Hello!
Many of the answers we don't know yet, therefore much is based on assumption (e.g. from watching others perform similar flights) and "half-information" from the internet and newspapers.
Originally Posted by
Eutychus
Aggh, I thought I was just getting a handle on all this... which part of this is "simpy illegal"?
1. Improper certification for an N-reg aicraft?
2. No AOC?
3. No CPL?
4. IFR as opposed to VFR?
5. Payment for services rendered?
6. EU airspace?
...?
1. We don't know anything for sure about that.
2. Obviously not. Any type of commercial flying would therefore have been illegal. Even with an (American) AOC, a commercial flight between European countries carrying European passengers would have required a heap of paperwork ("cabotage").
And even with an AOC, this kind of aircraft (single engine piston) would only have been allowed to do flights under visual flight rules (VFR). And even a single engine turbine (SET) aircraft operating legally under an AOC and carrying passengers would have had to observe minimum distances from alternate enroute airfields (to enable an engine-out gliding landing) which at their intended cruising altitude of 5000ft over the sea would not have been met. (This is a Europen regulation for SET commercial operation.)
3. If he was paid in any way for his flying he would have needed a CPL. But we do not know if he received imuneration. If he flew out of courtesy for his buddy who himself borrowed the plane to his soccer player buddy for gas money only then he would not have needed a CPL.
4. On a private flight it would not have mattered as long as the pilot and the aircraft hold the necessary qualification. Commercially it would not have been possible to do this under IFR (see point 2).
5. We don't know yet. But any penny changing hands that exceeds cost sharing would have made the whole thing illegal.
6. EU airspace has nothing do do with it I think.
Regards
Max