AFAIK nobody doubts 61.3. The argument is purely based on whether US law can be applicable when local law says it is ok. And local law does say it is ok because an EASA license is not restricted by aircraft reg. Of course this contradicts the “state of registry has the final restrictive word” principle, but who knows? We don’t have any international law specialists here, AFAIK 
FWIW, about 10 years ago I was told by a sizeable N-reg (UK based) bizjet fleet operator that they got affirmative legal advice on this point… I have no more details though. But I do sometimes wonder why there is a total lack of prosecutions in certain “obviously illegal” scenarios, starting with the no-ADF no-DME IFR-SR22 one. I think there probably are areas which we don’t get to hear about, where some CAA got some legal advice, and decided to back off in case it created some unwelcome case law. These CAAs regularly face all kinds of clever people (e.g. doing dodgy charters in bizjets) and for the most part they aren’t stupid. I once spoke to the UK CAA head of prosecutions and he was very sharp. This stuff was his day job.
Peter wrote:
Of course this contradicts the “state of registry has the final restrictive word” principle, but who knows?
I recall having read somewhere on EuroGA that the FAA does not accept that EASA-land is “one country” for the purpose of 62.3 (a)(i)(v).
That’s absolutely correct but it doesn’t conflict with what I wrote above 
Sure, AA, there is no doubt about that. A country is a country. Period.
The thing is that some people say that one doesn’t have to rely on that item (v) in the above case, since the FAA in any case has no say about aircraft operated within EASA airspace, but that is clearly wrong since FAR 61.3 says
Required pilot certificate for operating a civil aircraft of the United States,
which they wouldn’t do if they had no business doing it.
In any case, it’s a minefield, so suggesting to someone who has an EASA license and who wants to operate an N-reg. throughout Europe that he doesn’t need an FAA license on top (like the mentioned guy does) is certainly the wrong thing to do.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I recall having read somewhere on EuroGA that the FAA does not accept that EASA-land is “one country” for the purpose of 62.3 (a)(i)(v).
And not just the FAA. EASA does not have a seat at ICAO because ICAO doesn’t recognize EASA as a national jurisdiction (i.e country). I believe at one point ICAO said they would recognize EASA if all EASA countries would relinquish their seats at ICAO which of course will never happen.
Peter wrote:
That’s absolutely correct but it doesn’t conflict with what I wrote above
I wasn’t trying to argue against you, rather the opposite.
boscomantico wrote:
Required pilot certificate for operating a civil aircraft of the United States,which they wouldn’t do if they had no business doing it.
First of all, I don’t know the answer to the question. But let’s construct an “edge case” of the aviation friendly People’s Republic of Upper Volta, whose ruler has decided that no pilots licence is required to fly anything up to 5.7t in their airspace. You want to fly your Citation around their airspace only. The USA says that a pilot certificate is required, or the one of the PRoUV may also be used instead, but the PRoUV says you don’t need one. Who would win?
If you think the US has no say in what happens in other countries’ airspace, then the case would be similar to requiring a US license in EASA airspace.
But maybe this is similar to maritime law (i.e. the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS)) where as one case, the “flag state” is recognized to have extraterritorial powers when the ship is at sea. But all these cases seem limited to criminal law, the question is if licensing questions would always fall under criminal law, which I doubt.
Pilot licensing or airframe certification (e.g. invalid CofA) questions would be under criminal law if the CAA wants to get you, and would be under civil law if the insurance doesn’t want to pay out
As for the rest, it’s an interesting debate. The biggest problem is that we don’t get to hear of actual cases where say insurance didn’t (or did) pay out. Criminal cases one heard more about, but they are rarely if ever attempted in these obscure areas.
In England, it’s difficult to see how a prosecution for not having an FAA pilot certificate (which the Union politburo has deemed to be inadequate for any European resident) could possibly meet either stage of the Full Code Test of the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
That said, if there’s the remotest chance that anything we might do with an N-Reg airplane would appreciably annoy Uncle Sam, it is plainly unwise.
the aviation friendly People’s Republic of Upper Volta, whose ruler has decided that no pilots licence is required to fly anything up to 5.7t in their airspace.
Yeah, but airplanes below 5.7 t are outlawed because they could be used to kill said ruler. But I suppose Burkina Faso and Blaise Compaore are nothing like Upper Volta.
