Hello,
Concerning the Problem in flying an N registered aircraft in Europe…..just called an FAA Agent and for them there is no Problem at all if an EASA license owner flyes an N registered until this is done in Europe. Some of you said that one has to own both FAA and EASA. There is lot of confusion here…..
I am going to purchase a N registered aircraft in Europe and plan to Keep it here. It Looks as it is possible….once the insurance agrees, the trust agrees….where is the Problem then? Why should the EASA complain when I own an EASA license?
linofly wrote:
just called an FAA Agent and for them there is no Problem at all if an EASA license owner flyes an N registered until this is done in Europe.
See the relevant FAA regulation here
It says “when operating an aircraft within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used”
Europe is not a country in the opinion of FAA, and so the N-registered aircraft can be flown only in the country that issued the EASA pilot license. Whether FAA, another country or an insurance company would act on a violation of verbatim compliance to the regulation is another issue, but the FAA regulation is clear.
linofly wrote:
just called an FAA Agent and for them there is no Problem at all if an EASA license owner flyes an N registered until this is done in Europe.
The word around (I think I saw a written opinion of the FAA on this, but cannot find it now), is that you can fly an N-reg plane in Austria with an Austrian licence, but not (in Austria) with any other EASA licence, and not in any other country than Austria with an Austrian licence.
But, now that I think about it, what you say makes sense. EASA countries automatically validate each other other’s licences; so an Austrian licence is as valid as a French licence for France. See here
[ local copy and curiously issue 1 of same is here ]
Silvaire wrote:
The FAA regulation says “when operating an aircraft within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used”Europe is not a country, and so the N-registered aircraft can be flown only in the country where that issued the EASA pilot license.
If I get my Luxembourg licence validated by the Canadian TCAA, I can fly a C-reg worldwide. I wouldn’t be surprised if I could also fly, with that Canadian validation, an N-reg in Canada. Same for the Australian CASA, VH-regs worldwide and N-regs in Australia. Is the preceding correct? Then why doesn’t the same apply to the EASA automatic cross-validation?
As a consequence to the recent ICAO registration of these automatic cross-validations at ICAO (type numbers 5950, 5951 and 5952 in https://cfapp.icao.int/dagmar/main.cfm), it could be worth to ask the FAA again in writing, pointing out these automatic validations.
.just called an FAA Agent and for them there is no Problem at all if an EASA license owner flyes an N registered until this is done in Europe.
Do note that you can get various interesting opinions from FAA individuals. These don’t carry any weight, unless you get it in writing and then the opinion (if advantageous to you; if not you won’t be having this discussion 
) is valid for your own use only, and probably only just once.
This has happened many times in the past. One famous case involved the UK CAA where some low level person gave an amazing concession to someone, and when the guy was prosecuted for alleged illegal flight training he pulled out this letter (which I saw on the wall in his office, and was amazed then) the case collapsed. But the letter could not be used again. In more legal terms, such an opinion, if it is an incorrect representation of the law, is valid in preventing the individual from being prosecuted (otherwise, nobody could rely on anything coming out of a company or govt agency) but it does not create an estoppel i.e. it does not modify the existing law for the benefit of others.
Yes there are previous posts here containing the FAA Chief Counsel opinions on this. I have some collected here. Basically the EASA mutual validation system does not meet the State of Registry requirements in this case.
Note there are two separate cases to consider: prosecution (unlikely, in Europe, in this case), and insurance (a good debate 
).
The US, Canada, Australia and individual European countries are ICAO signatory countries. Non-ICAO treaties between foreign countries are obviously a different issue and I agree it’d be interesting to see if FAA has any interest in tracking or acknowledging them. I doubt it.
lionel wrote:
EASA countries automatically validate each other other’s licences
Silvaire wrote:
Non-ICAO treaties between foreign countries
That “EASA cross-validation” has been amended in ICAO Annex 1 as well, so more than just “Non-ICAO treaties”…it is a bit of cosmetic to allow recognition of EASA licence & aircraft mix when the aircraft are operated commercially outside EU states (this has been the case already but was a grey aerea when it comes to ramp checks), say want to operate an EI-reg aircraft in the US with an Italian issued EASA licence…
But I think it may open the door to other interpretations, say being able to fly an FAA-reg around EU states (or even outside EU if you carry an automatic validation?)
being able to fly an FAA-reg around EU states
For sure that would be useful, not least because it would allow an N-reg to be flown all over Europe without having any FAA papers (or medical). The FAA Special Issuance medical process is poorly administered. Few European based FAA AMEs understand it or even want to get involved with it, and European based pilots tend to get a poor service as a result.
Currently the nearest you can get to this is the 61.75 option but you cannot do that once you got any standalone FAA license, and many N-reg pilots got standalone papers for very good reasons.
Just my opinion but I think it would be unrealistic to hope for FAA to change US regulations to recognize alliances between small groups of ICAO countries. The complexity of aviation treaties outside of the ICAO forum and direct ICAO membership is an unattractive rabbit hole, particularly when the US has a competitive advantage in that regard. With Canada and Mexico directly, OK, beyond that I think not.
I agree; there is nothing in it for the US, and there are plenty of unforeseen side effects which would be out of their control as the State of Registry, funded by the US taxpayer too.
