:cool: Does anybody know the legalities of flying N registered aircraft abroad using a JAR licence??:ok:

This was discussed here recently, and the consensus appeared to be that you can't.

The other way around (flying a G-reg on an FAA license) is certainly OK in the UK, and is probably OK abroad too because the CAA automatically validates FAA licenses.

Somewhere on here you'll find the "two out of three" guideline. It's not always right, but it's a good approximation.

What it says is that two of the following three have to match:

- The country being flown in
- The country of registration of the aircraft
- The country of issue of the pilot's licence.

So N-reg aircraft, outside UK, with British PPL = 1/3 so no go.

The real rules are far more complex but generally end up with the same answer.

However, get a FAA PPL issued on the back of your JAA licence, for free, (just a paperwork exercise) and suddenly all the problems disappear :ok: It is possible to get a certificate issued by one of the visiting examiners which comes over to Europe every couple of months, if you can't get to the states, and then do the required Biannual Flight Review with an FAA instructor at one of the FAA schools here.....(Angel City Flyers at Enstone, Tom whatshisname at Norwich, or even 2Donkeys might do it for you as I believe he's an FAA chap as well) :D

EA

Keef

I haven't yet seen an exception to that rule, provided one remembers that

a) it applies only to a License, not to a Rating, and

b) a country might choose to endorse a foreign license to make it look like one of its own; the CAA endorsing FAA licenses is perhaps one example

Englishal

Do you know if one can attach an FAA IR to the license you describe (also known as an "piggyback FAA PPL")?

The drawback of a piggyback PPL is that you still have to pass (and pay for) both JAR and FAA medicals. But having both means one can fly both G-reg and N-reg, worldwide.

Do you know if one can attach an FAA IR to the license you describe (also known as an "piggyback FAA PPL")?

Yup

FD

IO540 said: The drawback of a piggyback PPL is that you still have to pass (and pay for) both JAR and FAA medicals.

An FAA license issued on the back of a JAA one does NOT require an FAA medical. Nor does the FAA IR which can be attached to it.

Like they said. You can indeed add an FAA IR to a piggyback PPL - the words are "Instrument Airplane US Test Passed".

I've got a piggyback PPL with that on it, but it's not valid any more cos I've also got a "proper" FAA PPL with the same IR on it.

Sad thing is, the CAA/JAA/EASA won't issue a reciprocal IR off the FAA one. Not a problem provided you belong to a club with an N-reg aircraft or can put your own on the N-reg.

IO540 I can't remember the specifics, but I recall reading that there is something somewhere in the depths of the detail where the "two out of three" rule doesn't work.

IO540 I can't remember the specifics, but I recall reading that there is something somewhere in the depths of the detail where the "two out of three" rule doesn't work.

Someone will put me right but I don't think you can just hop into a French registered aircraft in France and fly it on a FAA license.

FD

Post Gulf War II I can well believe that :O

But let's face it, the European authorities are going to always be suspicious of people using the FAA route because it is regarded as a way around their nice little job creation schemes over here...

There are two different problems, nicely highlighted in this thread. The subtle difference between them isn't always appreciated.

There is the question of whether a particular licence/registration/location combination is valid at all, and there is the secondary question of whether if valid, any administrative hurdles have to be jumped before use.


For example, you may fly an N-reg aircraft anywhere in the world on your UK licence. It's true. But... you have to take your UK licence, jump through some hoops, and get an FAA licence issued on the back of it. No exams, or fees (to the FAA at least), just the formality.

An American Licence holder can come to Britain, hire a G-reg and fly it anywhere he likes inside and outside the country, without any formality at all. Just like the Americans do with JAR licences, we hold his licence to be valid (with certain caveat), but what is more, we don't want him to go through any formality before using his US licence. Truly, we are the land of the free.

In France, the same American wishing to fly an F reg all over the world is also allowed. However, the French insist that he should submit his licence for a French "validation" before he actually uses it in anger. They charge a small fee for this service, and give the lucky pilot a small piece of paper to accompany his US licence, and he is then good to go. Subject to certain restrictions, they will even validate an FAA IR (for a US citizen non-resident in the EU) for full use in F-reg aircraft.

The two-out-of-three rule should be struck from people's minds. It is wrong as often as not, and confuses even when it is right ;)

2D

When considering puitting an IR on an FAA licence, one must remember that while a basic FAA PPL is automatically validated forever with the CAA, putting an IR on that licence limits the maximum validation period to 1 year.

Regards,

DFC

When considering puitting an IR on an FAA licence, one must remember that while a basic FAA PPL is automatically validated forever with the CAA, putting an IR on that licence limits the maximum validation period to 1 year.


What is your reference for that?

2D

Come on DFC enlighten us.

FD

Fortunately, I think DFC is mistaken on that point. ICAO licences are automatically validated indefinitely in the UK regardless of any ratings that may happen to be attached to them. Regrettably, the FAA IR is not validated at all, save for it granting the right to fly outside controlled airspace under IFR. Similarly no rights to fly for hire or reward are granted when the licence is validated.

There are timing restrictions to the validations granted in countries such as France, but this is totally irrelevant in the context of the UK.

Is that what you had in mind DFC?

2D

The reference is JAR-FCL 1.015(a)2;

(b) Licences issued by non-JAA States
(1) A licence issued by a non-JAA State may be rendered valid at the discretion of the Authority of a JAA Member State for use on aircraft registered in that JAA Member State in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR–FCL 1.015.
(2) Validation of a professional pilot licence and a private pilot licence with instrument rating shall not exceed one year from the date of validation, provided that the basic licence remains valid. Any further validation for use on aircraft registered in any JAA Member State is subject to agreement by the JAA Member States and to any conditions seen fit within the JAA. The user of a licence validated by a JAA Member State shall comply with the requirements stated in JAR–FCL.

Clear cut I think?

Regards,

DFC

It is very clear cut, except you have to read around you own references. JAR-FCL only constitutes law in the UK to the extent that it has been adopted into the ANO.

Here in the UK, we have decided not to discriminate in the way implied in your previous contribution.

FAA PPLs and FAA PPL/IRs are validated without formality and without time limitation. Check out: ANO Article 21 4 (A).

You will note that we side-step the issue to JAA's satisfaction by only rendering other ICAO IRs valid for flight under IFR outside controlled airspace.

2D

by only rendering other ICAO IRs valid for flight under IFR outside controlled airspace
I wondered why they did that...now all is clear :D

in the UK

Indeed. The UK can do what it likes in the UK. France etc may have something else to say about operations in their country. :)

Are we going back round to the "only within the UK" bit again? :(

Remember that France does not accept any US training towards JAR-FCL!

Problem is that the last line quoted places the onus on the pilot. One can bet that if the pilot ends up in the clink French side, the CAA won't be rushing to help.

One has to wonder however, how the authorities can determine how long the validation has been issued for if there is no formal validation certificate. Everyone can simply claim that they only validated yesterday!!

Anyway, since the whole subject is about flying N reg aircraft, the whole validation of FAA licences debate will not matter (until the EASA limits based N regies to a 6 month stay) :D

Regards,

DFC

DFC

Your position is based on a misunderstanding.

We are talking here about a pilot who holds an FAA certificate, and who wishes to fly an CAA-registered aircraft.

The authority on who may do this lies with the the CAA. The CAA says:

a) A JAA licence holder may fly the aircraft.

b) A CAA PPL holder may fly the aircraft

c) An ICAO PPL holder may fly the aircraft because the CAA renders such licences valid with the caveats contained in ANO Art 21 section 4.


Note that in case (c), the CAA does not render the licence valid as a JAA licence, the CAA simply recognises the status of a non-JAA ICAO PPL holder, and permits them to operate the aircraft. JAR-FCL 1.015 is totally irrelevant.

Since the CAA is the authority on who may operate G-reg aircraft, and the ICAO FAA PPL is "rendered valid" by the CAA, the pilot may fly that aircraft wherever they like with the CAA's full permission. Because the FAA PPL is an ICAO licence, and the CAA has deemed it acceptable for their aircraft, other ICAO states are bound to recognise the FAA licence/G-reg combination by the Chicago Convention.

None of this has anything to do with JAR-FCL, since the process being described here does not obligate any other JAA member to accept this licence-holder, other than when he is flying a G-reg aircraft.

2D

I was under the impression that having become a full JAR country, the UK was no longer permitted to issue non-JAA compliant licences or validations except for operations limited to within the UK.

If this wasn't the case then the CAA could have continued to produce a National PPL instead of going down the NPPL route. Producing a National ICAO PPL would have side-stepped JAR but been valid worldwide. Now why didn't they do that?

I beleive that it is because under JAR they couldn't.

Perhaps the CAA are taking the view that they are validating the FAA PPL in it's basic form and not validating the IR in any way.

That would explain the granting of the ability to fly IFR outside controlled airspace in the UK - essential for night flying. However, there is no permission granted for flight in IMC!

The problem of course is that an inspector in another JAA country being visited can quite correctly say that the UK is JAR, the licence includes an IR and has been validated over a year, the flight is illegal. I would not like to take that risk.

Regards,

DFC

The problem of course is that an inspector in another JAA country being visited can quite correctly say that the UK is JAR, the licence includes an IR and has been validated over a year

Even if your point were valid, which I do not accept, it is difficult to see how such a determination could be made, absent any evidence of the rendering valid of an FAA licence. FAA PPL/IR holders neither need nor receive any CAA paperwork atesting to the validity of their licence.

You are dealing in the realm of non-problems.

2D

It appears one can fly quite happily without a licence or somesuch in cloud cuckoo-land.

:D

FD

That would explain the granting of the ability to fly IFR outside controlled airspace in the UK - essential for night flying. However, there is no permission granted for flight in IMC!

DFC: this is rapidly becoming like banging our heads on brick walls. Before running away to hide with a comforting copy of the ANO, let me correct yet another assertion.

FAA PPL IR holders are entitled without formal validation to fly G-reg aircraft in IMC under IFR outside controlled airspace. This is a privilege which has limited practical application outside the UK, because of the UK's unique stance on IFR flight outside the formal IFR system. The privilege exists. For flight inside class F, E and D airspace in IMC under IFR, an FAA IR holder is also entitled to an IMC rating on payment of a fee. He does however need an appropriate licence to attach the IMC-rating to.

You have to read the ANO DFC...

2D

2Donkeys
Even if your point were valid, which I do not accept, it is difficult to see how such a determination could be made, absent any evidence of the rendering valid of an FAA licence. FAA PPL/IR holders neither need nor receive any CAA paperwork atesting to the validity of their licence.


Very easily done.

Check date of licence issue.
Check logbook to reveal dates on which pilot was flying G registered aircraft on FAA licence.

They may not issue any paper but that makes little practical difference.

Regards,

DFC

PS, Class F is not controlled airspace!

DFC

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

If you fly an (airworthy etc) G-reg aircraft, in VMC under VFR, with a (valid) FAA PPL, you are legal. Anywhere that the CAA and/or FAA allow you to fly (so not in Afghanistan or Iraq). End of argument.

Maybe EASA will change all that, but JAR didn't (yet).

Where isn't Class F controlled airspace?

Keef,

Class F is never controlled airspace. It is advisory airspace. Have a look at Scotland which has plenty of advisory routes which are class F.

---

Just had it confirmed.

An FAA/IR can only be validated for a maximum of 1 year in any JAA country. However, after the 1 year is up, the basic PPL priviliges can be validated further but not the IR.

Pilots whishing to use IFR priviliges in JAA countries' aircraft can comply with the requirements in JAR-FCL for the issue of a JAA licence including an IR.

The FAA licence is not a JAR compliant licence because it fails to meet the requirements in respect of training, medical or licensing issue specified in JAR-FCL. The FAA licence is included in the class of licence termed ICAO licence under JAR-FCL. In order to issue JAR compliant licenses, the State of Licence issue must adopt JAR-FCL and be accepted as a full member of the JAA. Where a country becomes a full member of the JAA for licensing purposes, any National licenses issued prior are not JAA compliant but they can be exchanges for a JAA licence on meeting the requirements set out in JAR-FCL.

Training for an ICAO licence may be credited towards the requirements for the issue of a JAA licence provided the requirements in respect of approvals, facilities, instructors and state of licence issue specified in JAR-FCL are complied with.

Regards,

DFC

Yawn

Welcome back to the debate.

Read your original post in which you were attempting to suggest that an FAA PPL/IR could only be validated for a year... full stop.

I am delighted that you have found this not to be the case, as we all knew all along.

The PPL is automatically rendered valid without formality, and the IR is not validated at all (at least not as an IR).

Nobody is debating whether or not the IFR privileges can be validated, becasue the ANO says specifically that they are not validated (at least not in any airspace that anybody cares about).

So where does that leave your posting about foreign inspectors zapping FAA PPL/IRs flying G-reg aircraft then?

Glad you got there in the end - I think :D

2D

DFC

In order to issue JAR compliant licenses, the State of Licence issue must adopt JAR-FCL and be accepted as a full member of the JAA.

In that case, how can people go to Florida and come back with a JAR PPL (not to mention the CAA IMC Rating) ?

Also, do you have details of how an FAA IR can be validated for one year, presumably allowing someone with an FAA PPL/IR to have full IR privileges in a G-reg.. It might be useful to someone who has done the FAA PPL/IR but hasn't yet put the plane on the N-reg.

10540 aksed:

In that case, how can people go to Florida and come back with a JAR PPL (not to mention the CAA IMC Rating) ?
because the training is done with JAR qualified instructors and with permission from the authorities, including, I assume, the FAA.

It is my opinion, that no pilot with an FAA or other foreign, non-JAA country, license can fly a G-, or in "my" case D- , registered aircraft outside of that country into the air space of another countries jurisdiction! In case of something happening, there are too many countries involved, besides the fact that not all JAA countries have the same validation requirments.

FAA pilot with a British registered aircraft flying in French airspace? I really don't think so.... but I would really like to find out what other JAA countries think about it ....

The JAR-FCL was supposed to bring harmonisation... so far, it has only brought more confusion :ugh: (my opinion)

Westy

because the training is done with JAR qualified instructors and with permission from the authorities, including, I assume, the FAA
Not when I did mine. I had FAA instructors, and as far as the FAA were concerned I was an FAA student pilot. I took the GFT with a JAA examiner and was issued with a JAA PPL, though in the eyes of the FAA I was still a student pilot, until I got my FAA PPL issued on basis of JAA PPL. It might have changed now, this was 4 years ago.

EA

Westwind,

This is a reply I received from the CAA referring to the point you made above, quote " the privileges of an FAA PPL (as an ICAO licence) may be exercised in UK registered aircraft for private purposes but flying in controlled airspace under IFR is prohibited. The UK Air Navigation Order therefore does not prevent you exercising the privilages of an FAA licence, night or instrument rating, outside controlled airspace. The ANO does not place any territorial activity on exercising these privilages since your FAA licence is deemed to be valid in UK registered aircraft, so it does not constrain you to UK airspace. DGAC France has indicated that it is acceptable to fly in that state with an FAA licence on UK registered aircraft".

If you need confirmation you should contact the Safety Regulation Group, Personnel Licensing Department, Civil Aviation Authority, Aviation House, GE gatwick Airport South, West Sussex. RH6 OYR

I hope this clears this up for you.

Regards,

Chopperpilot47

Good post chopperpilot47

Common sense and the ANO prevail again. Any offers DFC?

I don't think there's much doubt that the UK does validate ICAO IRs as laid out in Art 21(4). The question that interests me is whether it is entitled to.

JAR-FCL 1.010 "Basic authority to act as a flight crew member", is pretty explicit:

(1) A person shall not act as a flight
crew member of a civil aeroplane registered in a
JAA Member State unless that person holds a
valid licence and rating complying with the
requirements of JAR–FCL and appropriate to the
duties being performed, or an authorisation as
set out in JAR–FCL 1.085 and/or 1.230. The
licence shall have been issued by:
(i) a JAA Member State; or
(ii) another ICAO Contracting
State and rendered valid in accordance
with JAR–FCL 1.015(b) or (c).


This looks like it is intended to be the linchpin of the JAR-FCL system. It doesn't say: "rendered valid in accordance with JAR–FCL 1.015(b) or (c) or whatever the state of registry of the aircraft happens to think is OK". That means that the UK does not implement JAR-FCL 1.010.

If we're signed up to this, or rather, if we are subject to an EU directive that mandates that we implement this, isn't that a bit of a problem?

IO540,

When one trains for a JAA licence in the USA, it will be done at an RTF or FTO approved by the UK CAA. The State of Licence issue in that case is the UK.

The FAA regulate aviation in the US however, the training requirements and supervision of JAA RTF and FTOs is done by the UK CAA for those that they have approved.

I am not aware of any other JAA country approving RTF or FTO establishments in the US for PPL training.

US facilities will also have to meet FAA requirements.

To use an FAA IR (in controlled airspace) you will have to write to the CAA and get a validation. JAR-FCL 1.015 limits the length of validation to 1 year. As you say, it could help while you wait to get the aircraft onto the N reg.

---

Did the CAA ask the French? Don't think so. That is a copy from a letter that has been circulating for a while from the French to an individual pilot who made a specific request to fly in French airspace. Just cause the French said it is OK then does not automatically they think the same today.

Westwind - The German authorities have it right.

The reason why JAr-FCL can be confusing is that the UK made a mess of it and few if any pilots have actually read the original JAA documents. Thus they are relying on the ANO or LASORS which may not always be compliant with the JAA requirements.

What they forget is that should the ANO differ from the JAA requirements then when flying outside the UK it is the JAA requirements that will be used by any authority having an issue with the operation.

Dave Calderwood has a great article published in the where to fly guide. Perhaps everyone should read it and then they will have a published version from an independent individual.

regards,

DFC

PS thought this was about flying N reg aircraft. What is the problem with an N reg aircraft and FAA licence? - None.

Can I direct DFC and Bookworm to the JAR-FCL so-called "Long Term Exemptions" document. Exemption 22 valid through 30 June 2004 gives so-called NAAs (such as the UK CAA) exemption from the strictures of 1.015b. I am told that this LTE will be renewed in June so there is no immediate threat to current practice.

This is the basis for the CAA's actions and reconciles current practice with JAA. JAR-FCL is not of course legally binding in any event, although the UK has accepted it to the extent that it is incorporated into UK Legislation.

There is absolutely no problem with the validation in perpetuity of FAA PPL/IRs by the CAA

few if any pilots have actually read the original JAA documents.

How true! :rolleyes: Even those that do seem to be confused by them :p

2D / bookworm

Sorry if this is a daft question and I haven't read the various documents referred to here. What is the relevance of an FAA IR being validated by the CAA?

Does it mean what "everybody" already knows, i.e. with a G-reg and an FAA PPL/IR you can fly IFR below Class D, or you can apply for an IMCR just by filling in a form and sending off a cheque to the CAA and then (assuming you have a CAA/JAR PPL) you can go IFR below Class A.

Or does it mean something a lot more useful, e.g. you can fly a G-reg below Class A outside the UK also, IFR?

I am sure it doesn't mean something really useful like effectively converting an FAA IR into a JAR IR and getting full IR privileges in a G-reg, possibly outside the UK as well.

On the other subject of what the DGAC thinks, I have had some comms with the CAA and they've always declined to comment on what the DGAC might think. I have a very good letter from them stating one can fly VMC on top outside the UK even though the IMCR itself is valid only in the UK, provided the DGAC (etc) don't mind, but nobody I know of has yet been able to come up with a corresponding letter from the DGAC. So I was astonished to read chopperpilot47's "DGAC France has indicated..." quote. He should publish the letter in its entirety, if it is from the CAA (deleting his own name of course).

These discussions have revealed some very interestings things, e.g. that an FAA PPL (and FAA Class 3 medical) in a G-reg is OK in and outside the UK (making the NPPL practically a waste of time and space).

My own interest is that I am planning to go N-reg and get the FAA PPL/IR. I cannot ever do the JAR IR (the CAA have said so in writing) because I can't pass the stupid Class 1 audiogram which that requires. And (due to lack of time etc) I might go N-reg either before getting the FAA licenses, or after getting them, which is why I am interested in the privileges in an N-reg with a non-FAA license, or the privileges in a G-reg with an FAA IR. Phew!!! :O

IO540.

The position is much clearer than this thread would lead you to believe. Hopefully, some of that noise has now been dealt with.

The position is this:

G-REG with an FAA TICKET

An FAA PPL is validated without restriction by the CAA. This requires no formal process. Your licence is "rendered valid" as soon as you get it, and you can use it without additional paperwork to fly G-reg aircraft anywhere in the world subject to having the appropriate class and/or type rating as appropriate on your FAA ticket.

An FAA IR is not fully rendered valid. Its privileges may only be exercised outside controlled airspace. However, once again, no territorial limits are imposed by the limited validation. The problem is that since most other countries require the commander of an IFR flight to hold a fully valid Instrument Rating before filing IFR (regardless of wx conditions) the theoretical privilege of being able to fly IFR outside controlled airspace is not practically very useful. Englishal has had this viewpoint validated by the DGAC amongst others.

N-REG with CAA TICKET

Whilst flying in the UK, your CAA/JAA licence imposes no particular restrictions on the registry of the aircraft you fly. You can jump into an N-reg and fly without restriction in the UK. Once outside the UK, you encounter the FARs. On this subject, they say that to fly an N-reg you must either:

a) Hold a valid FAA ticket

or

b) Hold a valid ticket issued by the country in which you are flying.

JAR tickets are not valid throughout JAR land for these purposes since they are still deemed to be issued by your particular National Authority. This is why you can get away flying N-reg in the UK on a CAA-issued JAA ticket. To fly your N-reg in France, you would need a JAA (or French) ticket ISSUED in France. In Germany the same, and so on.

This is not to satisfy the French or Germans, this is purely to satisfy the FARs.


Hope this makes it clear.


2D

Well both the French and Germans have written to me saying they are perfectly happy for me to fly a G reg on an FAA ticket in their airspace. Their "response" is always "If the CAA allow it, then so do we"...

EA

Can I direct DFC and Bookworm to the JAR-FCL so-called "Long Term Exemptions" document. Exemption 22 valid through 30 June 2004 gives so-called NAAs (such as the UK CAA) exemption from the strictures of 1.015b. I am told that this LTE will be renewed in June so there is no immediate threat to current practice.

Looks like that squares it 2D. It's a bit worrying that it's an exemption that needs to be periodically renewed though, as well as it being a fairly recent exemption (we must have been operating contrary to it for quite some time -- Art 21(4) has been there forever -- but I'm sure that's true of a lot of JAR-FCL). I'd be less comfortable operating in the UK on the basis of an FAA licence knowing that, though the conversion process is not that onerous.

2D

Thank you very much!

Englishal

Can you post the letters from the German/French authorities, or send me a copy by PM (deleting your name by all means). It is the sender's name that matters, and the date.

Lots of people have tried to get this sort of thing out of the DGAC and have not been successful, and this includes not only myself but also some French pilots. One got such a letter, only to have it revoked later.

I'll try and find them, no doubt they've been "filed" somewhere! I emailed the DGAC and got a reply within a couple of days.....

Cheers
EA

we must have been operating contrary to it for quite some time -- Art 21(4) has been there forever

I don't think we were ever acting contrary to JAR-FCL. At the risk of splitting hairs, we were given a certain period of time in which to align our legislation with the requirements implied by JAR-FCL, as were all the other JAA states. To varying extents we have now all achieved this. Differences in implementation timetable were always envisaged and serious hurdles continue to be dealt with by "long term exceptions" to avoid damaging the bigger picture.

This is why the legally binding document is not JAR-FCL1 per se. Rather, the law of the land concerned is what applies to aircraft and airmen licensed and registered in the country concerned irrespective of where they operate. This is the JAA-accepted principle of Extraterritoriality.

2D

This is a reply I received from the CAA referring to the point you made above, quote " the privileges of an FAA PPL (as an ICAO licence) may be exercised in UK registered aircraft for private purposes but flying in controlled airspace under IFR is prohibited. The UK Air Navigation Order therefore does not prevent you exercising the privileges of an FAA licence, night or instrument rating, outside controlled airspace. The ANO does not place any territorial activity on exercising these privileges since your FAA licence is deemed to be valid in UK registered aircraft, so it does not constrain you to UK airspace. ".


I think that the CAA have got it a little bit wrong here. It is true that article 21(4)(a) deems a non-UK licence valid for a G reg a/c and does not mention a territorial limit. However, the CAA's advice appears not to take into account wider considerations such as the Chicago Convention which ultimate governs international aviation.

Paragraph 1.2.2.1 of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention requires that when a Contracting State renders valid a licence issued by another Contracting State, as an alternative to the issuance of its own licence, it shall establish validity by suitable authorization to be carried with the former licence accepting it as the equivalent of the latter.

Therefore while an FAA licence validated by the CAA in entitled to recognition in other states, those states may reasonably expect and their law may require the licence to be accompanied by a CAA validation certificate.

I note the CAA statement that DGAC France has indicated that it is acceptable to fly in that state with an FAA licence on UK registered aircraft. I don't doubt this but my understanding from the French DGAC was that they require the FAA licence to be accompanied by written validation. If you intend to fly abroad in a G reg a/c an it may be safer to obtain a validation under article 27 of the ANO rather than rely on the fact the your FAA licence is deemed valid.

IO540
I recommend that you speak to the International Aviation and Safety Division at the Department for Transport before committing yourself to the FAA PPL or N Reg route.

Cathar may or may not be aware that the section he quotes from Annex 1 is in fact only a recommendation. The section continues...


Contracting States which, without formality, render valid a licence issued by another Contracting State for use in private flights are encouraged to notify this facility in their Aeronautical Information Publications.


And... what a surpise, the UK complies perfectly with this by publishing in AIP GEN 1.3.4 (section 2) that it will recognise the rights of ICAO (non-UK) licence holders without formality (with the no hire and reward and no IFR in controlled airspace caveats).


So no problems with Chicago Convention Annex 1 either.

Next problem? :D

2D

My turn to point at the "exemptions" document! :)

I disagree in part 2D. I think the UK is obliged to adhere to Annex 1 unless it files a difference. But it has. See AIP GEN 1.7. This notes that ICAO licences are rendered valid for private flights, and also that no certificate of validation is issued. A copy of GEN 1.7 might be a useful thing to carry instead.

BTW, you quoted 1.2.2.2 in your last post (did you edit the whole thing??), not 1.2.2.1 which is a standard.

Bookworm.

We may have tripped over one another in the edit, but I think we are saying the same thing.

The bottom line is that Chicago Annex 1 cannot be used to knock the CAA's process of validating foreign licences.

2D

2 Donkeys

I wasn't suggesting that the Chicago Convention has any direct legal application but the it requirements have to be considered. The ANO is made under section 60 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, of which the specific power is to implement the Annexes to the Convention. My understanding is that this prevents the ANO containing provision which are contrary to the Convention. In this case the UK does comply with the Convention as it has filed a difference.

The important point to note is that while this is legal in the UK, there is no obligation under the Chicago Convention for other states to recognise this method of validation. It may be that they do, that is a matter for their legislation/procedures. However, the statements attributed to the DGAC differ from the from what I understood to be the situation following a discussion I had with the DGAC a year or so ago - which was that France required a written validation.

If the question was asked of the DGAC do you accept FAA licences rendered valid under the UK ANO for use with G registered aircraft then their answer will of course be yes. If you ask them do you accept such licences without written validation then you may get a different answer.

I may well be wrong, but I would not wish to fly a G registered aircraft on a non UK licence in France without seeing written confirmation from the DGAC that they did not require a written validation of that licence.

Cathar

I recommend that you speak to the International Aviation and Safety Division at the Department for Transport before committing yourself to the FAA PPL or N Reg route

May I ask why you suggest I contact them? If you know a reason, then why not post it publicly?

Cathar

You've shifted your ground somewhat. You now know that the UK has filed a difference against Annex 1, so that its practice of not issuing a formal validation "certificate", for want of a better word is not in contravention of the Annex - your original point

So now you are worried that the DGAC might not like this, which is fair enough, but not a worry based in fact.

In reality, the DGAC has no problem with the situation even though the CAA's approach to validation doesn't match their own practice. The DGAC, as you probably know, actually issues a written validation of FAA licences, and under certain limited circumstances will even go further than the CAA in validating an instrument rating - a difference filed by France.

This is an area of tremendous flexibility, and where private flying is concerned, not a lot of time is wasted worrying about validation differences. Try getting into the front left seat of a French airliner with an FAA ticket and you can expect trouble.

The important point to note is that while this is legal in the UK, there is no obligation under the Chicago Convention for other states to recognise this method of validation.

Not sure that's the case, Cathar. States have to uphold their obligations under the Chicago Convention even when other states file differences from that. For example, there are many equipment requirements in Annex 6 (is it 6?) that the UK does not enforce. This does not mean that other states can refuse to accept overflight of UK-registered aircraft.

Forgive me for replying in this way but it is easiest way to refer to the points I am addressing.

Cathar may or may not be aware that the section he quotes from Annex 1 is in fact only a recommendation. The section continues...

Cathar know that the paragraph he quotes is a standard not a recommended practice. 2 Donkeys may wish to turn back a page of Annex 1 and read paragraph 1.2.2.1 rather than paragraph 1.2.2.2. The recommended practice at 1.2.2.2 does not continue rather it is followed by a note which has little status.

You've shifted your ground somewhat. You now know that the UK has filed a difference against Annex 1, so that its practice of not issuing a formal validation "certificate", for want of a better word is not in contravention of the Annex - your original point
I think the UK is obliged to adhere to Annex 1 unless it files a difference. But it has. See AIP GEN 1.7. This notes that ICAO licences are rendered valid for private flights, and also that no certificate of validation is issued. A copy of GEN 1.7 might be a useful thing to carry instead.

No. I said that the ANO did not contravene the Convention. The fact the UK has filed a difference is clear evidence that the UK does not comply with the standard set Annex 1. These are two different issues.

So now you are worried that the DGAC might not like this, which is fair enough, but not a worry based in fact.

As I say, I understood from a conversation DGAC (which I admit was on another subject and validations only came up in passing) that a written validation was required. I may be wrong and this is not a problem for me. However, my point is that quote's about what the DGAC will allow could be referring to licences with written validations rather than licences which are "deemed" to be rendered valid without documentation. If I were intending to flying a G registered aircraft in France on an FAA licence I would want to see something more specific first.

Not sure that's the case, Cathar. States have to uphold their obligations under the Chicago Convention even when other states file differences from that. For example, there are many equipment requirements in Annex 6 (is it 6?) that the UK does not enforce. This does not mean that other states can refuse to accept overflight of UK-registered aircraft.

We have to look at the obligations/rights under the Convention and their relationship. While the Convention grants the right of non scheduled flight and requires the the recognition of CofA and licences, this is subject "subject to the observance of the terms of this Convention". Further the Convention specifically states that "no aircraft or personnel having certificates so endorsed [ie not meeting ICAO standards] shall participate in international navigation, except with the permission of the State or States whose territories are entered".

Recently the CAA has grounded N registered corporate aircraft for having non type rated co-pilots despite the fact that the US has filed a difference on this point. The Annex 6 equipment requirements obviously do not involve certificates but I believe that the principles are the same. Other contracting states are entitled to require UK aircraft operating in their territory to comply with the Annex 6 requirements and ground them if they don't. Certainly DfT have expressed this view to me.

IO540

Sorry, I forgot you question. I have been told they they intend to look into the issue of foreign private aircraft permanently based in the UK and the permanent use of foreign licences on G registered aircraft. I can't forecast what will happen but you will wish to be aware of it. I suggested you speak to them because I suspect that you would dismiss it as a groundless rumour.

Cathar,

I have been told they they intend to look into the issue of foreign private aircraft permanently based in the UK and the permanent use of foreign licences on G registered aircraft

This is the same thing that's been going around for as long as anybody I've spoken to can remember.

The residency isn't enforceable in most cases because planes tend to move about very easily.

International Aviation and Safety Division at the Department for Transport


I'm struggling to find a "Division" called the Aviation and Safety Division at the DfT Cathar. Can you provide any pointers?

They have just had a small reorganisation and the name International Avaition and Safety Division is new. It used to be Multilateral Division. Both are/were part of the Aviation Directorate

OK. Found that. Now what can I read, or who should I speak to to confirm the suggestions that you have made on this thread?

2D

2D

Sorry for not responding sooner, I've been busy.

I haven't seen anything specific to this subject on the DfT web site.

With regard to the ability of states to refuse to recognise other states licences etc if they do not meet ICAO standards, I would refer in particular to Articles 39 and 40 of the Convention. If you do not have a copy I quote the provisions for you. While these apply only to licences and certificates of airworthiness, they establish the principle that if you do not meet international standards you may not participate in international aviation other than with the permission of the state concerned. While positive approval does not appear to be required for differences to Annex 6 Part II requirements, this does not prevent states requiring all relevant aircraft in their airspace from compling with Annex 6 Part II standards.

This appears to be confirmed by the recitals to the EC Directive on the Safety of Third Country Aircraft which will be adopted shortly. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/ce233/ce23320030930en00120023.pdf In particular

2) The Commission has issued a Communication to the
European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Defining a
Community Aviation Safety Improvement Strategy’.
3) That Communication clearly states that safety may be
effectively enhanced by ensuring that aircraft comply
fully with the international safety standards contained in
the Annexes to the Convention on International Civil
Aviation, signed in Chicago on 7 December 1944 (‘the
Chicago Convention’).
4) In order to establish and maintain a high uniform level of
civil aviation safety in Europe, a harmonised approach to
the effective enforcement of international safety standards
within the Community should be introduced. To that end,
it is necessary to harmonise the rules and procedures for
ramp inspections of third-country aircraft landing at
airports located in the Member States.

Interstingly it would appear that the UK's Annex 6 Part II differences are to be removed. See http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/srg_gad_ICAO_LofC&RIA.pdf
This contains the statement that United Kingdom policy with regard to the contents of ICAO annexes is that all standards and, where appropriate, recommended practices will be reflected in national legislation and requirements.

Cathar

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, nothing you have said seems to relate to your earlier statement that:

I have been told they they intend to look into the issue of foreign private aircraft permanently based in the UK and the permanent use of foreign licences on G registered aircraft.

Was this a bit of artistic licence or are you actually aware of such an investigation?

2D

2 D

Sorry to ramble. It was a long day and I wasn't sure which of my comments your referred to. I have no evidence that such an investigation is going on. However, I can assure you that it is not artistic licence on my part, I was told quite specifically that this was something that would be looked at this year.

Cathar

"I was told quite specifically that this was something that would be looked at this year."

I have been told that this is going to be looked at in detail as a security issue and not as a licensing issue.

While we generally are talking about FAA licence holders and N reg aircraft. The licence could be issued by any ICAO country and the imported aircraft could be registered in any ICAO country.

There are plenty of ICAO countries who produce both pilots and aircraft which the security people would rather not see based in the UK or flying local G reg aircraft without further checks.

However, to change the requirements for one ICAO country means changing it for all ICAO countries including the USA.

Regards,

DFC

DFC

How would you achieve what you describe without banning international general aviation flights altogether?

It is possible that a terrorist will have a gold plated and current ATPL, will be flying a G-reg plane with a valid CofA, is carrying a copy of the VAT invoice and a copy of the international interception procedures, has FM immune avionics, has properly written up his pilot's logbook, journey logbook, airframe logbook, engine logbook, VP logbook, gets an 8130-3 when he buys spark plugs from his local JAR145-approved Al Queda representative, and has paid every other penny which the CAA deems as collectible, but somehow I am not so sure that would be his priority... :O