Using the Uk IMC rating in N reg aircraft

[vsukpadman]

Hi all..

I have a UK PPL and IMC rating , and am going to eventually take the FAAIR..
I am buying an 'N ' reg aircraft , so the FAAIR will be vaild in the UK ..
Question...

Until I actually GET the FAAIR , am I legally allowed to exercise the priviledges of my IMC rating , if I am doing it in an N reg aircraft?


any replies much appreciated

Bill Padley
London

[bookworm]

It depends how you square up:

61.3(a) (a) Pilot certificate. A person may not act as pilot in command ... of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry, unless that person—

(1) Has a valid pilot certificate or special purpose pilot authorization issued under this part ... However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a current pilot license issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated may be used; and

with

(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:

(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;

(assuming that the FAA has any business regulating what a UK citizen does within the UK, but that's another debate ;))

What were we saying about the FAA's drafting skills in another thread? :)

[vsukpadman]

Hmm
"
1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown; "

Surely an IMC rating is one such instrument rating then , or am I missing something :-)

Given that the holder has
a) A Uk licence and
b) A Uk issued IR of sorts ( IMC)

then the conditions are met?

cheers for any help !

Bill Padley
London

[bookworm]

So you think an IMC-rating is an instrument rating for the purpose of the FARs? Why not go one step further and just interpret it as an instrument rating for the purposes of the ANO? ;)

Seriously, an instrument rating is an ICAO-standard rating, which has an equivalent for every "foreign country". An IMC rating is not recognised by ICAO as an instrument rating. If it were, you'd be permitted to use it anywhere.

[vsukpadman]

Fair enough ....

worth a try <VBG>

So basically with my N reg aircraft , I need to go for the Full FAA IR (which I was going to do anyway) before flying in IMC in the UK ...

cheers for that ....helps a lot!

now back to Martha King ...LOLOL

Bill Padley
London

[S-Works]

Oh, god, not Mad Martha and her drippy husband. I lost the will to live when watching those!!!

[vsukpadman]

Bose..

I'm getting very close to that point...!

LOL

BP

[Lurcher Man]

Don't forget that all your IMC training & subsequent Instument time counts towards the Aeronautical Experience requirments for FAA IR (40 hrs Instrument time of which 15 is with an Instrument Instructor)

[vsukpadman]

Lurcher..

yup thats a good thing!...I actually ended up with 20 hrs simulated instrument in Florida doing my IMC, so that will come in very useful..though I will be fully utilising an instructor for extra hours, just to get to the higher standards of the FAA IR, and to build instrument hours/experience on type (Cirrus SR22) ..

cheers

Bill P

[IO540]

This is a recent reply from CAA to this question:

"You must ask the FAA. It is for the State of Registry to decide if
[and if so to what extent] aircraft registered in that State can be flown by pilots licensed elsewhere."

Personally, I think the IMCR is worthless in an N-reg.

Go for the FAA IR.

[vsukpadman]

IO540

I agree wholeheartedly...I will be doing the FAAIR asap...
Depends how much more I can take of Martha Kings incessant chuckling and ever changing hairstyles .... LOLOL


Bill P

[2Donkeys]

Worthy of note is the observation that Flight under IFR in an N-reg aircraft requires an instrument rating.

Flight at night in the UK is (substantially) under IFR. Therefore, no night flight in an N without a valid IR.

Unpalatable, but without question the FAA's viewpoint - and one supported by the CAA.

2D

[Flyin'Dutch']

Therefore, no night flight in an N with a valid IR
I think that was meant to read:

'No night flight in an N in UK airspace without a valid IR'

FD

[2Donkeys]

it was - corrected now! ;)

[vsukpadman]

2donkeys

thanks for that..didnt know that one!
Seems I will rely on Martha King more urgently than I thought :-)

Bill P

[Final 3 Greens]

2 Donks

Is that true in all cases?

I hold a CAA PPL/NR and a FAA conversion, which I understand allows me to use only the privileges of the issuing state of the base licence.

I've always understood that to mean that I can fly IFR in VMC at night, but not VFR on top or VFR at night.

Its an academic question, since I have no intention to fly an N rge in the UK, but I would be interested in your view.

[2Donkeys]

The views that have already been expressed on this forum reflect my understanding of the position (in particular IO540's comments).

The CAA are quite clear on this subject, and as IO540 indicates, they will confirm that the governing legislation for the use of an N-reg aircraft are the FARs- even in UK airspace.

In the case of somebody holding an FAA licence based on their UK licence, the right to fly at night is conferred if the underlying licence contains a night qualification.

For flying in the US, (or indeed in France) in an N-reg all would therefore be fine. Both of these countries recognise Night VFR. In the UK though, our rather bizarre view of night flight as being IFR (ignoring SVFR in CTRs for a moment) means that you fall foul of the FAR that prohibits flight under IFR without an IR.

Note that the rules quite specifically prohibit flight under IFR (the rules) as opposed to flight in IMC.

My interpretation would therefore be that anomalous though it is, flight in an N reg is illegal in the UK at night (excluding once again the SVFR case) unless you hold a valid IR.

2D

[Charlie Zulu]

Hi 2d,

Flight in an N reg is illegal in the UK? I believe you may have meant flight *at night* is illegal... blah blah blah...

;)

Sorry to be pedantic! LOL ;) ;) :D

(We all knew what you meant without me having to point it out though).

Best wishes,

Charlie Zulu.

[Final 3 Greens]

2D

Thanks.

CZ

I'm losing the will to live after such pedantry ;)

[bookworm]

The CAA are quite clear on this subject, and as IO540 indicates, they will confirm that the governing legislation for the use of an N-reg aircraft are the FARs- even in UK airspace.

I'd be interested in the exact question that IO540 asked to receive that reply.

[IO540]

"Does the holder of a UK-issued JAR PPL and the CAA IMC Rating retain ALL his privileges (i.e. those he would have flying a
G-registered aircraft) when flying an N-registered aircraft, in UK
airspace? If not, which privileges remain? If there is any reduction
in privileges, what are they and what section of the ANO supports the reduction?"

[2Donkeys]

The privileges a pilot may exercise by virtue of his licence are mitigated by various factors. One, for example, is the class and location of the airspace he is flying in. Another, is the type of aircraft he is operating. For example, if he is operating a PFA type, he may not operate in IMC or at night, not because of some reduction of his licence privileges, but because of the restrictions associated with a PFA type.

The FARs list the rules associated with operating an N-registered aircraft. That you can fly an N-reg type at all is because the FARs expressly permit flight in an N-reg aircraft by the holder of a licence issued by the territory in which he is flying. This right is granted, not by the ANO specifically, but by the country in which the aircraft is registered.

2D

A LINE OF COUNTERARGUMENT

There is a line of argument that goes along the lines "What have the FARs and the FAA got to do with anything?" If I hold a valid CAA/JAR licence, and the aircraft is a class/type that I my licence is valid for, and we are sitting here in England, what have the Americans got to do with it?"

In my opinion, the answer to that is:

An N registered aircraft may only fly at all because the state of registry has given it a certificate of registration and airworthiness. These only remain valid if the aircraft is maintained to the schedule set down in the FARs and operated by those whom the FARs approve in a manner set down by the FARs.

You can no more pick and choose which of the licencing FARs you go along with, than you can elect to maintain it in accordance with UK maintenance schedules. The FARs govern the operation of an N-reg aircraft, because to fly contrary to the FARs is to void the registry and/or airworthiness of the aircraft. The CAA will not approve any activity that causes a foreign aircraft to operate in an unapproved condition inside UK airspace.

The same principle would apply to a G-reg aircraft. You could not take one to the US an holiday and start to forget about 50 hour checks, since you were no longer in the UK.

[valenii]

Bill

Come along to the LFOTM (http://www.cirrus147.com/last_friday_of_the_month.htm) this week and we can have a sensible group discussion abut this with our two CFII instructors.

My opinion at this point is that these discussions are twisting the regulations beyond belief! Each set of regs can only be expected to be consistent within its self, you cannot expect to get consistent regulations if you mix UK and US regs and treat it as a whole.

My view is that for the US let you fly in UK airspace and the UK let you fly in US aircraft. If you have both licences you should choose which set to apply.

This argument here seems daft to me, as we have a situation that with a US PPL you can fly at night, with a UK PPL and a night rating you can fly at night. Independently they make sense and you can fly at night.

The convoluted arguements expressed here hinge on the fact that a UK classification of night flying being "Instrument" is then applied back into the US regs ("If instrument you need an IR").

Get some common sense here! If both sets of regs let you do something (i.e. Visual Flying at Night) lets not invent convoluted hybrid rules to try and argue otherwise. Choose which set to apply, they were never designed to be consistent, together, just independently.

Ian

[S-Works]

but inventing rules and interpreting them to fit there arguments is the backbone of many Pprune posters...........
:p :p

[bookworm]

A LINE OF COUNTERARGUMENT

For some reason your generosity in setting out the counterargument reminded me of the line about the monks who have spent so much time together and have such a limited repertoire of jokes that all one of them needs to do is say the joke number to get the rolling in the aisles... :)

Perhaps we should have a numbering scheme to save typing?

You can no more pick and choose which of the licencing FARs you go along with, than you can elect to maintain it in accordance with UK maintenance schedules.

But the point is that UK law specifically delegates that to the country of registration:

Art 8(1) Subject to paragraph (2) an aircraft shall not fly unless there is in force in respect
thereof a certificate of airworthiness duly issued or rendered valid under the law of
the country in which the aircraft is registered or the State of the operator, and any
conditions subject to which the certificate was issued or rendered valid are complied
with.

For a UK citizen, the important aspect is that if you don't maintain the aircraft according to FAA requirements, you're in breach of Article 8 of the ANO.

Art 14 similarly delegates the equipment requirements. Art 76 delegates the requirement for carriage of documents. And so on...

That sort of delegation is required for compliance with the Chicago Convention.

But Art 21(3) is slightly different. It says that you must have a licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the state of registry or under the ANO.

That's rather different. It's making explict provision for a UK licence which is not granted or rendered valid by the state of registry to be used. If you're suggesting the aircraft must be flown in accordance with the law of the state of registry in every respect, including their personnel licensing rules, what possible reason would there be for providing an alternative?

[Fly Stimulator]

...reminded me of the line about the monks who have spent so much time together and have such a limited repertoire of jokes that all one of them needs to do is say the joke number to get the rolling in the aisles... As an aside, this system has been adopted and adapted here on PPRuNe - see JB passim here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=79734) with further refinements here. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=79763)

[2Donkeys]

My own belief is that Art 21(3) does not underwrite any particular licence privilege. It simply establishes the acceptability of a UK-issued licence for commanding aircraft registered in other countries. This accords similarly with FAR 61.3(a) which permits an N reg to be commanded either by an FAA licence holder, or by the holder of a licence issued by the state in which the flight is to be conducted.

So far so good, both parties with an interest in N-reg aircraft agree that a UK pilot can fly the aircraft.

Where we differ is that I find nothing in either the ANO or the FARs to suggest that the acceptance of this principle in some way waivers all other elements of Part 61.

You would presumably acknowledge that the FAA see things in these terms. FAR 61.3(a) would be substantially redundant otherwise since the FAA believes that the omission of this clause would entirely remove the right of a CAA licence holder to fly an aircraft of N-registry in the UK.

On your Article 8 point. Compliance with the FARs is an explicit condition on which the aircraft's certificate of Registration and Airworthiness remain valid.

2D

[slim_slag]

2donkeys.

The CAA are quite clear on this subject, and as IO540 indicates, they will confirm that the governing legislation for the use of an N-reg aircraft are the FARs- even in UK airspace.

So, for example, if I am flying a single engined N-Reg on my FAA airmans certificate over a UK city, I don't have to comply with UK-CAA glide clear regulations?

[2Donkeys]

No.

FAR 91.703(2) requires the pilot of an N reg to comply with the Rules of the Air in force when operating in a Foreign Territory.

FAR 91.703(3) requires the crew to comply with the remainder of (in this case) Part 91 to the extent that it is not incompatible with ICAO or local rules

[bookworm]

My own belief is that Art 21(3) does not underwrite any particular licence privilege. It simply establishes the acceptability of a UK-issued licence for commanding aircraft registered in other countries.

I think that's a fair interpretation, but not the only reasonable one.

Where we differ is that I find nothing in either the ANO or the FARs to suggest that the acceptance of this principle in some way waivers all other elements of Part 61.

That's really a wider issue of the right of a state to make extraterritorial law and attempt to apply it within the sovereign territory of another state. I suppose one way of testing that is to ask if the FAA has ever sought to prosecute someone, particularly a non-US national, for an act committed in relation to an N-reg aircraft abroad that was not related to the powers delegated to it by the law of the country within which the act was committed.

The issue of legality and enforcement does start to blur a little here. It's obviously worth making a distinction between what is legal and what you can get away with in the context of national law. But if US law happens to be drafted in a way that has extraterritorial effect, but the US is not interested in applying that law extraterritorially, is it really meaningful to say that a UK citizen in the UK is acting illegally if that law is broken.

You would presumably acknowledge that the FAA see things in these terms. FAR 61.3(a) would be substantially redundant otherwise since the FAA believes that the omission of this clause would entirely remove the right of a CAA licence holder to fly an aircraft of N-registry in the UK. If we accept your interpretation of Article 21(3), 61.3(a) is entirely superfluous.

No I don't think it's superfluous, because it might not be intended to catch the UK case. It might be for those states without a provision like 21(3) where the national law simply says "in accordance with the law of the state of legislation". In that case, in the absence of 61.3(a), a local licence could not be used.

Here's a related issue. 21(3) requires a licence granted or rendered valid by the US for aerial work or public transport. Would 61.3(a) permit a UK CPL/ATPL to be used within the UK?

On your Article 8 point. Compliance with the FARs is an explicit condition on which the aircraft's certificate of Registration and Airworthiness remain valid.

I'm not really familiar with FAA C of A's. Is that condition part of a FAR or is it rubric on the face of a certificate?

[2Donkeys]

The Rubric requires compliance with applicable parts.

More generally though, Part 61 (esp 61.3) and 91 (700 series) are clearly and unambiguously drafted from the perspective that the USA asserts its right to control the basis on which N-registered aircraft are operated whilst outside the USA - irrespective of the crew licence on which the flight is conducted.

We might disagree as to whether this is practical, enforceable, desirable or otherwise, but it is exceptionally clear.

MY OPINION, is that I believe that the UK CAA would defer to the FAA on such points, should a case arise, in a way that other third party CAA's might not. Such statements as they have made in public would tend to support this view.

Like so many Pprune discussions on such points of fine detail, these things are only ever really tested in court, or by insurers. A court case is highly unlikely unless a very specific complaint is brought. An insurance glitch is much more likely. You take a view and roll the dice.

I go with the cautious route, others differ. If we all agreed, Pprune would become as dull as the average air law argument. :D

[IO540]

I too think that insurance is the real issue.

The worst the CAA can do is a prosecution, and this is exceedingly unlikely unless somebody does something overt, repeated, but most importantly provocative. For example, one idiot of a CFI explained to me how he could run a flying school using N-reg planes, and how he could do the same using Private CofA planes. I didn't believe his "workarounds" would work and the CAA would certainly jump on something like that once the word got out (which, in the typical GA training establishment atmosphere, would happen immediately). Also anything involving a loss of AOC revenue gets jumped on severely...

Getting back to insurance, surely making a full disclosure of the intended use to one's insurer is good enough. They have the best paid lawyers in the business.

I have put various matters to my insurer (typically stuff concerning recovery of expenses on a business flight) and usually they just say "OK".

[bookworm]

Like so many Pprune discussions on such points of fine detail, these things are only ever really tested in court, or by insurers.

Sounds like a good place to park this one... ;)