I do be considering moving to the F-register,
I wonder why? F-reg seems to be extremely unfriendly to importing any homebuilts. AIUI you have to go through the charade of dismantling it at least 51%.
Only last month did aircraft from other EASA states become legal to operate on a permanent basis
This is digressing but that’s another interesting one. I know Norway is non-EU but it does seem like the UK CAA has successfully totally blocked any primary training in non-G-regs, despite this being IMHO illegal for EU-regs.
Norway N-regs are not allowed for more than 6/12 consecutive months
How exactly is that worded? What if you are a US-based person and work for a Norwegian oil company for 7 months, and keep your N-reg there? How do they know which closed hangar it is parked in for example?
How exactly is that worded? What if you are a US-based person and work for a Norwegian oil company for 7 months, and keep your N-reg there? How do they know which closed hangar it is parked in for example?
It’s worded exactly like this:
What you are questioning is fully legal however. The rule is Max 6 months, but up to 12 with an application to LT.
Not speaking Norwegian… 
Are you able to describe how it works? It is based on the time the airframe spends parked, or on flying activity, and/or pilot residence/nationality?
It’s worded exactly like this:
I wonder whether “skal likestilles med norsk nasjonalitet” (“shall be treated as equivalent to Norwegian”) includes aircraft registered in other Nordic countries by virtue of free movement / free market
In short form it is something like this: According to the law, any aircraft operated in Norway has to be registered in Norway. But, also according to the law, the CAA can give permission for operation of foreign aircraft.
Then, the CAA has decided to give permissions on a more general basis as follows: General permission is given without a need for application to the CAA for aircraft visiting Norway (for instance on holiday or some other non-permanent things). This permission is given for all EASA, all ICAO and all amateur built aircraft coming from an “ECAC country”. There is no specification of time limit, the clue is non-permanent residence. Other aircraft has to file an application for visiting, including microlight.
Persons living in Norway, or companies situated in Norway who wishes to operate a foreign registered aircraft for private use, can do so by filing an application to the CAA. Aircraft with an EASA type certificate, registered in an EASA country, will receive a permission when a written agreement from the country of origin is included with the application. There is no mention of a time limit. For all other aircraft, there is a time limit of 6 months from receiving the permission. This can be extended to 12 consecutive months, but no longer.
I wonder whether “skal likestilles med norsk nasjonalitet” (“shall be treated as equivalent to Norwegian”) includes aircraft registered in other Nordic countries by virtue of free movement / free market
Norway is not part of EU so legislation can be completely different. As far as I know there’s no free movement of goods between Norway and EU without applying customs (even it can be zero).
I just cannot see any way of wording such a regulation so it is a proper clear law which can be enforced.
And I don’t mean quasi-legal bullshit like the EASA FCL “EU resident” wording which would have never got through the UK lawmaking process.
You cannot keep an N-reg in Somalia for more than x days [where x is proportional to the product of the bribe size in USD, the recipient’s elevation, and how many bodyguards you have – all need to be nonzero positive integers] but that is precisely it in Europe too – enforcement is possible only through harrassment which needs to be kept low level (working mainly via FUD) precisely because the law can be only vague so you have to keep it at a level where you don’t prosecute somebody with too much time and money.
It was proposed in France in 2004 and UK in 2005 but both were dropped and there were obvious workarounds which would have prevented enforcement once it got properly tested legally.
N-regs are an irritation to all the national CAAs (directly, because the CAAs don’t make regular money off them) so there must be a reason why only Denmark (in the EU) has had a reg against them.
any aircraft operated in Norway has to be registered in Norway
How exactly is “operated” defined, and how come airlines like Easyjet can fly there?
That was my imprecise translation. What it say is that “luftfart” can be done within Norwegian area only with aircraft of Norwegian nationality. The word “luftfart” has no direct translation to English, but it means something close to aviation operations, or just aviation.
There is no question the CAA does this according to the law. The law gives them full authority. But what is this 6/12 month regulation all about? I have no idea.
why only Denmark (in the EU) has had a reg against them.
AFAIR there was some scheme for avoiding tax when purchasing in Denmark … In general it doesn’t seam that CAA makes big money of aircrafts. They usually earn from tickets and cargo while charging fees for ARC, CofA and such stuff is minor income.
Denmark was doing the famous zero-VAT route, whereby a famous Danish lawyer Mr Rungholm owned the plane for a day so it became secondhand and this zeroed the VAT. You could not do it with “sporting” planes e.g. an Extra 300. There were other players too. This route ended in 2009 or so. It was a huge irritation to the other EU countries but they could not stop it because the Danish certificate of free circulation was 100% legal.
Recently there have been rumours about the German tax office trying to recover the VAT from Germans who did this, on the grounds that the transaction had no commercial purpose. But that’s nothing to do with Denmark, and in principle any country can apply that principle if its tax laws allow it. But 2009 is getting to being a long time ago for that (6 years max in the UK unless there is fraud).
But I don’t think this has any relationship to the Danish anti N-reg position. In fact I recall reading that Mr Rungholm himself (who IIRC had an N-reg piston twin) got fined a few hundred €. But I don’t think Denmark’s regulation was clear either otherwise they would have simply kicked out every N-reg parked there.
There is no question the CAA does this according to the law
Sure they are IAW the law But if the law is ambiguous, that will work only until they go after somebody who doesn’t roll over and die. Most people do just that, but eventually you will get somebody who has both time to waste and money to burn and who believes in justice (most successful businessmen will just pay up).
In general it doesn’t seam that CAA makes big money of aircrafts
I don’t know which way their motivation works exactly but they get money on CofA renewals (in the UK, for sure), and they get BIG fees from CAMOs etc who don’t get as much business from N-regs. In fact, taking my N-reg, the people who make money out of me and who pass some to the CAA are
