Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

N-reg aircraft and European / EASA licenses / licences (merged)

Ibra wrote:

EU states

That alone nullifies the argument. The members of the EU are not “states” within a country but they are at least on paper independent NATIONS which are bound under a contract to act under common law. This nonwithstanding some wet dreams of Mrs Merkel, Mr Junker and some others who think they own the place. And the FAA is clear on this. You may fly an N-reg with a compatible ICAO license inside the country which has issued the license, nowhere else. If you want to do that, you need an FAA license. Period.

ICAO is mostly a figurehead and has always been so. Obviously the very thought of ICAO has kept most member states from going totally bananas on certain issues such as overflight and landing rights but other than that, ICAO has no real power over anyone. Otherwise the whole discussion would be mute since forever, as in principle the whole banter about national validations should not even exist if ICAO was anything worth considering. The very idea of ICAO is to standardize aviation and licensing is one part of it and the higher point behind that was at some day to keep nations from screwing each other over with protectionist measures. In fact today, ICAO has no juristiction per se over it’s members which can be used to any useful degree, otherwise we would not have the FAA and EASA at each others throat and the Chinese and Russians cooking their own soups when it comes to aviation regulation. Obviously the USA and FAA do think they for all practical purposes have taken the place of ICAO in most parts of the world where a FAA license or certification is worth as much as the national one and that lead Europeans to conceive EASA in order to have their own rule set to stop American influence. The Russians and Chinese have never really let the FAA to have any say in their internal aviation laws anyhow.

So ICAO is a nice debating platform without any real power, not unlike the UN itself which has shown itself to be totally impotent when it comes to stopping nations doing things against it’s charter.

And as can be seen, even EASA has often enough no real control over their CAA’s even though that was the whole idea. And unfortunately, EASA is mostly blocked with any progressive thought by the European Commission, who simply ignore or hamper or delay whatever they find not up to their liking. Therefore the “competent” authorities often enough simply do what they want. Why otherwise should we have such massive internal differences within the EASA states?

In the days of increasing nationalism and separatism ICAO as well as any multinational contracts are more and more no longer worth the paper the contract has been written on and will be exploited by the interest groups as it serves their purposes. While there have been some cases where EASA stopped national CAA’s lying to their customers about EASA being responsible for their own gold plated ideas, the crisis EASA is in themselfs due to the blockade politics the European Comission exercises against them prevents them from becoming a real threat to those little kings on their national CAA thrones.

In the end despite all the talk of globalisation, the opposite seems to happen on a number of issues, countries want their control back over just about everything. So my expectation is that the future will see a dissolving of mutual reckognition of just about anything and more and more national regulation. Those who believe they can dodge national or regional regulation by trying to follow the laws of another country will find increasing opposition. It would only be logical if EASA puts an end to the N-Reg charade as much as the US would not dream to allow their citizens to operate foreign registered airplanes indefinitly on their territory with the sole purpose of avoiding US law. There is no reason why Europe should allow it’s citizens to do something the country of registry they all flock to does not allow the same.

LSZH, Switzerland

If you dont have a license then it is difficult to argue that an accident isnt the result of a raft of possible errors, but if you dont carry out the stated poh checks it is equally impossible to argue that a mid air could have been avoided, while arguable perhaps a lot of other things might have been avoided.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

And the FAA is clear on this. You may fly an N-reg with a compatible ICAO license inside the country which has issued the license , nowhere else . If you want to do that, you need an FAA license. Period.

I don’t think there is anything explicit in the rules that says that, there are federal council interpretations and opinions but they contradict each other so much that I got myself a 61.75 to be on the safest side.

ICAO annex I now recognize “Regional Safety Oversight Organizations (RSOOs) agreements”, so it is something that will cascade into FARs, Part-FCLs with time (but tbh it will take someone less time to get an PPL in each country…)

Last Edited by Ibra at 05 Dec 09:59
ESSEX, United Kingdom

Ibra wrote:

I don’t think there is anything explicit in the rules that says that, there are federal council interpretations and opinions but they contradict each other so much that I got myself a 61.75 to be on the safest side.

The explicit rule has been repeatedly cited here. It is in 14 CFR 61.3. There is no contradiction in Chief Counsel opinions on the rule to date.

See for example the opinion to Michael Graziano of 16 May 2014 from Mark W Bury as Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation, and Regulations.

The US restricted foreign-based private pilot certificate issued in pursuance of 14 CFR 61.75 is a house of cards. Anyone serious about operating US-registered civil aircraft outside the US would be wise acquiring a standard airman certificate either directly or by first acquiring a Canadian licence and thereafter converting it.

The recent amendment to ICAO Annex 1 has absolutely no bearing on 14 CFR 61.3 vis-a-vis the operation of US-registered aircraft outside the US using non-US flight crew licences.

London

Peter wrote:

We did this here recently, and I suspect that – in aviation at least – it is more complex. The obvious (if banal) argument is a pilot’s license and medical having lapsed. Let’s say he flies 100hrs a year so has no shortage of currency. I would be amazed if the insurer paid out on in a crash, because the lack of license/medical was not a cause of the accident. If they did, why have a PPL, or why have a car driving license at all?

Well, I’ve read the conditions of my club aircraft insurance pretty carefully and it is clear that if the pilot was not the owner of the aircraft and the owner was unaware that the pilot did not have a valid license/medical, then the insurance would pay. Of course they could try to reclaim their costs from the pilot.

There actually was a rather well-published case in Sweden the other year. A club-owned PA32 crashed on takeoff. It turned out that at the very least the runway was too short for the aircraft mass. (Possibly the aircraft was also overweight — I don’t recall.) It turned out that the flight was an illegal charter flight and the insurance was only valid for private flights. The club was unaware of the illegal charter (or at least it couldn’t be proved that they knew). The insurance company payed out in full to the club but then went after the pilot to recover its costs. The case went to court eventually and the insurance company won.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Well, I’ve read the conditions of my club aircraft insurance pretty carefully and it is clear that if the pilot was not the owner of the aircraft and the owner was unaware that the pilot did not have a valid license/medical, then the insurance would pay

Yes, of course, otherwise theft could not be insured.

It turned out that the flight was an illegal charter flight and the insurance was only valid for private flights. The club was unaware of the illegal charter (or at least it couldn’t be proved that they knew). The insurance company payed out in full to the club but then went after the pilot to recover its costs. The case went to court eventually and the insurance company won.

That is a variation of the same.

This is an ongoing challenge in syndicates. One argument is that you really need somebody to be making sure that the members have valid papers, and keep an eye on this at their respective renewal dates. The other argument is that it is better to not keep an eye on this and just collect the money from the insurance if the (unlicensed and thus uninsured) pilot crashes it (especially if insured for agreed value) There may be some small print involved…

This is digressing but there are many previous “insurance” threads e.g. this good one.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Qalupalik wrote:

The explicit rule has been repeatedly cited here. It is in 14 CFR 61.3. There is no contradiction in Chief Counsel opinions on the rule to date …
The US restricted foreign-based private pilot certificate issued in pursuance of 14 CFR 61.75 is a house of cards.

Thanks for citing that, I think I have mistaken question with answer on a quick read of November 14, 2004 interpretation, later rulings also agree with this

(“the pilot is permitted to operate a U.S.-registered aircraft in any foreign country in which his Belgian/JAA pilot license is recognized.”, from Nov 2004)

For myself, a 61.75 will do the job today (decided to get an EASA IR and not to pursue FAA IR) but even if one gets a standalone PPL, the FAA training/refreshers (BFR, IPC…) in the UK seems to get more expensive and uncertain

ESSEX, United Kingdom

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Obviously the USA and FAA do think they for all practical purposes have taken the place of ICAO in most parts of the world

I don’t think I need to remind you who initiated and hosted the formation of ICAO.

I think individuals choose operate N-registered aircraft because it’s the regulatory system least burdened with ambiguous value subtracting governmental nonsense. The way to make free people choose differently is to offer them an equally valid alternate. Neither FAA nor ICAO has much influence in that regard – both have done their job.

Qalupalik wrote:

The recent amendment to ICAO Annex 1 has absolutely no bearing on 14 CFR 61.3 vis-a-vis the operation of US-registered aircraft outside the US using non-US flight crew licences.

That’s what I guessed. Thanks for the clarification.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 05 Dec 15:28
118 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top