Malibuflyer wrote:
In aviation, the commission has the opinion, that this area is fully regulated and harmonized by EU regulation and therefore is no room for individual member state legislation. In this case, there is no reason for national registration as airplanes registered elsewhere do fulfill all the regulations in Denmark as well.That is the reasoning from the EU.
Probably, but the Danish CAA still has to break a law. Free movement of goods sounds very far fetched, even free movement of people. Obviously some Danish law clashes with this “sentiment” from the EU. A private plane is private property, nothing more.
LeSving wrote:
Free movement of goods sounds very far fetched, even free movement of people. Obviously some Danish law clashes with this “sentiment” from the EU. A private plane is private property, nothing more.
You don’t even have to go into the theoretic definition of what is a good or not.
Just imagine a let’s say German dealer that has a German Reg plane for sale and a Danish buyer who is interested to buy this. The buyer might think “if I buy this German registered plane, I have to change registration to a Danish one. This includes cost and hassle. Therefore I’d rather buy a plane from a Danish dealer that is already Danish registered”.
That is exactly what freedom of goods should prevent…
Malibuflyer wrote:
Just imagine a let’s say German dealer that has a German Reg plane for sale and a Danish buyer who is interested to buy this. The buyer might think “if I buy this German registered plane, I have to change registration to a Danish one. This includes cost and hassle. Therefore I’d rather buy a plane from a Danish dealer that is already Danish registered”.
That is exactly what freedom of goods should prevent…
Maybe, but that is not what happened here. There is no talk about selling or buying the plane. If that was the case, then the plane would indeed be “goods”, but as it is, it is simply private property. A special kind of private property that needs registration, not unlike cars. The EU would need to have a law saying “all registrations are equal in all member states”. Does it?
Having said that, the Norwegian CAA had the same stand as the Danish until a few years ago. Then they caved in, sort of, allowing other EASA planes. And we are not even part of EU.
LeSving wrote:
If that was the case, then the plane would indeed be “goods”, but as it is, it is simply private property.
Then you have to go into the legal fine print ;-)
“Goods” in terms of the common law is defined as “any tangible movable Item” (plus some other classes of goods like e.g. water, gas, electricity of software, etc.).
There is no differentiation between “private property” and some other type of items.
The case we discuss here actually illustrates, that such a differentiation does not make sense. Just imagine the consequences: If I own and operate a D-reg plane in Denmark it would be “private property” which I could operate there under D-reg. Up to the very day when I decide to sell it. Then this private property would immediately become a “good” and therefore needed to be registered in Denmark. At least if not I decide to sell this plane incidentally when I’m on a visit in Germany so that the plane is not in Denmark at this time – then I had 6 months time to register it in Denmark. That would be absurd…
But even if you differentiation held true, it wouldn’t help for most n-regs. The vast majority of n-regs operated in Europe are not “private property” but legally owned by a (commercial) trust. Therefore even in your definition an n-reg would be a good…
There is no differentiation between “private property” and some other type of items.
It’s “free movement of goods” they are referring to. An aircraft for sale is something different than an aircraft used for personal transportation. You can freely sell an aircraft all over the place, but that doesn’t equate it can be freely used all over the place as a personal transportation. These are different legal matters.
I’m just wondering which law the Danish CAA is supposed to break. To me it sounds like more of a principle, not a law. It would be interesting to know.
So it seams the danish AOPA was succesfull with the EU commission case against danish CAA here. According to the latest danish AOPA newsletter EASA aircraft registered in other EU countries can now be based in Denmark without special permission, just a notification to the CAA about ownership, base airport, type and registration.
3rd countries including N-reg still not allowed permanently but there is a good chance DK CAA eventually has to back on this too.
THY wrote:
So it seams the danish AOPA was succesfull with the EU commission case against danish CAA here. According to the latest danish AOPA newsletter EASA aircraft registered in other EU countries can now be based in Denmark without special permission, just a notification to the CAA about ownership, base airport, type and registration.
Since the relevant EU law applies equally in Sweden, that should mean that the Swedish ban is also not valid. Norway, of course, is a different matter.
A ban on EU-reg foreign types was always a bit dodgy IMHO.
For example the old UK ANO ban on “aerial work” by foreign reg planes unless DfT permission is obtained (no longer active) did apply to say F-reg and G-reg, the way the reg was written, but when asked, the DfT said it doesn’t apply to those. It would have been very strange for an EU country to be treating other EU regs differently.
N-regs can be banned if the country wants to… it just looks a bit “African” 
Peter wrote:
N-regs can be banned if the country wants to
A country can “ban” anything it wants to. But it looks a bit odd to “ban” certain items if there are agreements between countries not to ban those items. As with the Danish aircraft thing, I have not yet seen any reference to any particular agreement or law that say anything relevant on EU registered aircraft in particular, in any direction. So I guess the Danes can do whatever they want.
It’s more a matter of how small a fish needs to be before it’s no longer worth the effort to fry it. IMO private aircraft is guppy sized, and it’s rather ridiculous to even consider frying at all. Then again in Africa I ate guppy sized dried fish Tasted like old and moist leather, not at all like the dried cod we have up here
The funny thing, which I have written before many times, is that regulating a piece of metal sitting in a hangar is impossible. It is only when flying that the exposure starts, and it is difficult to write clear rules on that. And much of the community can fly “below the radar”, VFR, non-txp or Mode C, etc. It’s all been done before.
