The report I read is that just four N-regs were permanently based in Norway.
Do you have a reference (translated) to the Norwegian law which bans long term parking (the only possible means of enforcement) for non-Norwegian regs?
This issue has been massively discussed online for years and nobody could come up with any example apart from Denmark (references here – search for “denmark”) which had been imposing sporadic fines of some €300 on some people their CAA didn’t like.
It seems that Denmark will now have to remove this regulation.
Norway doesn’t have to remove such a regulation (if indeed they have it) because a non EU country doesn’t have to implement EU directives etc.
The reason I ask for the actual law is because loads of people have been spreading anti N-reg propaganda for far longer than I have been flying, and even today many pilots believe that N-regs are illegal, that EASA has just banned them, etc, etc. In reality just UK and France proposed to ban long term parking in 2005 and 2004 respectively but it ran for about a year in each case before getting killed (it did have the desired FUD effect though).
Here is the AIC from 2003 (in Norwegian):
It pretty much say it all with reference to the law. However, the law itself has been modified since then (in 2012) and now include one additional phrase.
The addition is: “2. fremmed nasjonalitet som i henhold til denne loven eller forskrift gitt med hjemmel i denne loven skal likestilles med norsk nasjonalitet,” which means something like “,foreign nationality that according to this law, or regulation given in reference to this law, shall be considered to be on equal terms as Norwegian nationality”. I would guess by this addition that all EASA-reg aircraft are indeed allowed to stay indefinitely? but certainly not N-reg as they cannot in any circumstance be considered “to be on equal terms as Norwegian nationality” according to any Norwegian law.
But please, I am no lawyer, and the ways of LT is very often hard to understand 
I can’t give a view on the wording which doesn’t make sense by itself, but the basic issue is that no civilised country is going to ban overflight and landing of N-regs.
Clearly Norway does allow overflight and landing of N-regs, and no special permit is required – unlike most of e.g. Africa which does operate both overflight and landing permits (in breach of ICAO principles, etc, etc).
So, as I said earlier, long term parking is the only possible means of control.
Does Norwegian law ban long term parking?
To do so, it would have to say something like a non-EU-reg aircraft is not allowed to remain on Norwegian soil for more than 90 days in every 365 days. The 2005 UK proposal was drafted thus (90/365). Obviously there have to be concessions for AOG’d aircraft otherwise you would have the totally farcical situation where these would have to disassembled and driven out of Norway on the back of a truck. The Italian GA tax contains a similar concession for unairworthy aircraft.
There are some obvious workarounds to the above… but the Q remains: is there a Norwegian law which states a long term parking limit? There is no other possible means of controlling this.
Does Norwegian law ban long term parking?
To do so, it would have to say something like a non-EU-reg aircraft is not allowed to remain on Norwegian soil for more than 90 days in every 365 days.
No, that’s not the issue at all. The issue is about Norwegian citizens and companies having foreign registered aircraft on a permanent basis in Norway and using them for private flying within Norway. This is something the authorities apparently is not very found of, partly because it is not allowed according to the law. The law say (translated by me):
“Aviation activities within Norwegian territory can only be done with aircraft that have:
1. Norwegian nationality,
2. foreign nationality that according to this law, or regulation given in reference to this law, shall be considered to be on equal terms as Norwegian nationality,
3. nationality of a foreign state in which Norway has made an agreement concerning the rights for such aviation activity or
4. after special permission by the Norwegian aviation authorities.
The permission mentioned in (4) is given (or not) on such terms as in each particular case is found needed to assure the activity is done in a safe way, or on terms found necessary for public considerations. The permission can be withdrawn at any time."
That is all it say about this, but it is pretty clear. It has to be Norwegian (1) or EASA? (2). The only agreement (3) Norway has done about private aviation is the Chicago Convention article 5 and the ECAC recommendation INT.S/11-1 governing experimental registered aircraft. And after special permission (4).
Clearly N-reg falls under (3) and/or (4) and is governed by Chicago or special permission.
The article 5:
Each contracting State agrees that all aircraft of the other
contracting States, being aircraft not engaged in scheduled international air
services shall have the right, subject to the observance of the terms of this
Convention, to make flights into or in transit non-stop across its territory
and to make stops for non-traffic purposes without the necessity of obtaining
prior permission, and subject to the right of the State flown over to require
landing.
and ECAC:
that Member States accept home-built aircraft with a certificate of airworthiness or a “permit to
fly” issued by another Member State, to fly in their country without any restrictions other than *
*those stated in the certificate of airworthiness or “permit to fly”.
What the aviation authorities say in their AIC from 2003 is the Norway has not made an agreement other than the Chicago Convention regarding private aircraft in the Normal category, and that convention does only give permission for flights into, transit etc. Then they say that Norway has not made any agreement with other states about persons living in Norway, or companies situated in Norway, giving them the right to fly aircraft registered in other states (for private flying). Thus all such private flying with foreign registered aircraft have to have special permission. Foreigners flying, parking whatever in Norway with their N-regs, I guess the authorities couldn’t care less. It is way outside the scope of the matter for the authorities.
Norway could in principle, the same way as has been done with EU/EASA, make similar agreement with the USA. But since they have not, this case seems pretty clear to me. On the other hand, I don’t know what exactly makes N-reg legal to operate in EU. If this is an EASA thing, then chances are Norway will eventually adopt that into the laws, maybe. But I think it is not an EASA thing (why should EASA concern themselves about N-reg?), I think this is a national thing, same as Annex II, experimental and microlights. I don’t know, you tell me
That doesn’t make any sense to me.
ICAO does allow each contracting state to ban its “nationals” (meaning: citizens i.e. passport holders) from exercising the privileges of a foreign license within its airspace.
Does Norway ban a Norwegian citizen from owning an N-reg plane?
If not, then it cannot prevent such a pilot flying through Norwegian airspace. And it’s obvious that such a ban cannot be in place otherwise a Norwegian citizen working for some US airline would not be allowed to overfly Norway at FL350 in a B777, etc.
So it comes down to whether there is a long term parking restriction on non-Norwegian aircraft, on Norwegian soil.
What the aviation authorities say in their AIC from 2003 is the Norway has not made an agreement other than the Chicago Convention regarding private aircraft in the Normal category, and that convention does only give permission for flights into, transit etc.
The whole problem here is how do you define “transit”.
You have to land on Norwegian soil to refuel. Let’s say you are too tired etc to fly on immediately. So you check into a hotel. Is that now illegal? So there has to be a defined long term parking time limit. If there isn’t one, there isn’t one.
Also remember that an AIC is not law. It is written by somebody in the national CAA who sometimes has a personal agenda.
Making sense is no requirements for the authorities 
The same authority also made regulations about experimental aircraft that eventually were proven in court to be illegal according to the law (preventing experimental aircraft from getting a C of A, thus banning IFR and night VFR. This was an illegal act by the authority).
I think that is the only sense about this. Regulations has to be founded in the law, and so does all aviation activity. A person living in Norway, having an N-reg aircraft that he exclusively uses to travel across the border. I don’t see any problems with that in relation to the law (but I’m not the authority). I still think the law is very clear about this. The aircraft has to be Norwegian, or since 2012 – EASA (apparently), or else the two exceptions starts to work. One of the exceptions is governed by any agreements Norway may have agreed upon in relation to other states, and the other is through permission by the authority, case by case.
Also, this is not about parking. The AIC exclusively mentions private flying of foreign registered aircraft within Norwegian air space by people living in Norway or companies situated in Norway. You have to remember that the clause (2) from 2012, is the one and only thing that allows EASA-reg to freely be operated within Norwegian air space, by anyone, as if it should be a Norwegian registered aircraft. When such a change in the law was required to do that, clearly N-regs cannot possibly hope to be operated on these terms. You would need a special permission to do that.
I have never looked into this particular thing before. I wasn’t even aware of that new clause from 2012. It is rather interesting though. It is not bound to any particular country or any agreements, and it does give the aviation authority the legal right to simply make regulations that equals any arbitrary foreign registered aircraft to a Norwegian registered aircraft, and therefore be operated as it would be a Norwegian aircraft, according to law.
You have to land on Norwegian soil to refuel. Let’s say you are too tired etc to fly on immediately. So you check into a hotel. Is that now illegal? So there has to be a defined long term parking time limit. If there isn’t one, there isn’t one.
As I said, this doesn’t even touch what the AIC is about. Parking or landing or re-fueling or sleeping at hotels or whatever is not the issue. The issue is (or was) persons living in Norway using foreign registered aircraft for private flying within Norwegian air space, as if they were Norwegian registered aircraft.
The AIC exclusively mentions private flying of foreign registered aircraft within Norwegian air space by people living in Norway or companies situated in Norway.
That is an African or Stalinist type of regulation which is complete bull in a modern society.
It also is self evidently not enforced – look at corporate ops for example.
It depends on your point of view. The airspace “belongs” to the aviation authority, and flying private aircraft is no human right. With commercial operations there are loads of agreements in place, with private operations there are only two, and none of those concerns operating foreign aircraft on a permanent basis in Norwegian air space by people living in Norway. Except EASA of course.
Yes of course. Norway is a sovereign country and it has the power to execute all private pilots. Provided it keeps the level of such activity below the attention of the UN security council (say less than 100 pilots per day- anyway they would run out of pilots after not too long) nothing is going to be done about it from the outside (a military invasion).
But the interpretation you offer is extremely draconian by the normal standards of Europe. Iraq, Angola, no problem. But not Europe.
If there is an enforceable regulation against N-regs in Norway, it must be drafted in terms of a long term parking limit. Otherwise (as I keep saying) there is no way to tell between somebody just stopping for a refuel and a hotel, and somebody doing this long-term.
Until somebody comes up with such a law, I will put this into the FUD department. Yeah, FUD works great – just read the UK aviation chat sites and see how many people found some CAA document saying GPS is illegal for navigation. I bet you that even today 50% of UK PPLs believe that.
If there is an enforceable regulation against N-regs in Norway, it must be drafted in terms of a long term parking limit. Otherwise (as I keep saying) there is no way to tell between somebody just stopping for a refuel and a hotel, and somebody doing this long-term.
This logic escapes me. First, the aviation authority does not concern themselves with parking. Second, there is is to my knowledge no enforceable regulation targeting N-regs in particular. N-regs are handled according to the Chicago Convention and Norwegian law, like most other non-EASA private aircraft.
But the interpretation you offer is extremely draconian by the normal standards of Europe. Iraq, Angola, no problem. But not Europe.
It really is no interpretation. According to the law, aircraft operating in Norwegian air space has to be Norwegian, EASA or covered by an agreement (and operated accordingly). If none of the above, then they may or may not be allowed to fly, but then exclusively on the “mercy” of the aviation authorities. Consequently, if you want to operate a non-Norwegian/non-EASA aircraft outside of the letters of an agreement, then you also will have to do so on the “mercy” of the aviation authorities. I don’t see what is so draconian about this, and I don’t see any other way to do it. The main point here is, what exactly is the “mercy” of the aviation authorities? One way is for them to close their eyes. They could say: ICAO? then OK, we don’t bother, do as you please, or they could say something else. Legally it makes no difference whatever they say. You would still be flying exclusively on the their mercy, because you are no longer covered by a law, a regulation, a convention or an agreement. At least that is how I see it, but I am no lawyer.
