@bookworm, the annex 6 paragraphs you cited don’t mention the operator, according to them, only the aircraft needs an authorization from the state of registry. This is consistent.
However, the operator cannot get an authorization from the state of registry, but if needed only from the state of license/AOC issuance.
I’m afraid, Thomas, that there is an entire ICAO Document, 9997, PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION (PBN) OPERATIONAL APPROVAL MANUAL, which elaborates on the words in Annex 6. Regardless of the use of the word “aircraft”, because it relates to “operations” not “airworthiness” an operational approval is required. For GA operators, the application is made by the operator to the State of Registry. For CAT operators, the application is made to the State of the Operator. The “state of licence issue” has nothing to do with it.
bookworm wrote:
For GA operators, the application is made by the operator to the State of Registry.
So every time I want to rent a small plane I first have to make a new application to the state where that aircraft is registered?
Different question: When ICAO decides some recommendation, when is this voted upon by some democratic body in any state before it becomes somehow binding? In what way am I as a private pilot bound by ICAO document 9997? How can I be bound by something that is not even freely available (doc 9997 would cost 161 $ to download)?
Rwy20 wrote:
In what way am I as a private pilot bound by ICAO document 9997? How can I be bound by something that is not even freely available (doc 9997 would cost 161 $ to download)?
You are not bound to any of the ICAO documents, except when national (or EU) legislation explicitly refer to such a document.
Actually I know that. So I was wondering why it is cited here as if it was law, and my honest question is: Do I need to treat it as such?
Rwy20 wrote:
Do I need to treat it as such?
That depends… The ICAO SARPs spell out the details of how the air traffic system is supposed to work and when that affects your actions as a pilot, you are supposed to play along unless your national authority says or authorises otherwise. E.g. more likely than not national (or EU) legislation will not tell you how to fly a holding procedure, but such procedures are designed according to ICAO SARPs so you better fly them the way ICAO intended or risk problems.
Rwy20 wrote:
So every time I want to rent a small plane I first have to make a new application to the state where that aircraft is registered?Different question: When ICAO decides some recommendation, when is this voted upon by some democratic body in any state before it becomes somehow binding? In what way am I as a private pilot bound by ICAO document 9997? How can I be bound by something that is not even freely available (doc 9997 would cost 161 $ to download)?
ICAO almost makes EASA look reasonable by comparison, doesn’t it? :)
You are not directly bound to doc 9997, but the NL is within its rights to require you to hold an operational approval from the state of registry before you fly the GPS 05 at EHGG. The annotation on the plate is intended to make that requirement explicit.
That means virtually nobody can legally fly any IAPs in the NL, especially in an N-reg whose State of registry (the NY IFU, in this case) is completely ineffective in the customer service department.
Why do you say “any IAPs”?
In the case of EHGG the AIP says:
2.4.1.2 Instrument approaches
ILS approaches can be made to RWY 23 only. RNAV (GNSS) approaches to LPV and LNAV minima are available for both RWY 05 and RWY 23. Instrument approaches to RWY 05 and RWY 23 can also be made with the assistance of VOR, NDB or SRE.
For the use of an RNAV (GNSS) approach it is required that the operator holds an RNP APCH operations approval issued by their State of registry. In case LPV minima are used, this approval should be compliant with EASA AMC 20-28 or equivalent. In case LNAV/VNAV minima are used, this approval should be compliant with EASA AMC 20-27 or equivalent.
