@NCYankee,
The wording of 91.703 (3) “shall…comply with this part so far as it is not inconsistent with applicable regulations of the foreign country where the aircraft is operated or annex 2 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation” is clear to me, but if you think it means something like “may ignore Subpart B of this part” we may as well agree to disagree.
Alternatively, if you fancy your chances persuading a gendarme that performing, or rather recording, the monthly N-Reg VOR check is in some way “inconsistent” with regulations applicable in French airspace, then good luck, and please let us know how you get on. 
Rwy20 wrote:
One thing that a CFI pointed out to me to keep in mind is that if you don’t use your VOR for IFR navigation, there is no obligation to do the VOR checks. Which makes the checklist items of those French SAFA checkers all the more interesting, because they’d have to prove to you that you have used your VOR for IFR navigation in order to determine that a missing check is indeed an infraction.I haven’t verified that claim though, I must add.
That is the case in the US ever since WAAS GPS were approved for sole source of navigation under IFR. This occurred in Nov of 2007 for Garmin GNS430W/530W with a new antenna and updated software. Prior to that point, there was always a limitation in the AFMS that said one must have other means (VOR) on board for IFR operation. Since I don’t use VOR anymore, even though I have dual receivers, the check is not required for my IFR flights. However, it is so easy to do with two receivers, that I still do it.
but in order to show that I have fulfilled a check if some French official demands evidence!
It seems really obvious that one could just write some VOR check into the journey logbook every 30 days – the inspecting officer will have no way of knowing if it was really done (or even what it is about!). He just needs to be able to tick a box on his briefing sheet.
Jacko wrote:
No, not exactly. FAR 91.101 says that the rules in Subpart B apply to all aircraft in the US, and 91.703 says they (mostly) apply to US aircraft outside of the US:
91.703 does not mandate compliance with 91.173 outside of the US, it essentially says you must comply with the state’s regulations.
(2) When within a foreign country, comply with the regulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force;
VOR checks in Europe are a bit of an historic anachronism especially when VOT’s are not available.
It harks back, I believe, to the days when all US airways were predicated on VOR (with items like mandatory ‘change over’ points being stipulated and enforced on the charts) because they were concerned that aircraft didn’t stray to far from the centre line of airways.
In a GPS world, things are very different.
As Peter says: the only way to fulfil the legal requirement of FAR 91.101 in Europe is via the ‘dual receiver’ method.
I do this, bizarrely, not because I am over-concerned as to the instruments reliability – it is always within 2°; but in order to show that I have fulfilled a check if some French official demands evidence!
In the increasingly new world of RNAV, I assume that this regulation will eventually go the way of the do-do; just as previous evidence of a RAIM check was required if you didn’t have a ‘Waas’ GPS.
No, not exactly. FAR 91.101 says that the rules in Subpart B apply to all aircraft in the US, and 91.703 says they (mostly) apply to US aircraft outside of the US:
91.703 Operations of civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States.
(a) Each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States shall—
(1) When over the high seas, comply with annex 2 (Rules of the Air) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and with §§91.117(c), 91.127, 91.129, and 91.131;
(2) When within a foreign country, comply with the regulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force;
(3) Except for §§91.117(a), 91.307(b), 91.309, 91.323, and 91.711, comply with this part so far as it is not inconsistent with applicable regulations of the foreign country where the aircraft is operated or annex 2 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation; and
but whether anyone really cares is quite another matter
Jacko wrote:
to the extent that the FAR 91.171 VOR checks are “not inconsistent” with applicable regulations in Franc
Except that we have established that 91.171 only applies within the US…
@Peter wrote:
Especially as one pilot reported, a few years ago, getting ramp checked in France and the policeman having a briefing pack listing VOR checks
And I’m afraid that flic’s briefing pack was correct, to the extent that the FAR 91.171 VOR checks are “not inconsistent” with applicable regulations in France – see FAR 91.703(a)(3).
Rwy20 wrote:
One thing that a CFI pointed out to me to keep in mind is that if you don’t use your VOR for IFR navigation, there is no obligation to do the VOR checks. Which makes the checklist items of those French SAFA checkers all the more interesting, because they’d have to prove to you that you have used your VOR for IFR navigation in order to determine that a missing check is indeed an infraction.
While technically correct I would humbly suggest having that discussion with a French inspector is not a great way to go on your way.
One thing that a CFI pointed out to me to keep in mind is that if you don’t use your VOR for IFR navigation, there is no obligation to do the VOR checks. Which makes the checklist items of those French SAFA checkers all the more interesting, because they’d have to prove to you that you have used your VOR for IFR navigation in order to determine that a missing check is indeed an infraction.
I haven’t verified that claim though, I must add.
