Sorry if this doesn’t help you UK folks with the UK’s rather unique formulation of their opt-out phrasing
I think that is the key point.
I have always been certain the derogations were pilot-base based, not airspace based. IOW, if the pilot’s home country has applied for it, that pilot can fly all over the EU. I vaguely recall @bookworm expressing this view, and he should know better than most.
The airspace based scenario is completely daft for any practical use. And such an interpretation would conflict with the seemingly totally accepted fact from EASA FCL that if the “operator” is not based in the EU he is not affected by the EASA FCL “attack on N-regs”.
I wonder if the UK CAA is still looking for those forms to be sent in. I very much doubt there is anybody there who knows what to do with them… After the “FAA Class 3 position reversal” they are partially irrelevant.
I have not heard of any prosecutions as a result of taking this approach.
Sure, but the bigger point is insurance validity. I doubt any national CAA currently knows what to do with this stuff.
If a UK based N-reg pilot gets himself the NPPL+SSEA and files Z/Y flight plans, with the changeover at the UK border, that completely sidesteps this whole issue for foreign flights 
I know someone who is now a respectable chap with all sorts of examiners ratings, type ratings, etc, who flew around Europe in his SEP, in all sorts of weather, all sorts of airspace, for many years, on a plain PPL. He just filed IFR flight plans. He never got in serious trouble. I suspect quite a few do that.
On the other hand some people look very hard and manage to find an obscure way that the regulations say things can’t be done, whether that be FCL, Maintenance, Certification, etc.
On this forum the latter group prevail, although the former probably don’t say too much
I know / have known such people too
You know how the system works so you know it “will work”.
The problem is insurance.
the former probably don’t say too much
Exactly – always the case!
Peter wrote:
I have always been certain the derogations were pilot-base based, not airspace based. IOW, if the pilot’s home country has applied for it, that pilot can fly all over the EU. I vaguely recall @bookworm expressing this view, and he should know better than most.
I have less confidence in that view now, having tried in vain to get some indication that that is the Commission and EASA’s interpretation. I’m now inclined towards the view that it is simply bedlam. :)
At least the Commission has realised that these opt-outs with derogations are the cause of the chaos, and is moving towards fixed implementation dates.
I agree that the whole licencing regulation business is utter chaos. Pre-EASA we had national licences and ratings which were (and I expect still are) ICAO compliant and valid in all ICAO signatory nations, and we happily flew through various countries’ airspace respecting their rules as published in their AIP’s.
Because the post-EASA situation means nobody here, yet alone our NAA’s, seem to be able to fathom out which rules apply to which licence holder flying a particular type of aircraft of whatever country’s jurisdiction in various nations’ airspace, there seems very little chance of a successful prosecution (and by whom?) should we unwittingly get it wrong. My main concern is whether my insurance company is likely to deny a claim because of a technical breach of air law that nobody understands, and which has yet to be tested in the legal system.
I will write to my insurers and pose the question; I suggest if everyone else does so that will put an end to the interminable dissection of regulations that seems to be so mind consuming for some members of this forum. .
Marchettiman wrote:
My main concern is whether my insurance company is likely to deny a claim because of a technical breach of air law that nobody understands, and which has yet to be tested in the legal system.
What does the T&C of your insurance say? Ours says (in short) that they can’t deny a claim based on breach of air law, unless that breach materially contributed to the accident. The only exception is if the aircraft is flown without a valid CofA/ARC. In that case the insurance is void.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Ours says (in short) that they can’t deny a claim based on breach of air law
It would be silly if they could deny a claim based on breach of air law, because I imagine a significant number of mishaps include some (probably inadvertent) breach of air law.
Insurance law is highly country specific. It is also affected by the status of the claimant (private versus corporate).
In the UK, the starting position is Uberrima fides. A former business associate of mine was in the commercial insurance business… Then you get some consumer protection rulings to avoid insurers walking off on trivial grounds, but many people misunderstand these (extend them too far), especially in non-domestic areas (in domestic insurance, insurers tend to pay out even on blindingly obvious fraud because they don’t want to get slagged off in the Daily Trash, so they just built it into the premiums). For example someone who had PPL training, met all the requirements, but never did the checkride, or maybe had a PPL but had an expired medical, should according to some be insured, especially in the case of say the engine blowing up. It was the case for many decades (no idea about present) that you could drive a car without a driving license provided you were not disqualified from applying for one! Basically that meant that if you passed your driving test you didn’t need the actual license. That’s a very “English law” thing, rarely if ever mirrored in mainland Europe.
Aviation insurance does cover negligence, so in practice almost everything you do in the air, no matter how dumb, is covered. The dodgy stuff is when the flight is illegal before it gets off the ground, and that is the scenario here.
FWIW I spoke to the head of UK’s biggest insurer a few years ago and he said that where nobody can work out what the law means, they would pay out. But of course that was just a phone conversation; not a real 6 or 7 figure claim being examined by lawyers paid to find a way to not pay out…
This is ultimately what drives regulatory compliance in GA. Not ramp checks…
The CAA links in posts 40 and 83 have been removed, so post #150 appears to still be a summary of the current situation.
However, I can’t find that CAA Info Notice which triggered so much of this discussion and which asked for an FAA Class 2 medical (in one place) and an ICAO Class 2 medical (in another place).
If that form has been withdrawn, it leaves us with exactly what?
Does anyone have that form, to be completed by an examiner?
