In the real world, this all comes down to one thing – insurance. So, to settle the argument, the question has to be: can a Norwegian person buy insurance for an N-reg (or ZS, or V5, or VH or whatever), based in Norway?
“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.”
That “agreement” is the Chicago convention, article five. No “mercy” involved in this particular case.
In the real world, this all comes down to one thing – insurance. So, to settle the argument, the question has to be: can a Norwegian person buy insurance for an N-reg (or ZS, or V5, or VH or whatever), based in Norway?
I have never even thought the thought, but Insurance companies are usually very up to date about the laws and regulations. Still, I can’t imagine that being a problem. N-reg or any other reg covered by the Chicago Convention is perfectly OK, that is not the issue. The issue is flying according to the laws and regulations.
I can’t imagine the Chicago Convention being a chart blanch to operate an aircraft outside the letter of the Chicago Convention. It should be self evident, but apparently it is not, not around here. That some authorities just don’t care, and could have some more or less valid pragmatic reasons for doing so, that is a completely different matter.
Please argument as to why operating a N-reg in Norway would fall outside the letter of the Chicago convention as you posit.
Doesn’t this all boil down to the fact that Norway can make any rules it wants for its own citizens at home without violating the Chicago convention?
Not really. International agreements supersede national law. While the Chicago convention does indeed state “flights INTO the territory”, there is nothing about how LONG the stay in the territory must be. National law cannot be more restrictive than the international agreements the country is a member of.
What the government CAN do is say residents must import their vehicle i.e. pay customs taxes. Otherwise it’d be like saying “everybody can drive a foreign registered car exclusively into Norway and out of Norway, but not drive around, and of course Norwegians couldn’t do it at all” – which would violate the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic.
International agreements supersede national law.
That is essentially untrue. International agreements are only brought into force locally by national enabling legislation.
Correct however countries MUST either pass NEW legislation conforming to the international agreements or modify the old one. And that is only if they are dualist. If they are monist then there is no need to pass new legislation at all.
ICAO allows each signatory to retain absolute control of its airspace otherwise nobody would have signed it.
The degree to which this is exercised depends on how backward the country is, or according to specific internal politics.
My feeling is that this Norway thing is that it is either misunderstood or out of context, or is a fossil law which would be used against a pilot who keeps pissing off the CAA.
Evidence of prosecutions please.
Evidence of prosecutions please.
It’s not a witch hunt. The AIC is a simple clarification of the law and corresponding regulations. It’s neither misunderstood or out of context. Fossil, maybe, but so are most laws, that doesn’t necessarily make them bad.
But tell me (you didn’t answer my question), and I am honestly curious. What exactly is it that allows N-regs (or any other non-EASA reg) to be operated on a regular basis within the UK, by people living in the UK? It cannot be the Chicago Convention, it’s way outside its scope. It cannot be EASA, it’s entirely irrelevant for them. It has to be some UK specific legislation, but what exactly is it? How does it work?
