, like the United States).
Ibra wrote:
Start with this “Specifically, you have asked whether a pilot who holds an EASA part-FCL can operate a US-registered aircraft in an EASA country” then let Jacko finish the work !
Sounds very plausible when you say it like that. You can search the FAA interpretations here if anyone is interested.
Stating that a UK License is recognised by another memberstate makes as much sense as if this FAA official stated, that FAA licenses issued by the Los Angeles FSDO are also recognized by the New Yor FSDO.
That depends on whether you believe there are “countries” in the world Most countries still do believe that. In Europe, some % of people doesn’t, but that doesn’t cut much ice with regs which have been established over the last century.
The FAA is well aware of the JAA/EASA angle but last time I spoke to one of them (at some conference, c. 10 years ago) he said they don’t want to get into this because of possible unintended consequences elsewhere. Possibly he was worried that any other group of countries could decide to recognise each other’s papers and then the FAA would lose control of N-reg ops over a large area.
It is fair to say that the EU is not directly represented on the ICAO Council
The story, posted many years ago by someone who was then in the CAA/DfT, was that the EU demanded a seat and was told (obviously predictably) they can have one only if all the EU member countries resigned theirs. Well, you know what happened next (all refused to resign)
The US Constitution was created by people who could see beyond the end of their noses, with the primary objective of defining the roles of Federal and US state governments. As a result, any ambiguity in relation to FAA power both within and outside of the US was eliminated after a short period of debate before we were born. I think it would useful for Europe if a similarly clear legal situation could be established as the basis for international treaties that extend outside of Europe. At the moment ICAO seems to think there is no such basis.
