Peter wrote:
We did this here recently, and I suspect that – in aviation at least – it is more complex. The obvious (if banal) argument is a pilot’s license and medical having lapsed. Let’s say he flies 100hrs a year so has no shortage of currency. I would be amazed if the insurer paid out on in a crash, because the lack of license/medical was not a cause of the accident. If they did, why have a PPL, or why have a car driving license at all?
Well, I’ve read the conditions of my club aircraft insurance pretty carefully and it is clear that if the pilot was not the owner of the aircraft and the owner was unaware that the pilot did not have a valid license/medical, then the insurance would pay. Of course they could try to reclaim their costs from the pilot.
There actually was a rather well-published case in Sweden the other year. A club-owned PA32 crashed on takeoff. It turned out that at the very least the runway was too short for the aircraft mass. (Possibly the aircraft was also overweight — I don’t recall.) It turned out that the flight was an illegal charter flight and the insurance was only valid for private flights. The club was unaware of the illegal charter (or at least it couldn’t be proved that they knew). The insurance company payed out in full to the club but then went after the pilot to recover its costs. The case went to court eventually and the insurance company won.
Well, I’ve read the conditions of my club aircraft insurance pretty carefully and it is clear that if the pilot was not the owner of the aircraft and the owner was unaware that the pilot did not have a valid license/medical, then the insurance would pay
Yes, of course, otherwise theft could not be insured.
It turned out that the flight was an illegal charter flight and the insurance was only valid for private flights. The club was unaware of the illegal charter (or at least it couldn’t be proved that they knew). The insurance company payed out in full to the club but then went after the pilot to recover its costs. The case went to court eventually and the insurance company won.
That is a variation of the same.
This is an ongoing challenge in syndicates. One argument is that you really need somebody to be making sure that the members have valid papers, and keep an eye on this at their respective renewal dates. The other argument is that it is better to not keep an eye on this and just collect the money from the insurance if the (unlicensed and thus uninsured) pilot crashes it (especially if insured for agreed value) 
There may be some small print involved…
This is digressing but there are many previous “insurance” threads e.g. this good one.
Qalupalik wrote:
The explicit rule has been repeatedly cited here. It is in 14 CFR 61.3. There is no contradiction in Chief Counsel opinions on the rule to date …
The US restricted foreign-based private pilot certificate issued in pursuance of 14 CFR 61.75 is a house of cards.
Thanks for citing that, I think I have mistaken question with answer on a quick read of November 14, 2004 interpretation, later rulings also agree with this
(“the pilot is permitted to operate a U.S.-registered aircraft in any foreign country in which his Belgian/JAA pilot license is recognized.”, from Nov 2004)
For myself, a 61.75 will do the job today (decided to get an EASA IR and not to pursue FAA IR) but even if one gets a standalone PPL, the FAA training/refreshers (BFR, IPC…) in the UK seems to get more expensive and uncertain
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Obviously the USA and FAA do think they for all practical purposes have taken the place of ICAO in most parts of the world
I don’t think I need to remind you who initiated and hosted the formation of ICAO.
I think individuals choose operate N-registered aircraft because it’s the regulatory system least burdened with ambiguous value subtracting governmental nonsense. The way to make free people choose differently is to offer them an equally valid alternate. Neither FAA nor ICAO has much influence in that regard – both have done their job.
Qalupalik wrote:
The recent amendment to ICAO Annex 1 has absolutely no bearing on 14 CFR 61.3 vis-a-vis the operation of US-registered aircraft outside the US using non-US flight crew licences.
That’s what I guessed. Thanks for the clarification.
Hello. I know that holder’s of EASA PPL issued by LBA can fly N-regs but only in Germany.
I’m looking for any official info if its the same for Polish released PPL’s inside of Poland.
Maybe anyone know the subject?
Someone will help you with the exact paragraph but it is from the FAA. They state that their aircraft can be flown in another country if you hold the appropriate licenses and ratings for that aircraft. So if you have a polish license you can fly in Poland.
Since all of Europe has the same licensing system one could probably argue that you can fly in all EASA but maybe LBA will think differently. I do not know that the Swedish CAA would say if they checked your licenses during a trip to Sweden with that setup.
Yes, I think it has to be a licence by the country and the EU is not a country
Fly310 wrote:
Since all of Europe has the same licensing system one could probably argue that you can fly in all EASA but maybe LBA will think differently. I do not know that the Swedish CAA would say if they checked your licenses during a trip to Sweden with that setup.
Most importantly, the FAA will think differently! From an ICAO point of view, a Swedish EASA license is distinct from a German EASA license. EASA actually provides a mutual acceptance document that you must carry if you fly outside EASA-land with an EASA-reg aircraft on an EASA license issued not issued by the registration country of the aircraft
Hello…it’s been a long while since I posted here…I’m not based in Europe anymore….and I sold my airplane (N-reg) a few years ago… A quick question: Someone told me the other day that as of a couple of years ago the FAA now requires all overseas US registered aircraft to return to the US at least once every two years….they did not give me a reference but they do own two N-reg aircraft (including a CJ3) based in the Philippines…. I can’t find any corroborating evidence or regulatory reference….is this correct? Apologies if this is addressed elsewhere on the site…I did do a search but could not find anything relevant…
