Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

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

Your EASA Licence is used by the LBA….mine by the CAA

EGPD / OMDW / YPJT, United Kingdom

I dont follow what you mean by used in this sense.

Mine is CAA also, as I am actually a half Brit and did all my training there.

I know for example Germany adds requirements and checks into the process of obtaining a FCL that are not present in the UK. (Two systems that I know, I can not speak for thr other states)

If EASA is top down, then these extra requirements are either illegal; should be present in all member states; or other member states ignore them. So it must follow that the EASA issued licenses are not identical.

Last Edited by italianjon at 12 Sep 15:57

Apple! I meant “issued”…but that was clearly a wrong assumption …sorry

EGPD / OMDW / YPJT, United Kingdom

lol… blame predictive text

How about this one: Can you fly outside EASA-land in an EASA-reg different from the country of your EASA license?
So for instance: Can you fly a D-reg on your UK license in Egypt?

I have done this (on a CAA/JAR license) repeatedly, flying EC-reg and D-reg around Morocco. Same for German, Austrian, etc -licensed pilots. At least in this part of the world this is done all the time (from the various outfits in southern Spain) and the FTOs/ATOs did look – in their own interest! – into the legality of it. I don’t think that EASA would have made this more restrictive.

Because each country writes the EU laws into their own law….

No they do not! EU Law supercedes National Law in all EU States so there would be no point rewriting it. Under the JAA, because the JARs had no legal status, the only way to enforce JAA requirements was to incorporate them into National Law.

No country can be more stringent that the EASA regulation, so they cannot add in their own requirements. Some have tried, but they have no legal basis for doing so and cannot enforce any of the addons.

No country can be more stringent that the EASA regulation, so they cannot add in their own requirements. Some have tried, but they have no legal basis for doing so and cannot enforce any of the addons.

EASA-land is larger than EU-land. For non-EU member states (of EASA), the EASA regulations most certainly have to be written into local laws (Switzerland and Norway for instance, and maybe Scotland soon ? ) Still, the point of EASA is to have a common set of rules and regulations, so too much variation will defeat the main purpose.

The EASA regulations are a complete nightmare to read with literally thousands of pages with and an equal amount of cross referencing, and is littered with stuff like this:

Before a skill test for the issue of a licence, rating or certificate is taken, the applicant shall have passed the required
theoretical knowledge examination, except in the case of applicants undergoing a course of integrated flying training.

In any case, the theoretical knowledge instruction shall always have been completed before the skill tests are taken.

With this “in any case” clause, this basically means only theoretical knowledge instructions has to be completed, but preferably also the theoretical examination. There is a difference between “shall” and “shall always” when both are written, and the last sentence does not specifically refer to the “integrated flying training”. Clearly this can be interpreted in different ways, which will cause different practice from place to place. This is no big deal, if the theoretical exam is done or not, who cares anyway? but it causes unnecessary confusion, speculation and uncertainties, and I start to wonder who exactly these regulations are written for. If they are not written for us pilots, then the regulations are useless. At least they are useless unless they are somehow simplified and clarified. If they are simplified and clarified, and this is not legally binding (as local law is), then the whole EASA-thing is just a farce.

There are indeed subtle, but real differences, for instance to carry passengers with a PPL. According to EASA, I have to have done 3 take offs, approaches and landings within the last 90 days. According to Norwegian rules, I have to have done 5 take offs and landings within the last 90 days. At first sight the Norwegian rules seems “stricter”, but they do not include approaches, so I can do all 5 in one single go if the runway is long enough, or with float (touch and go with cut). The purpose of both regulations is to be minimally current before taking passengers, and the differences regarding “safety” is purely of academic interest. For me (at ENVA), 3 full approaches would be stricter than 5 take offs and landings. For people operating at 500m grass, then 5 take offs and landings would be stricter.

Then there are other considerations. About 10 % of all Norwegian registered aircraft (excluding microlights) are experimental registered, about 100 aircraft. In addition there are probably? an equal amount of annex II aircraft. And finally about 350 microlights flying. So about 35-45% of all Norwegian private aircraft are not in any way associated with EASA, and never will be. These aircraft are increasing in numbers, while the EASA types are decreasing in numbers. There are several examples of old C-172s being restaured back to flying condition (as new), but as experimental registered. So while EASA is a nice idea, in real life it is strangling itself with bureaucracy and regulations, and will finally end up being irrelevant for the larger percentage of pilots and owners – because the local rules and regulations are all simpler, better, cheaper.

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

For non-EU member states (of EASA), the EASA regulations most certainly have to be written into local laws

No, they don’t have to be.

A non EU country can selectively ignore bits of EASA FCL. But they probably get invited to some Cologne €200/head restaurant and presented with a “proposition” where it is ever so politely explained that that would “not be to their advantage”

What I have heard from based N-reg owners is that Norway incorporated the N-reg screwing parts of EASA FCL as soon as it was published, and bent all N-reg owners over a barrel and shafted them back in April 2012 – a year or two before the EU member countries had to do it.

But they didn’t have to do that.

Same with Switzerland. That country has had a painful transition to a sort of “non EU but trade with the EU” status, where they had to disclose EU based account holder deposits, unless the holders paid a one-off liquidated damages figure which was passed anonymously to their home tax people. I wonder how they handled the fairly heavy content of any ex-1939-45 safe deposit boxes? I guess they didn’t pay interest!

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Interesting thread drift….the original point is “EASA Land” or “EU Land” is not an ICAO state….the FAA allows an N reg aircraft to be flown on the Licence of the state in which the aircraft is located…..and only within those states…..they do not care that EASA licences are recognized by EASA states as being equivalent to their own licences…

EGPD / OMDW / YPJT, United Kingdom

What I have heard from based N-reg owners is that Norway incorporated the N-reg screwing parts of EASA FCL as soon as it was published, and bent all N-reg owners over a barrel and shafted them back in April 2012 – a year or two before the EU member countries had to do it.

This isn’t entirely correct. I know only one N reg owner, and as far as I know, he still have his Cirrus on N reg. The point is that as early as 2003, LT issued a AIC concerning this issue. According to the law, foreign private aircraft are not allowed – unless approved by LT after filing an application. But lots of people were still having foreign aircraft here, for private use, even though they had never filed any application whatsoever. Even so, LT will only issue a permission for 6 months, and not longer than 12 months.

In short, N reg on a regular and permanent basis used for private (non commercial use) has never been allowed, not by some regulations, but by law. I guess this is more of a tax issue than something else, it’s the same with cars. Then, I would guess, that some people still found a way through some nifty bending of EASA rules, in a way that did not make it illegal, thus LT could do nothing (just a guess), and when EASA closed that back door, bang – no more N reg. That is, you cannot use your N reg aircraft for private flying without a special permission from LT, and only for Max 12 consecutive months.

No, they don’t have to be.

They certainly do. We cannot have laws and regulations that is not fully based on the founding laws of Norway. They would not in any sense be legally binding.

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top