So for instance: Can you fly a D-reg on your UK license in Egypt?
I think it depends on what is written in the ANO (or equivalent) for the country of Registration of the aircraft. That’s where I would start building the argument.
The pilot papers required to fly a particular reg aircraft are initially determined by the aircraft State of Registry.
That is where you always have to start looking.
For N-regs (see the link I posted – it really does have the definitive stuff there) the main “problem” is that the USA takes the words “issued by” literally. That in turn means that mutual validation schemes such as JAA or EASA mean nothing.
Can you fly a D-reg on your UK license in Egypt?
That, surely, is within the scope of the EASA mutual license validation system which allows any EASA-reg plane (with a CofA, of course – not a “homebuilt” etc) to be flown on any EASA license, and be thus flown worldwide.
After all, a D-reg could definitely be flown on a German issued PPL worldwide. It would amaze me if Germany had some reg which said you cannot do that with say a UK issued PPL. That would probably be contrary to EU law.
It would amaze me if Germany had some reg which said you cannot do that with say a UK issued PPL. That would probably be contrary to EU law.
Careful Peter, that sounds like you think Europe is built on common sense 
For N-regs (see the link I posted – it really does have the definitive stuff there) the main “problem” is that the USA takes the words “issued by” literally.
Is there any “non-literal” way to interpret the ICAO requirement? “EASA Land” is not an ICAO contracting state…
For N-regs (see the link I posted – it really does have the definitive stuff there) the main “problem” is that the USA takes the words “issued by” literally. That in turn means that mutual validation schemes such as JAA or EASA mean nothing.
In the past this was undoubtedly true (although it didn’t stop one former owner of my N reg plane flying it all over Europe on his CAA issued licence!).
However, I think the legal ground has shifted a bit. The JAA was simply an informal harmonisation mechanism, between states. The licences were still issued by each NAA. Now, however, the legal basis for the EASA PPL etc is Part FCL. The european NAAs are simply print houses for the licences, but they are no longer issued on their authority, just a delegated authority from EASA, which can change the rules whenver it wishes. Unlike JAA, EASA is not a mutual recognition scheme.
That, surely, is within the scope of the EASA mutual license validation system which allows any EASA-reg plane (with a CofA, of course – not a “homebuilt” etc) to be flown on any EASA license, and be thus flown worldwide.
I read an informal note somewhere that the EASA mutual license validation only applies within EASA, and if so it would in fact not be a worldwide thing. But I have no hard info either way.
Unlike JAA, EASA is not a mutual recognition scheme.
Irregardless, it is still not an ICAO contracting state in its own right….and probably never will be unless the EU becomes the United States of Europe…..in which case I will move back home to Australia!
just a thought… if EASA is not an ICAO contracting state… and our licences are EASA Part FCL printed by the NAAs under delegation… how are our licences ICAO compliant…
How can the NAAs, which sign to and comply with ICAO, follow instructions from EASA a non ICAO entity? And what happens when there are conflicting directives?
Because each country writes the EU laws into their own law….
OK. and then any deviation is filed at the national level. So ICAO get the deviations from the NAAs. That bit I get.
How the NAAs can print “under delegation” an EASA licence is the question. Under EASA regulations there is no difference between a UK issued FCL and a German one (for example) but under ICAO there must be because the deviations are filed at the NAA level.
Therefore EASA licences can only be valid in EuroEuroLand and as soon as you venture outside they must either become the NAA licence or worthless…
EASA can only be a rebranded licence mutual acceptance scheme, surely?
