The question is quite simple.
If you fly an N-reg, then the EASA (or UK, in UK’s Dec 2021 version of the EASA reg) requirement for local papers is meaningless for the legality of operating the aircraft (i.e. country of license issue = country of aircraft reg → worldwide privileges).
So, basically, the law is no more meaningful than a law stating that anybody based in Europe and flying a plane in Europe is required to own a WV Golf.
Like all aviation regulation, this law is criminal law. The enforcement options vary between countries, as are “relevance” tests. For example, in the UK, making a false tax declaration is a criminal offence but no penalty (a fine or prison) can be imposed if no tax was actually due (the tax authority can however use it to trigger a tax investigation).
How many similar regulations, where noncompliance has no effect other than noncompliance, are you aware of?
The above ICAO angle had been raised in the early years (c. 2011) but “everybody” caved in, because self evidently Brussels has the power, via the Directive process, to force all EU member countries to adopt a law. It is self evidently true that if Brussels passed a law requiring all pilots [whose operator is based in the EU] to wear pink underpants, this would be valid law. But it would be no more meaningful than the above VW Golf case, and no more meaningful than requiring EASA licenses, ratings, and medicals to fly an N-reg!
I would be completely unsurprised if this whole thing turned out to be FUD, even country-dependent FUD. And the lawmakers always knew it was FUD. We have seen no documented enforcement, other than this case which was dealt with by harrassment/bullying alone, with no legal process followed.
It is a serious topic. Pink underpants would not incur a significant cost, but having to own a presumably roadworthy (pilots always read between the lines) VW Golf would be a cost, and having to own local papers and medicals is quite a cost too. Owning a roadworthy VW Golf which meets emissions where you live might be damn hard or even impossible, and getting an EASA medical might be impossible due to your country’s MED procedures (some of which are quite frivolous).
Many previous threads; this one is the general one.
I suspect you’re right – if challenged, this is unenforceable. But who wants to be the first one to challenge it? Not me, that’s for sure.
Also it’s actually quite useful to have local papers. I would have done it anyway, so I can legally fly F-reg if I want to. However (for now anyway) I have no problem getting an EASA medical, which is probably the biggest possible issue.
I wonder if the people who check this kind of thing for a living even know about it? When I had my accident it was just a few weeks before this came into force, but once I showed my FAA license to the BRIA officer, he didn’t want to see anything else.
What would be the penalty if you did indeed get caught by someone who knew about it? They can’t take away your FAA papers. They can’t take away your EASA papers, because you don’t have any. For any other penalties (fines, prison, death sentence, excommunication) there would presumably have to be some relevant national legislation. Brussels can’t afaik do that kind of stuff. Is there any?
Peter wrote:
f you fly an N-reg, then the EASA (or UK, in UK’s Dec 2021 version of the EASA reg) requirement for local papers is meaningless for the legality of operating the aircraft (i.e. country of license issue = country of aircraft reg → worldwide privileges).
No, it is not meaningless. ICAO Chicago Convention article 32 section b allows e.g. the UK not to recognise licences issued by the USA for flights in UK airspace by UK nationals.
Now, the UK/EASA “dual papers” thing is based on residency, not nationality, and the “problem” of EASA not being a single state would technically say that each EASA member state can enforce dual papers only on its own nationals, and not other EASA member state nationals. However, the convention is a convention between states; to enforce the convention on the UK, or on France, or on Germany, you’d need the USA to complain on your behalf and demand from the UK/FR/DE to respect its obligations under the convention.
Good luck getting the USA doing that on your behalf. They’d immediately do it for USA nationals flying for USA airlines, maybe for people being both USA nationals and resident flying short-term over Europe privately, but for non-USA national non-resident persons?
Even if the USA did intervene on your behalf, note that it would not help your personal case since you are a British national, and thus under the Chicago Convention, the UK expressly reserved the right not to recognise, for flights in its airspace, licences issued to you by any other state than itself. It would help “only” people that are not British nationals residing in the UK flying N-regs.
johnh wrote:
What would be the penalty if you did indeed get caught by someone who knew about it? They can’t take away your FAA papers. They can’t take away your EASA papers, because you don’t have any. For any other penalties (fines, prison, death sentence, excommunication) there would presumably have to be some relevant national legislation. Brussels can’t afaik do that kind of stuff. Is there any?
I expect all national legislations have criminal penalties for being in breach of the basic regulation, SERA, Part-FCL, etc.
To take the example of France (where your profile suggests you fly from), the Code des Transports, sixième partie, Livre V, Titre IV, Chapitre Unique, article L6541-1 provides for up to one year of prison and a 75 000 EUR fine for breaches of Part-FCL.
Peter wrote:
self evidently Brussels has the power, via the Directive process, to force all EU member countries to adopt a law.
Even more, the EU has the power, with consent of at least that many EU member states representing at least that percentage of the total EU population (through the qualified majority vote at the EU Council of Ministers, part of the EU legislative process), to pass regulations that are directly applicable in the whole EU, without the Member States having passed any additional law. In the same way that the Westminster parliament can pass laws that are applicable in Scotland without the Scottish parliament having passed any law (except it can do it even if all MPs of all constituent countries of the UK except England all unanimously vote against the law).
That is how aviation legislation is made in the EU, by regulation, not by directive. Additionally, the basic regulation delegates to the Commission the power to make delegated regulations on some subjects (such as personnel licensing), so (within the framework of the basic regulation and the limits imposed by it) the Commission makes “the law”, in the same way that a national law can empower the government or the minister of this-and-that to fill in details.
Indeed each country has the right of non recognition of foreign papers, but this reg is not thus framed.
It states that you must own the VW Golf, in practical relevance terms.
And if it was thus framed then you could not fly an N reg in Europe because all countries will have revoked your FAA papers! 61.3 would not save you, except in the airspace of the licence issuer.
The Q is whether the VW Golf would be enforceable. In the UK, no. In some countries, probably.
Peter wrote:
Indeed each country has the right of non recognition of foreign papers, but this reg is not thus framed.
It is exactly framed like that. In the same way that is says that the pilot of a G-Reg must have a license issued or validated by the UK, it says that the pilot of a resident operator must, whatever the registration of the aircraft, have a license issued or validated by the UK. If one glosses over the difference between “resident” and “national” and between “the pilot himself” and “the operator”, it is exactly the right reserved by article 32.b of the Chicago Convention. The UK refuses to recognise a license issued by the USA or France or Germany and requires a license issued by itself.
I admit the “glossing over the differences” is legally relevant and may (does?) make the principle not in accordance with the Chicago Convention.
Peter wrote:
And if it was thus framed then you could not fly an N reg in Europe because all countries will have revoked your FAA papers! 61.3 would not save you, except in the airspace of the licence issuer.
You can, with a local license. Even stronger, USA law recognises that scenario and waives the requirement for FAA papers, so in the case where article 32.b of the Chicago Convention applies, one doesn’t need dual papers, only local papers. If the state where the flight happens makes use of the reserve of article 32.b and one is a national of that state, then one needs local papers for the local flight, and FAA papers outside of that state.
Edits crossed.
There is no explicit refusal. Only the additional papers. But the FAA is explicit that they are not valid, outside of the 61.3 concession.
Peter wrote:
There is no explicit refusal.
There is the absence of recognition. The recognition for foreign licenses for flying foreign-registered aircraft is in section 148 of the ANO 2016, and for non-commercial flight, the recognition is restricted to the cases “where the operator of the aircraft is neither resident nor established in the United Kingdom” and “the CAA does not give a direction to the contrary”.
Your case (British national) and the non-resident case are really quite straightforward and simple:
Again, with respect to the Chicago Convention, the case of a resident that is not a British national is more thorny.
OK; the UK had worded this differently to the Brussels wording, which (as I am aware of it) merely states
Personnel involved in the operations of aircraft referred to in paragraph 1(b), (c) or (d) shall comply with this Regulation.
