LAPL and N-Reg?

[datacard]

Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere, but I've been unable to find a definitive response.
Is it possible to fly an N-reg aircraft in the UK (day VFR of course) with an EASA LAPL?

[BackPacker]

Good question.

CFR 14 part 61:

§ 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(a) Pilot certificate. No person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person—

(1) Has a pilot certificate or special purpose pilot authorization issued under this part in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization. However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used; and

[...]

(c) Medical certificate. (1) A person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of an aircraft only if that person holds the appropriate medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter, or other documentation acceptable to the FAA, that is in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft. Paragraph (c)(2) of this section provides certain exceptions to the requirement to hold a medical certificate.

(2) A person is not required to meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section if that person—

[...]

(x) Is operating an aircraft within a foreign country using a pilot license issued by that country and possesses evidence of current medical qualification for that license; or


At a first glance, there doesn't appear to be a limitation on what foreign licences are acceptable, or what type of operations are prohibited. However, FAR 61 is a pretty large document and my quick scan may have missed something.

If there's anything more, it should be in here:

eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=40760189a03dfea0b501608f33820a45&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2&idno=14#14:2.0.1.1.2.1.1.3)

[S-Works]

The LAPL is not an ICAO licence. The wording of the regs is to allow the use of another ICAO licence outside of the US.

So the answer is no as I understand it.

[riverrock83]

This is the same question as the NPPL (both LAPL and NPPL are sub-ICAO). I'm not sure if there was ever an official conclusion from the FAA about the NPPL, and so the general advice (from the NPPL website) was that it hadn't been allowed.
However I normally go on the basis that if it doesn't say no, nothing stops you :ok:

They did say that they accepted the non-ICAO IMC Rating in the UK as an equivalent to an IR (License Privileges, Aircraft Registers, Etc (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/misc-privileges/index.html)) so I suggest that they could use the same principle for this.

[BackPacker]

Bose-X, do you have a reference for that? I searched the whole part 61 text and the only time where "ICAO" is mentioned in this context is in 61.75, which deals with an FAA PPL based on a foreign PPL or higher.

I don't see any reference to "ICAO" in relation to the exception as specified in 61.3.

I fully agree that such a limitation would make sense, though. I just can't see it in the text.

[Bob Upanddown]

The people behind the NPPL are adamant that the NPPL does not allow you to fly N reg. However, I impression I get is that the NPPL people are not legally qualified and certainly not experts on the FARs.

I know many people who have flown N reg on NPPL and have been ramp checked. No problem.

This is one of the anomalies of flying N reg. No-one knows all the answers and there are as many opinions about flying N reg IFR with an IMC rating in UK as there people flying N reg aircraft with an IMC. Same applies to the NPPL. Until it is tested in the courts, who knows??

I think you can.

(Head down waiting for the onslaught from the NPPL experts.......)

[ifitaintboeing]

I would consider myself knowledgeable on NPPL and FAA matters. I believe that you can operate an N-reg using a NPPL or LAPL in the UK. I did ask for the NPPL website to be amended some time ago.

ifitaint...

[peterh337]

Where is this NPPL website?

The authority issuing the NPPL has the power to restrict it as they wish.

They could limit it to G-regs. If they haven't then it is valid for any reg unless thus banned by the State of Registry.

They could require the pilot to wear pink underpants while flying, etc.

But they have no authority for interpreting the FAA regs. I don't see anything in 61.3 which states the pilot papers have to be ICAO compliant. Also the FAA reply re the IMCR (that URL above is from my website (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation)) was a response to a clearly stated question and it was affirmative.

Obviously it's possible to get a different reply from some other FAA employee, but this happens with the CAA too, and much more so nowadays than a few years ago. I know somebody who sold a G-reg plane when the CAA told him he cannot fly it on an FAA PPL (which at the time was bollox) and we was not happy when I told him about the ANO article permitting it.

[Bob Upanddown]

Where is this NPPL website?

NPPL Home Page (http://www.nationalprivatepilotslicence.co.uk/)


Q Can I fly my 'N' registered aircraft on my NPPL?
A No. This is because the NPPL is a sub-ICAO licence, and the usual reciprocity with the USA and other ICAO contracting states does not apply. As the holder of a UK NPPL, you may only fly in UK airspace in a UK registered aircraft.

I believe this is based on their interpretation of the FARs.

[S-Works]

No, I believe it is based on there interpretation of the limits of the NPPL. I am however 99% certain it is restricted to UK registered aircraft.

I am on holiday at the moment so don't have the Internet access to look it up. Beagle may be along in a bit to confirm or deny.

[BEagle]

It's been a while since this was discussed, but if I recall correctly, the problem was down to acceptance of the Medical Declaration.

Anyway, as clearly stated in CAP 804:

The UK National Private Pilots Licence (NPPL) is a licence issued by the CAA that is valid in UK airspace for the piloting of UK registered aircraft only.

[peterh337]

The NPPL website states here (http://www.nationalprivatepilotslicence.co.uk/general_news.php) that you can fly to Ireland as-is, and to France with a proper medical. And to a load of other places.

So that phrase in CAP804 must be wrong. Clearly there is no territorial restriction, and probably the restriction on G-reg is equally somebody's invention.

In the ANO (cap393.pdf) the word "NPPL" appears only on page 289 and none of this is mentioned there.

CAP804 is not law anyway - it's a set of guidance notes.

[riverrock83]

So how is this enforced? How can / does the FAA enforce its rules in N-reg aircraft when you are in the UK?
The two times I can think of that this is going to come to a head is if:

1. You have an accident and the insurance company refuses to pay out. Therefore you eventually end up in court (lets say in the UK). Would that mean that a UK court would then have to create its own interpretation of the FARs?

2. You are ramp checked, or the CAA decide to prosecute you for lying without an appropriate licence. Again - this would presumably end up in a UK court?

Would the FAA prosecute you in the US for flying N-Reg in the UK (with a questionable licence)?

[ifitaintboeing]

Quote:
The UK National Private Pilots Licence (NPPL) is a licence issued by the CAA that is valid in UK airspace for the piloting of UK registered aircraft only.


That's not what it says in the ANO :ugh:

ifitaint...

[englishal]

The FAA says that "if you have a licence to fly the aeroplane in your country's airspace, then you can fly an N reg in your country's airspace without holding an FAA PPL"...or words to that effect. It does not mention anything about ICAO compliant or anything that I can see.

Unless the LAPL specifically prohibits flying anything other than a G registered aeroplane, then as far as it goes, you are legal....Just as pointed out earlier, the IMCr can be used in an N registered aeroplane in the UK, the IMCr being sub-ICAO.

[BEagle]

Which, ifitainta787itprobablywontcatchfire :p , is due to an error made by the ANO drafter at the CAA!

NPPL P&SC agree the policy with the CAA, then it is up to the CAA to sort the ANO.....

The NPPL is issued with territorial restrictions; however, certain EU Member States have agreed to its use with appropriate criteria.

Anyway, now that this ANO NPPL error has been highlighted, perhaps I should raise it with the CAA.

However, whether a LAPL is acceptable for flying 3rd country aircraft is for EASA to decide.

[ifitaintboeing]

However, whether a LAPL is acceptable for flying 3rd country aircraft is for EASA to decide.

EASA Basic Regulation for EASA aircraft, ANO for non-EASA aircraft :)

ifitaint...

[BEagle]

3rd country aircraft, e.g. C172 and PA28, are still 'EASA aircraft', no matter which their state of registry.....

Ismell787smoke...

[Silvaire1]

3rd country aircraft, e.g. C172 and PA28, are still 'EASA aircraft', no matter which their state of registry.....

Interesting. How about a Globe Swift, Stinson 108, Commonwealth Skyranger, Luscombe 8A etc, with no EASA type certificate, but all operating on ICAO compliant standard category airworthiness certificates and as such legally usable (and used for) paid flight training and anything else the C172 or PA28 are used for?

[S-Works]

Which brings us right back to Doh! Or rather NO...... :p

[ifitaintboeing]

Correct BEagle- that's why I said:

EASA Basic Regulation for EASA aircraft, ANO for non-EASA aircraft

Have a look at EASA Basic Regs and ANO Article 61A (Part-FCL licence and EASA aircraft registered outside the UK) and 61/62 (Part-FCL licence and non-EASA aircraft registered outside the UK)

Ismell787smoke...

Hopefully the smoke is starting to clear...

So, to answer the original question:

Yes, you can fly an N-reg on a NPPL (ANO Schedule 7).
Yes, you can fly an N-reg on a LAPL (ANO Article 61/62).

BEagle, hopefully you can arrange to have the NPPL website amended. Not sure who you'd ask though :p

ifitaint...

[BEagle]

Nope, as I'm well aware of the original NPPL policy decision, it will be the (correct) CAP804 statement which I will advise the CAA is in contradiction to the ANO; the NPPL website also conforms with the agreed policy.

Hence it will be the ANO, not the NPPL website, which is likely to be corrected.

[Bob Upanddown]

BEagle

i suspect you won't make friends with that attitude.........

[BEagle]

'Making friends' is not the issue.

The NPPL P&SC agreed the policy; however, it appears that NPPL privileges are apparently being exercised by some on aircraft which do not fall within the policy agreement.

That is the issue. Sorry if you find it inconvenient.

[ifitaintboeing]

I really don't see the problem with someone flying a non UK registered aircraft using a NPPL licence within their licence privileges. Thinking of the recent "Red Tape Challenge", what would be the safety justification for amending the ANO to prevent them?

ifitaint...

[Bob Upanddown]

The NPPL P&SC. Another quango-like committee making rules in dark smoke-filled rooms.......

BEagle. The whole issue of people flying N reg in the EU on 61.75s was never considered as the purpose of 61.75 but that's where we are.
Just because people have taken advantage of the 61.75 licence doesn't mean the FAA jump in and change the rule.

You jump on this with such eagerness because you are now aware that people are taking advantage in a way you did not intend.

You are not make rules, you are just being vindictive.

[BackPacker]

I don't blame the NPPL P&SC, nor do I blame the ANO or the CAA. The NPPL was introduced knowing full well that it did not meet ICAO requirements. This means the Chicago convention did not apply, and that the combination of NPPL and G-reg would not be automatically acceptable for flight into foreign countries. The NPPL P&SC did not have to specify that the combination was not valid for foreign flight, because it was implicitly not valid under the Chicago convention. They may have put this in a policy document of some sort, but that's probably intended more as a clarification than as a basis for a legal text.

Then a few things happened. Some countries (Ireland, France and maybe a few others) agreed with the UK to mutually accept each others sub-ICAO licences (NPPL, LAPL, RPL, Brevet de base, whatever the name) for flight into each others airspace. Great. But again, the rules that apply to the situation where you fly a G-reg/NPPL into foreign airspace are not just in the ANO, but also in the equivalent foreign law set, and/or in the terms of the mutual agreement. (My gut feeling is that the mutual agreement will very closely follow the Chicago convention, but that's just a gut feeling.)

And then the FAA entered that little line into FAR 61.3. Which is where the confusion really starts. You can fly an N-reg within the UK with a UK-issued licence and valid medical. It doesn't say which licence, or which restrictions apply. In fact, the way I read it I can do ATPL-type stuff in an N-reg within the UK, with my UK-issued PPL. If we need further clarification on this, it's the FAA which should provide it, not the CAA.

And while we're talking to the FAA, can we also ask them to change the phrase "issued" to "issued or rendered valid"? That would preempt the whole "is EU/EASA a country", "All EASA licences are created equal, but some licences are more equal than others" discussion.

[BEagle]

The NPPL P&SC. Another quango-like committee making rules in dark smoke-filled rooms.......


How very rude. Actually it consists of AOPA, BGA, BMAA, CAA, GAPAN and LAA representatives who agreed all policy based on clear benefits to their members.

But feel free to carry on believing what you will......:rolleyes:

[Silvaire1]

And then the FAA entered that little line into FAR 61.3. Which is where the confusion really starts. You can fly an N-reg within the UK with a UK-issued licence and valid medical. It doesn't say which licence, or which restrictions apply. In fact, the way I read it I can do ATPL-type stuff in an N-reg within the UK, with my UK-issued PPL. If we need further clarification on this, it's the FAA which should provide it, not the CAA.I think there's actually very little or no confusion from the FAA perspective. They mean exactly what they say - they accept any valid license that was issued in the country of operation. ICAO does not make US Federal Law and has nothing to do with the license required by the FAA regulation.

One of the numerous advantages of the FAA regulations is that they are intentionally basic and unlike the total CF of European regulation, the FARs achieve reasonable success in being unambiguous.

[patowalker]

Some countries (Ireland, France and maybe a few others) agreed with the UK to mutually accept each others sub-ICAO licences (NPPL, LAPL, RPL, Brevet de base, whatever the name) for flight into each others airspace.

When I asked the DGAC if the LAPL was acceptable to fly a G reg in France, their reply referred me to Article 11 of Regulation (EC) 216/2008:

Article 11
Recognition of certificates
1. Member States shall, without further technical requirements
or evaluation, recognise certificates issued in accordance with
this Regulation. When the original recognition is for a particular
purpose or purposes, any subsequent recognition shall cover
only the same purpose or purposes


The obvious message was: "Why are you asking such a silly question?"

[BackPacker]

You're right of course. The LAPL is an EASA licence and obviously valid throughout the EU. I should not have included it in my list of country-specific sub-ICAO licences.

[BEagle]

I had a chat with a very helpful IAA chum yesterday about this. His view is that FAR 61.3 does NOT apply to sub-ICAO licences, so Irish LAPL holders would NOT lawfully be able to exercise their licence privileges on N-reg aircraft.

Whereas, when asked, the UK CAA just said "Dunno...." :hmm:

[bookworm]

Whereas, when asked, the UK CAA just said "Dunno...."

Isn't that the better answer? If you want an opinion on 14 CFR 61, why not ask the FAA Chief Counsel rather than an IAA chum??

[BEagle]

That's what I would expect the UK regulator to do.... It's their job to clarify such things, not mine.

[Cobalt]

Nope. It is the job of the FAA to clarify this, not the European regulators.

In general, creating rules that prohibit someone from flying an aircraft that they would be perfectly entitled to fly if it had a different registration painted on the side strikes me as unbelievably petty and small-minded. What possible safety justification can that have?

[proudprivate]

None, as far as I can tell. It is similar to restricting operations of aircraft for which the operator is resident in the area.

Flash news from our Cologne regulators : why don't we restrict flying on the basis of religion? As of 16 September 2015, jews will no longer be permitted to fly EASA aircraft. Oh wait a minute, Eric, we've done that before and it kind of backfired. How about Muslims then ? Surely there's a safety argument proscribing muslims from flying an aircraft since 9/11 ? They could crash into tall buildings or throw antrax out of the window ! Yeah, Eric, but then you'll get all those article 6 whiners on our backs. I'd bin it for now, if I were you.

[BEagle]

Cobalt, it is the duty of the CAA to establish whether the FAA is content for N-reg aircraft to be flown using sub-ICAO licences in UK/EU airspace.

The time to find out is NOT after some LAPL holder has an accident in an N-reg aircraft, it is BEFORE....:hmm:

[BEagle]

Having just discussed this issue further at this week's EASA Part-FCL Implementation Forum, I elicited the following from the UK CAA:

They don't know whether FAR 61.3 applies to sub-ICAO licences - so they've asked the FAA...
...who said they didn't know either, so will now seek legal advice.
Several NAAs merely consider that N-reg aircraft may NOT be flown using sub-ICAO licences.

Until this is resolved, anyone who chances flying an N-reg aircraft on a sub-ICAO licence does so at their own not inconsiderable risk. Prudent advice is NOT to do so; a fully-compliant ICAO PPL is the minimum licence which should be used.

But hey, you barrack room lawyers who think otherwise, feel free to go ahead and risk being deemed complicit in any subsequent claim for damages should an N-reg aircraft flown by a sub-ICAO licence holder be involved in an accident.....:rolleyes:

[Bob Upanddown]

BEagle
There are many pilots who have taken IMC rating courses, passed their IMC rating tests and continue to take their IMC rating renewals all on N reg aircraft. IMC is sub-ICAO so there is a long history of the CAA accepting sub-ICAO on N reg. I suspect this must be done with tacit FAA understanding.
You seem compelled to prove your point but I don't see why. What makes anyone using a sub-ICAO licence more of a risk on N reg than G?
There are more rewarding flights to be had than this one.

[Silvaire1]

I bet the FAA will never make any statement on this issue. The US position is already clear, and ICAO or sub-ICAO is not an issue. ICAO does not write US law. Probably more importantly, FAA will not want to interpret foreign regulations - as a sovereign State doing foreign pilots a favor, the US has said all it needs to say. If foreign aviation law leaves foreigners in an ambiguous situation, as it so often does, so be it. Not FAA business.

[Mike Cross]

The intent of the FAR seems pretty clear. "If the foreign state gives you a licence that entitles you to fly that type in their airspace then we're happy to allow you to fly the same type in the same airspace if it has an "N" painted on the side and is therefore subject to our laws." This is nothing to do with ICAO.

If the foreign state wants to disallow this then they can do so. To do so would however be perverse. They would be restricting your ability to fly a particular type based solely on the fact that it is N reg. The only possible justification would be an implication that there is something deficient in the US airworthiness regime. Anything else would be a protectionist restriction of free trade.

[S-Works]

Cool, so we have removed the IMCr issues at a stroke as well. Everyone gets a LAPL with an IMCr on it and flys and N reg. simples!!

In fact it does not even need to be a LAPL, a UK national licence with the IMCr on it is already available. Throw in the N reg and the problem is solved in a stroke.

Genius!

[BEagle]

Other Member States have already decided, without any real rationale, that an N-reg aircraft may not be flown by sub-ICAO licence holders. To avert the risk of this becoming accepted as some formal EASA policy without any foundation, the CAA has asked the FAA to clarify the situation and the FAA has agreed to do so.

[bookworm]

Other Member States have already decided, without any real rationale, that an N-reg aircraft may not be flown by sub-ICAO licence holders. To avert the risk of this becoming accepted as some formal EASA policy without any foundation, the CAA has asked the FAA to clarify the situation and the FAA has agreed to do so.

Other Member States are obliged to accept an EASA Part-FCL licence (including a LAPL) for use in an aircraft falling into the scope of Art 4(c) of the Basic Regulation (i.e. a foreign registered non-Annex-II aircraft used by an operator resident or established in the EU). That doesn't sort out the 14 CFR 61.3 issue, which I had hoped would have been covered in the BASA IPL discussions.

[BillieBob]

Everyone gets a LAPL with an IMCr on it and flys and N reg. simples!!Has the UK CAA expressed its willingness to attach an IR(R) to a LAPL, given that you cannot attach an IR?

[BEagle]

Has the UK CAA expressed its willingness to attach an IR(R) to a LAPL, given that you cannot attach an IR?

No.


.

[Lost pilot]

Most responses to your original question try much too hard to complicate the issue. The first response was the best. If it is not specifically prohibited by the FAR's, then it is allowed by the FAA, period, end of statement. Now, whether or not it is allowed by the country and/or license where you are operating said aircraft becomes the jurisdiction of that individual CAA. In other words, you have to comply with the rules of both countries.

Last summer I was flying for a Swedish company, with my JAA/EASA license, on a wet-lease in Chile. We had to comply with EU Ops 1, AND DGAC rules. Usually EU Ops 1 was more restrictive, but not always. When it came to night flying, the DGAC rules were much more limiting.

Another example that applies directly to me right now, albeit with a different twist - Currently I am working for Embraer, a Brazilian aircraft manufacturer, in the United States, with my FAA license. Often our demo aircraft are PT registered. While operating said aircraft strictly within US airspace, the FAR's allow me to do so if I have an appropriate FAA license and type-rating. However, ANAC's rules do not allow this for commercial operations. More specifically, one must be a Brazilian citizen to fly for hire on an aircraft of Brazilian registry. SOoooo, whenever I fly a PT registered aircraft, my name doesn't even go into the ship's log. Since I am currently flying the Phenoms, which are single-pilot certified, I am technically (per ANAC) not even part of the crew, though per our company norms I am. Obviously this "work around" would not even be possible if I were currently flying an aircraft that requires two rated pilots...

[123breath]

I'm waiting for a reply from the UK CAA on this question, but in the meantime does anyone know if, having completed the minimum 30 hrs necessary to gain the LAPL in the UK, can the new LAPL holder then go abroad outside of Europe, to the USA, for example, and act as PIC of a light aircraft albeit with an FAA approved license-holder like an instructor in the other seat for safety/legal reasons, in order to complete the extra 10 hrs required for the new EASA LAPL-holder to then be able to carry (non-fare paying naturally) passengers within Europe using the privileges of that LAPL?

Put simply, can you act as PIC of an aircraft in an aircraft for which you are qualified to fly but not in the State in which you intend to fly it, as long as you are accompanied by an appropriate license-holder in the other seat?

The idea is to do the initial LAPL in the UK, then have fun traveling and doing some cheap flying in the States to complete the experience requirements required for the LAPL.

I've only just discovered the LAPL by the way, and it looks like a great new innovation from EASA. One of the few.

[BEagle]

The specific requirements for LAPL holders to upgrade to a PPL are:

FCL.210.A PPL(A) — Experience requirements and crediting

(b) Specific requirements for applicants holding an LAPL(A). Applicants for a PPL(A) holding an LAPL(A) shall have completed at least 15 hours of flight time on aeroplanes after the issue of the LAPL(A), of which at least 10 shall be flight instruction completed in a training course at an ATO. This training course shall include at least 4 hours of supervised solo flight time, including at least 2 hours of solo cross-country flight time with at least 1 cross-country flight of at least 270 km (150 NM), during which full stop landings at 2 aerodromes different from the aerodrome of departure shall be made.


The LAPL(A) has no validity outside EASA states - so you couldn't complete the solo flying in the USA. Which would have to be under the supervision of an FI anyway - and you won't find many ATOs approved for Part-FCL training in the USA before long, due to the prohibitive cost of EASA approval.

The FAA has already rejected 61.75 applications from LAPL(A) holders, due to the licence being sub-ICAO.

Whether the CAA would accept the 15-10=5 other hours of 'flight time on aeroplanes' if it was flown PU/T with a non-EASA FI in the USA, I do not know. But flying over to the USA to fly 5 dual hours seems an expensive way of doing things to me.

[Mach Jump]

the CAA has asked the FAA to clarify the situation and the FAA has agreed to do so.

Only the state of registry can decide who is allowed to fly their aircraft. If the FAA state that the holder of any Pilot Licence Issued by the State in whose airspace they intend to fly, and valid on the type of aircraft is sufficient, then it IS sufficient.. If the CAA don't like it, then they must take it up with the FAA.

BEagle. I hope you will let us know what the FAA response is to the CAA enquiry.

[deefer dog]

BEagle, it's been three years so I wondered if you or the CAA ever got a definitive answer from the feds?

[Whopity]

From the LAA Website FAQ (http://www.nationalprivatepilotslicence.co.uk/faq.php):
Q Can I fly my 'N' registered aircraft on my NPPL?
A Yes. The FAA have confirmed 14 CFR 61.3 permits the holder of a UK-issued sub-ICAO licence, such as the NPPL or LAPL, to operate a US (N) registered aircraft within the UK.

[airpolice]

From CAP804 The UK National Private Pilots Licence (NPPL) is a licence issued by the CAA that is valid in UK airspace for the piloting of UK registered aircraft only. (The NPPL may only be used in another country with the permission of the relevant authorities of that country.)

I think that a reasonable person could interpret that as, is valid in UK airspace for the piloting of UK registered aircraft only.

Also as

is valid in UK airspace for the piloting of, UK registered aircraft only.

Further down in CAP804 the NPPL is defined as A non-ICAO licence
which permits the holder to fly for leisure within the UK only, within the terms of the SSEA, SLMG, or Microlight rating as applicable

So, if I am flying an N-reg, my licence is not valid. The FAA (allegedly) say that they permit me to fly their aircraft, if I have a licence (issued by another country) that would allow me to fly that plane. However my CAA issued licence is clearly not valid for N-Reg, so I don't in fact have such a licence.

The FAA might well allow me to fly it, (as in, they don't object) the CAA do not say that the licence is valid for non UK registered aircraft. Do the FAA have authority to permit me (NPPL only) to fly a 172 in the UK?

The CAA document seems clear enough, " the piloting of UK registered aircraft only " so I don't see how you can use it fly an N-Reg C172 here.

So, if we do fly it, are we doing so under the FAA rules rather than the CAA rules?

CAP804 is not worded as "valid only in UK airspace" but "valid in UK airspace.. for UK reg... only" which is a different circumstance.

Like so many other parts of legislation relating the NPPL and LAPL, this seems to have been drawn up by blind nuns. How hard can it be to write the rules to reflect the intent? The exact wording is important, as is getting it right.

My interpretation is that the CAA do not explicitly allow it. They don't prohibit it either, they just don't include the flying of N-Reg aircraft as a privilege of holding an NPPL.

[ifitaintboeing]

My interpretation is that the CAA do not explicitly allow it. They don't prohibit it either, they just don't include the flying of N-Reg aircraft as a privilege of holding an NPPL.

You will see in ANO Article 148 and 149 that the CAA do explicitly allow it.

The FAA (allegedly) say that they permit me to fly their aircraft, if I have a licence (issued by another country) that would allow me to fly that plane.

Here is the response from the FAA Chief Counsel to the CAA request for clarification:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2015/whittaker-civil%20aviation%20authority%20-%20(2015)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf

This response confirms that the privileges for holders of a NPPL, or LAPL, or holders of ratings such as the IR(R)/IMC may be exercised in N-registered aircraft.

Use of a UK-issued EASA licence in other member states is clarified here:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2014/graziano%20-%20(2014)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf

So, if we do fly it, are we doing so under the FAA rules rather than the CAA rules?

Both sets of rules!

ifitaint...

[Whopity]

they just don't include the flying of N-Reg aircraft as a privilege of holding an NPPL. The CAA has no power to allow you to fly a foreign aircraft; that is up to the State of Registration and in this case the FAA does allow it.

[trevs99uk]

Do not use CAP804 its out of date.. as per the CAA website CAP804 was Cancelled on 24 August 2016. And replace by the Air Navigation Order 2016.