CL300 "If the aircraft was permanently in Europe EASA Land, Part NCC applies, full stop."..... Again, I am no expert, but I believe that the aircraft location has little impact. It doesn't say that in the regulations does it?? My understanding is that it's to do with where the aircraft is OPERATED from. My example above details this....I can name two Falcons (a 900LX and 1x2000) that are permanently based in the UK, plus multiple CJ's. One has an owner/pilot and employs another guy to fly alongside him and is operated on the N reg, officially, from NJ.....the other is a pi** taker so far as these reg's are concerned and employs full time crew (two of which have EASA licences...but the self proclaimed CP has just FAA licence). These aircraft have permanent hangarage/parking in the UK and the 900 certainly has all Mx carried out in the UK, has all crew living in the UK, has an owner that lives in the UK as a UK resident (though of course, like anyone with serious money, is able to hide the ownership of the aircraft through multiple companies, offshore) and is OPERATED from the UK, but by a company that has a "PO Box" or similar and a phone number, thats in Guernsey. This makes an utter farce of the reg's and Part NCC...! I can add a phone number, right now, to my mobile, thats a Mexican number if I want to, or Australian, or Brazilian.or anywhere in the World.....but I would be answering it in Berkshire!!!
"Then : If the owner flies as Single Pilot --> N Licence is enough ( "safety pilot" is not paid anyway)." Again, I am not convinced this is the case for a Jet or type that is listed as requiring a TR....?? I know one CJ4 owner who is a UK resident, has an FAA ticket, that flies with another FAA ticket holder, in an aircraft based in ***K and is owned, by a company, owned by the owner, that is in the IOM! So again, either they are doing it illegally, or they are legal and are covered and outside of Part NCC.
"IF the owner flies with a "Captain" or a "Crew" whom is(are) paid for the job this pilot(s) has to have both licences.(EASA + FAA)." Really?? See above....! There are owners who don't know the front of an aircraft from the back, that just sit in and be flown, that are employing people to manage and fly their aircraft, in the UK, that do not have EASA licences.... simples.
We know it's bureaucracy at its finest. We know it hasn't done anything for safety. We know that it hasn't helped many EASA pilots get jobs (as they also need FAA tickets if a plane is N reg) and it hasn't even managed to stopped the little worms (in some cases, not all), who operate aircraft off the back of fag packets, from the sheds in their gardens (sorry..."Garden Office"). What it has done, is completely
people like me up, who have made a living from flying aircraft on N reg for years and years and, BEFORE I get the obligatory "...go and get your EASA exams done mate(y)...", I am in that process...however, with a very ill wife, 2 kids and a small business to run, that I need just to (nearly) stop myself from having my house repossessed and to keep food on the table, it is VERY difficult. Not to mention, that now my Multi Crew Type has expired, EASA want me to do 15 hours of flight training in a twin, to show I can fly a plane (4 type ratings and 4000 hours doesn't prove that anymore).
I'm just frustrated.....and gutted....and EASA do not show any signs of being sensible about it. If they were, then they would issue validations, like the IOM do, so that previously experienced, TR holders, could continue to work and those starting afresh, from scratch, on the back of Bank of Mum and Dad, would have to start from scratch. It's not rocket science and IS sensible and logical.