Legal to fly N-reg on CAA licence? [Archive]

DFC

3rd Nov 2007, 15:40

The important term is issued.

JAA licenses are issued by a single country. They are automatically rendered valid in all of the other JAA countries with full privileges.

This means that when in say Ireland with your UK issued JAA-PPL, your licence is automatically rendered valid for flying EI registered aircraft with no limitations other than what is in your licence etc.

However, if the aircraft is N registered then the FAA (for the moment) have blocked your ability to fly it in Ireland becuase they require the licence you are using to be issued by the country in which you are flying the aircraft.

The way round that is to get your licence validated by the FAA (or in FAA speak get an FAA licence issued on the basis of your licence).

Basically it is the FAA meeting it's international obligations.

How would you like to have a person from some backwater African country with rather lax licensing requirements being able to fly N registered aircraft through your (up until then) safe airspace. If they were flying their own registration you would see them coming (flight plan requirements) and stop them but in an N reg, you don't get a chance to stop them because you would assume that the FAA are happy with the standard of pilot.

Of course you and the FAA don't really care that the above country lets half trained pilots fly round causing mayhem in their own airspace because they can if they want to.

So like the FAA say the licence has to be an FAA one or issued by the country in which the aircraft is flying.

Regards,

DFC

Chilli Monster

3rd Nov 2007, 16:24

DFC - I happen to agree with you. However, you might like to read the first post HERE (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=37963) which nicely confuses the debate.

Ho hum :)

ock1f

4th Nov 2007, 13:21

My tuppence worth: i am in the exact situation i have a uk issued jaa ppl but live in ireland. I enquired about flying an N -Reg here in ireland and the legalities of it. My enquiries were made to the IAA head of licencing and this is the reply i got

You are entitled to fly a U.S. N-Registration aircraft in Ireland with a UK-issued JAR-FCL PPL(A) provided that the aircraft is being operated as a private aircraft, reference Article 5 para (2) of the IAA (Personnel licensing) Order, 2000 (SI No. 333 of 2000), extract below:-

"Article 5, para (2) A person shall not, within the territorial limits of the State, act as a flight crew member of an aircraft registered in any other state unless -

(a) in the case of a commercial transport or aerial work aircraft, that person is the holder of an appropriate licence issued or validated by the competent licensing authority of the state in which the aircraft is registered, or, for a JAA member state, a JAA licence;

(b)in the case of a private aircraft, that person is the holder of an appropriate licence, issued or validated by the competent licensing authority of the state in which the aircraft is registered or by the Authority, or a JAA licence."

You may not, however, fly an U.S. N-Registration aircraft in Irish airspace under IFR Rules unless you hold a U.S.FAA pilot licence with a current FAA Instrument Rating , reference Article 19 para (2) of the IAA (Personnel licensing) Order, 2000 (SI No. 333 of 2000), extract below:-

"Article 19, para (2) A person shall not, within the State, act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft or as co-pilot in a multi-pilot aeroplane or helicopter registered in any other state under instrument flight rules unless that person holds a valid licence, with a current instrument rating endorsed thereon or included therein, issued or validated by the competent licensing authority of the state in which the aircraft is registered and appropriate to the category, class or type of aircraft flown."

You may wish to transfer your UK JAR-FCL PPL(A) to Ireland on grounds of permanent residence in Ireland, although there is no compulsion on you to do so. If you should wish to do so, please contact my Licensing Officer,who will guide you through the process.

So i can only take the official line that in ireland you can fly N reg with a jaa ppl with no restrictions(apart from the obvious and those listed above)

Hope this helps
OCK1F

Chilli Monster

4th Nov 2007, 13:48

OCK1F - I hate to say this but it isn't totally under the remit of the IAA.

Your 'N' reg aircraft is subject to the oversight and certification by the FAA, not the IAA, and therefore is to be operated in accordance with any relevant FAR's. (in this case 14 CFR 61.3) Therefore no matter what the IAA say you still need the FAA to back the IAA's statement up - failure to do so could actually lead you to be uninsured in the event of an incident.

The link I posted above could go someway to achieving this - but like everything in life, get it in writing.

flybmi

4th Nov 2007, 14:59

Chilli Monster, surely this post - lifted from the link you posted - puts us all back to square one?

2 Donkeys said:

This is far simpler than it first appears.

There is only one office in the FAA authorised to provide the FAA's opinion on matters related to the FARs and their interpretation. The "General Aviation and Commercial Division Flight Standards Service" is not it.

When somebody shows up with a letter from the correct place (Office of the Chief Counsel - FAA), we should all sit up and listen.

So it really doesn't matter what this chap says, whether in writing or otherwise, it doesn't bind the FAA and it doesn't get you off the hook if exposed to any degree of scrutiny.

The aforementioned Office of the Chief Counsel was represented at a meeting I attended of Flying Attorneys last March in New York. Their rep was asked to comment on this apparent problem, and the answer he gave was obvious and straightforward. Part 61.3 of CFR Title 14 talks about:

Quote:
a current pilot license issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated

EASA is neither a country, nor an issuer. JAA doesn't issue either. JAA licences differ widely across the JAA World and are issued by specific individual member countries according to certain overarching rules. That really is all there is to it. The issuer of a JAA licence is not some mythical JAA-land, it is no more and no less than the Issuing Country. Not really very surprising when you think about it.

Peter, if you can point to any case law where the FAA was bound on matters of legislation by any employee outside the OoCC, I'd love to see it. The reason that we can be quite safe on that bet is also straightforward. The FAA is not the "owner" of Title 14. The FAA is merely charged with administrating and enforcing it. This gives the OoCC something of an advantage when opining on the interpretation of a specific piece of legislation. What it does not do is make him infallible. A good defence attorney is quite capable of pushing against the FAA's interpretation of a particular piece of legislation, and sometimes, they win. One thing is for certain though, if the FAA act against you, it will be on the basis of the OoCC's interpretation of the rules, and not that of some random bloke in a field office with a gift for rather ill-considered letters. You can always cite his viewpoint in your defence, but don't expect any applause in court.

bookworm

4th Nov 2007, 15:23

I hate to say this but it isn't totally under the remit of the IAA.

Your 'N' reg aircraft is subject to the oversight and certification by the FAA, not the IAA...

The jurisdiction issue is at the heart of this debate. If the FAA has jurisdiction over the flight crew composition of an aircraft with an N on the side in Irish airspace, why would the Irish legislature (and the UK has similar wording) bother with that paragraph (b)? Why not simply say "in the case of any aircraft, that person is the holder of an appropriate licence issued or validated by the competent licensing authority of the state in which the aircraft is registered"?

ock1f

4th Nov 2007, 15:36

Chilli monster- good point and it was something that was occupying my meagre brain cell capacity. Its an interesting question- the IAA say that i can fly an NREG in ireland under the privileges of my uk jaa issued ppl and its all legal and dandy but the US regs state that an nreg can only be flown in the country that issues the foreign licence which would exclude me flying nreg here in ireland unless the JAA licence is considered europe wide for validity reasons....which it is in europe but apparently not in the US(or is it?)

Without wanting to sound morbid or some such, there must have been a hull loss or fatal accident involving an Nreg somewhere in europe involving a Jaa ppl licence and when the Nreg was being operated outside the country of licence issue since the Jaa ppl licences were introduced??-if so i wonder what the outcome was with regards to the view
1) the hull insurer took,
2)the life insurer,
3)the AAIU/AAIB branch of both the country in which the accident happened and the country of licence of issue (as both would be involved),
4) the FAA (as country of a/c reg)

This is a common enough topic and the answers(unfortunately vary widely) are so diverse that i wish the head of the FAA (marion blakely)or her replacement would just write an open letter clarifying the whole FAA/Jaa thing

Obviously with financial and family commitments i am reluctant to fly here in an Nreg despite the clarification i got from the IAA that its ok because... if god forbids the worst happened i dont want my dependents to find themselves arguing the toss between IAA/JAA rules and FAA rules as to whether i was operating outside my licence and the knock on effect it has with life insurance and so forth.

Just one final thought..usually the rules of the air and resultant legal obligations are those of the country that is being flown over i.e. an NREG and or an FAA pilot in ireland would be subject to the rules of the air here e.g an Faa pilot here cannot operate Vfr at night(outside a control zone) despite having the privilege on his/her FAA licence.

Would that give precedence over the country of registration????

I await learned and informative responses from ye with much experience and wisdom....seriously:)

OCK1F

ock1f

4th Nov 2007, 16:08

I posted about this not so long ago and got 1 reply-for what it's worth
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=296378

http://www.pprune.org/panAccess207/adlog.php?vblocal=63&bannerid=804&clientid=714&zoneid=211&source=&block=0&capping=0&cb=76ef811531c0ff00356f46fcada914b9

Another Jaa/Faa licence question!

Hi All,

its a quick question this time i hope!

Am i correct in thinking that in order to fly an N-REG aircraft legally with a foreign licence(non faa) that this can only be done in the country of issue of the foreign licence?

i.e. a uk issued JAA ppl licence used to fly an N-REG means that the N-REG can only be flown within the airspace of the uk?

if that is the case ???? i take it that each country that issues JAA ppls means that N-REG can only be flown within the country that issues the jaa ppl?

Does it then follow than cross border touring is not legal?

Thanks in Advance

Ock1f

http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/statusicon/post_old.gif 15th October 2007, 20:53 #2 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3639812&postcount=2) julian_storey (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=81433)

Instead of being 'just another number' I could order a Personal Title (http://www.pprune.org/ptorder/ptorder.htm) and help support PPRuNe

Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: London

Posts: 72

You are absolutely correct!

You can fly an 'N' reg aircraft within the UK on your UK licence.

You can easily get an FAA PPL issued on the basis of your UK PPL just by filling in some paperwork. Details of how to do this are covered extensively elsewhere on this forum.

Once you have your FAA PPL, you can fly wherever you want to in your 'N' registered aeroplane :D

IO540

4th Nov 2007, 18:23

I do not agree that the only communication from the FAA that carries legal weight must come from the office of the FAA Chief Counsel.

If that was the simple position as is claimed, a vast amount of stuff that has emanated from the FAA over many years would be utterly worthless. Equally a huge amount of stuff concerning certification of various installations would be void and that is just a tip of the iceberg.

Obviously, if you are talking to the FAA Chief Counsel and you ask him whether his opinion is worth as much, more, or less, than the opinion of one of his countless subordinates, what answer do you think he will give?? Of course he will claim he is the only authority!

Very often, pilots are advised to contact an FAA FSDO (district office) for answers like this, and those sure as hell don't come from the Chief Counsel.

I am not a lawyer, but U.S. law is likely to be at least somewhat similar to UK law in the area of an apparently authorised official of a government body stating something, and that definitely carries weight here in the UK, making a prosecution damn difficult and usually impossible. This is not only a feature of contract law but is basic fair play, without which any statement emanating from an apparently authorised person in a public or corporate body would be worthless.

Any lawyer doing CAA prosecutions will tell you about a certain case where somebody in the CAA wrote a letter which the CAA never knew had been written, and which resulted in a failed CAA prosecution.

However, in this case, I would say that anything the Irish CAA says would be worthless if it contradicts FAR 61.3. This is because, under ICAO, the privileges (if any) which a foreign license gives in an N-reg is entirely up to the FAA and Ireland has no business in it.

The Irish could ban its own citizens exercising the privileges of a non-Irish license (I wish I had the ICAO reference for this) in Irish airspace, in any aircraft reg, but that's not the same thing at all.

So, I agree that FAR 61.3 does clearly mean that a JAA license is void for an N-reg except in the airspace of license issue.

However, I am also sure that a written statement from an FAA official that a JAA license meets 61.3 for all JAA airspace would be a good enough legal defence.

I happen to know, secondhand, of a corporate jet operation which has obtained legal opinion on this (flying N-reg around Europe under a JAA ATPL) and the answer was affirmative. This suprised me but there we are.

Finally, the FARs were written without considering issues like these, in a far away foreign airspace. What do people think the FAA would have intended in such a case? Surely, given that all JAA members are happy to validate each others' licenses, it is reasonable for the FAA to accept that.

This is one of a number of grey areas in aviation.

Another one is whether one can fly a G-reg or an N-reg on an FAA PPL in UK airspace at night, which is "IFR" but the FARs require an IR for all IFR flight :) Or, for the UK G-reg only, whether a website based membership meets the advertising rules for a "flying club" for PPL cost sharing :)

The overwhelming evidence is that both the FAA and the CAA like to keep grey areas grey, in all cases where this suits them, and they clarify them only in cases where it also suits them. This is what any intelligent regulator would do because it gives him the maximum options for prosecuting "bad egg" pilots who continually push the boundaries (and there are plenty of those) while avoiding the creation of a legislative framework so complicated it would be a mockery to enforce.

The FAA used to have an FAQ on their website, written by the famous and prolific FAA rule writer John Lynch, which clarified many things. For example, does the 250nm x/c flight for the CPL need to have all 3 landings on the same day? NO, according to John Lynch. This FAQ was pulled c. 2004 (anybody want a copy, EMAIL me) and without any doubt because they wanted maximum flexibility.

Chilli Monster

4th Nov 2007, 20:39

Chilli Monster, surely this post - lifted from the link you posted - puts us all back to square one?

I couldn't agree more. My take on the wording in 61.3 is exactly what it says. However, there are those who will argue that the FAA have no jurisdiction on crewing outside the US, and those who will go down the "JAA = All European states" validation issue.

The proof of the pudding lies if you ever want to argue the matter in court - anybody out there want to do it feel free, but it isn't going to be me. The words "Country" and "Issue" aren't open to interpretation in my book ;)

ock1f

4th Nov 2007, 21:45

My poor head:ugh::ugh:!!!!

From bookworm:The jurisdiction issue is at the heart of this debate. If the FAA has jurisdiction over the flight crew composition of an aircraft with an N on the side in Irish airspace, why would the Irish legislature (and the UK has similar wording) bother with that paragraph (b)? Why not simply say "in the case of any aircraft, that person is the holder of an appropriate licence issued or validated by the competent licensing authority of the state in which the aircraft is registered"?

So IO540 (just asking by the way ok!) why do the irish and uk caa word their relevant rules to suggest that it is legal to fly Nregs on jaa licences. Indeed Iaa make specific reference to it ? b)in the case of a private aircraft, that person is the holder of an appropriate licence, issued or validated by the competent licensing authority of the state in which the aircraft is registered or by the Authority, or a JAA licence."

Surely having this in writing is some protection?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From IO540:However, in this case, I would say that anything the Irish CAA says would be worthless if it contradicts FAR 61.3. This is because, under ICAO, the privileges (if any) which a foreign license gives in an N-reg is entirely up to the FAA and Ireland has no business in it.

Now as is obvious from the above what the IAA states in writing does contradict the FAR which places an emphasis (or at least i do anyway) on the words country of issue . So who is right? The yanks whose register the aircraft is on and the oversight obligations that brings (maintenance schedules,licencing,AD's etc) or IAA/JAA whose licence you fly under and whose rules of the air that you operate with?
Or to put it another way 'usually the rules of the air and resultant legal obligations are those of the country that is being flown over'
--------------------------------------------------------------------

We all know that a JAA licence once awarded is valid in all the JAA contracting states. I can swap my uk issued JAA ppl in the morning for an Irish issued JAA ppl as all training,medical and currency requirements are similiar and accepted JAA wide. So if the FAA accept a JAA licence as being valid in its country of issue in order to fly an NREG in that country and all licencing,training medical and currency are the same surely it follows that i can fly an NREG within any JAA state. I can fly G reg in holland an F reg in germany and even an EI reg in ireland with my UK issued JAA ppl licence and fly all of them over borders and fir boundaries within JAA contrating countries as my licence is accepted. And this is what i have been doing... quite legally.

From IO540:So, I agree that FAR 61.3 does clearly mean that a JAA license is void for an N-reg except in the airspace of license issue

For arguments sake( its pprune after all!) lets say i hop into an Nreg in the uk with my uk issued jaa ppl. I can fly around the uk and northern ireland quite happily and legally as i am flying in the country of issue but if i stray over the border into southern ireland i am now operating illegally? Despite the two countries having and issueing the exact same licence and having the same standards! Surely this is not 'fair play' and against natural justice(if the need ever arose) Even though JAA as a notional country of issue doesnt exist the licence is valid in all JAA contracting countries which are very real hence probably the confidence of the head of Licenceing in the IAA to give me in writing 'You are entitled to fly a U.S. N-Registration aircraft in Ireland with a UK-issued JAR-FCL PPL(A) provided that the aircraft is being operated as a private aircraft, reference Article 5 para (2) of the IAA (Personnel licensing) Order, 2000 (SI No. 333 of 2000), extract below b)in the case of a private aircraft, that person is the holder of an appropriate licence, issued or validated by the competent licensing authority of the state in which the aircraft is registered or by the Authority, or a JAA licence."

-14 CFR 61.3

Quote:
(a) Pilot certificate. A person may not act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember 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 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 current pilot license issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated may be used

So do you take the words as chili monster does and focus on "The words "Country" and "Issue" aren't open to interpretation in my book " a valid viewpoint... but as any JAA country can issue and interchange any JAA licence with any other JAA country and each JAA licence is acccepted by all other JAA countries as a valid and current licence surely it would be acceptable to the yanks! and would satify their rule that "current pilot licence issued by the country(and by extension all other JAA countries ) in which the aircraft is operated may be used"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This for me boils down to insurance because if god forbid the worst ever happens i dont want my dependents to find themselves arguing the toss between IAA/JAA rules and FAA rules as to whether i was operating outside my licence and the knock on effect it has with life insurance and so forth and who has jurisdiction-FAA/airplane or JAA/licence and the so far horrible mix of both:yuk:

And speaking of insurance (oh oh) there must be lots of pilots and ppruners who have gotten insurance on Nreg aircraft with a JAA only licence so lets hear from you..

I can only imagine that this has been sorted out to the satisfaction of the insurance companies. If a pilot rings up an insurance company and says '" i wanna insure my nice new NREG airplane,and yes i have a uk issued JAA ppl and yes i will be crossing border/fir boundaries while touring and yes i have a valid JAA class 2 medical how much will that cost?" i can only assume that if the insurance company agrees to cover the pilot and NREG aircraft that they are happy its all legally above board otherwise they could be left in a very sticky situation too.

I await your wise and coherent (compared to mine :O ) replies

OCK1F

Chilli Monster

4th Nov 2007, 22:26

Insurance. I have an 'N' reg, I have FAA licences. I have two other shareholders who don't (as yet) have FAA licences, either standalone or issued iaw 61.75. Until that time neither of them flies outside the UK unless I'm in the aircraft.

The insurance policy includes the wording "aircraft is to be operated legally". Operating without trying to twist the limitation in 61.3 makes sure that remains so.

ock1f

4th Nov 2007, 22:37

Fair point Chilli and no doubt it helps you sleep better at night knowing that you have covered all the legal angles and are quite cautious with regards to the insurance on your policy and your N reg aircraft.

If it was my plane i would err on the cautious side too! However the phrase that the "aircraft is to be operated legally" usually refers to the usual stuff like weight and balance and the way its flown etc . Now having a valid licence is definitely needed to operate legally but it again brings us back to the question "does a JAA ppl licence equal a valid licence when operating an NREG outside the country of issue and yet within another JAA country.??? Back to square one?

OCK1F

Chilli Monster

4th Nov 2007, 23:13

See post #15 - with apologies to Clint Eastwood "Is Europe an issuing state, or isn't it - In short, do you feel lucky?".

How prepared are you to argue the point if the sh1t hits the fan?

ock1f

4th Nov 2007, 23:24

Some interesting links and i see chilli you posted on the second link below and at the time you were of the view that info contained on the thread changed things for your group members but i take it that you decided to err on the cautious side since ?

http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/faa-nreg/imcr-nreg.html

You gotta try :\:\:\:\

And yes...usually when someone asks am i feeling lucky my response is "sure am" but if they call me punk my response is usually a little different:cool::}

also http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=37440

Quit informative but with all things on the internet a couple of grain of salt should be addded ..maybe.:{:ugh:

Does any one have contact details for the relevant Dept in the FAA so i can ask, and see what their view is on this???:eek:

OCK1f

IO540

5th Nov 2007, 06:18

ock1f - I think what you wrote is what I wrote, just expressing it differently.

Surely having this in writing is some protection?

I agree.

What really matters is insurance. You could try writing to your insurer for a ruling. I have done this sort of thing and they always responded with "you have to comply with the legislation" but they just might give a ruling, in which case (assuming full disclosure of all relevant facts) you are OK.

bookworm

5th Nov 2007, 07:50

Does any one have contact details for the relevant Dept in the FAA so i can ask, and see what their view is on this???

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/

bookworm

5th Nov 2007, 07:56

This is because, under ICAO, the privileges (if any) which a foreign license gives in an N-reg is entirely up to the FAA and Ireland has no business in it.

Reference please?

I can find two (potentially conflicting) articles of relevance in the Chicago Convention:

Article 1
Sovereignty

The contracting States recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory.

Article 17
Nationality of aircraft

Aircraft have the nationality of the State in which they are registered.

IO540

5th Nov 2007, 08:31

I agree bookworm as regards restrictions. A state can restrict aircraft flying in its airspace as it wishes.

But the above thread suggests something different. It suggests that Ireland is able to add privileges for an N-reg which are in conflict with what the FAA permits.

Maybe this is possible, but that would place the IAA and the FAA in direct conflict, wouldn't it?

(1) Let's say the FAA prohibited any pilot (of an N-reg) from wearing pink underpants.

(2) Let's say the IAA required the wearing of pink underpants in an N-reg.

Which one wins? IMHO that is a grey area, but it happens very rarely if ever. Normally, one is dealing with multiple sets of restrictions, which is easy: the strictest combination carries the day.

bookworm

5th Nov 2007, 08:54

I agree bookworm as regards restrictions. A state can restrict aircraft flying in its airspace as it wishes.

Well, no it can't because of the Chicago Convention. If the state is a signatory, it must permit foreign aircraft in accordance with the Convention. But the Convention was intended to facilitate international air navigation, not restrict states from permitting whatever they please within their sovereign territory.

My own interpretation of the intention of 61(3) is that the FAA is very happy for N-reg aircraft to be flown in foreign states provided the regulations of the foreign state with respect to licensing are adhered to. The FARs have no concept of rendering a foreign licence valid, and so the language comes out technically incompatible with a foreign state that renders another's licence valid rather than issuing its own.

If I were in ock1f's position I would not be afraid of FAA enforcement action, but I would be nervous about the insurance situation. Thus I would want either an opinion from the OCC or a clear statement from my insurance company.

bookworm

5th Nov 2007, 08:57

Let's say the IAA required the wearing of pink underpants in an N-reg.
Surely "emerald green"? ;)

Chilli Monster

5th Nov 2007, 09:09

Of course, rather than fretting over the problem you can always do the simple (and relatively cheap option) - Do the verification paperwork, shoot across to New York and get an FAA certificate based on your JAA licence (14 CFR 61.75)

Worldwide privileges - no problems, no worries.

bookworm

5th Nov 2007, 09:20

Wouldn't you have to do a BFR though, CM? Which is as much a PITA as your 'hour with an instructor' to retain your CAA SEP rating.

Chilli Monster

5th Nov 2007, 10:37

Again - no great hassle. There's plenty of FAA instructors about. Do it while you're over there doing the paperwork. I managed a twin BFR recently having arrived at JFK Monday evening and was leaving Wednesday evening.

Being in the "other" camp as far as my CAA licence is concerned I don't actually find it a PITA, being based somewhere with an examiner readily available 5 days a week and instructors 7 days a week. It's just another hoop to jump through - like annual competency checks at work and keeping my THREE medical certificates valid.

DFC

5th Nov 2007, 14:47

I would not place much trust in the following statement that apears in the debate to highlighted;

Ref. § 61.3(a)(1); Yes, it is my understanding that EASU recognizes the JAA pilot license for use in all the member states that are in the European Union. A JAA pilot license would be the appropriate pilot license for flying a U.S. registered aircraft within the member states that are in the European Union and would be in compliance with § 61.3(a)(1).

1. From the start they make it clear that it is their opinion based on their understanding which unfortunately is flawed.

2. EASU?

3. The EU and the JAA member states are not the same thing. There are JAA member States that are not in the EU and there are JAA Member States that are not Full Member States etc etc etc

I would not expect an employee of the FAA who is not involved in dealings with the JAA to understand what the EU / EASA / JAA etc are.

However, I bet an insurance company would easily say that you being a local must have known that there are flaws in the above statement that clearly shows that this individual lacks knowledge of the system in Europe.

----------

The IAA issue has sidetracked the question somewhat.

The question posed to the IAA was "Can I fly an N registered aircraft in Ireland with a UK issued PPL?". They said Yes as far as the IAA is concerned.

They did not say anything about the FAA. They simply answered the question as put. If the FAA says NO then they have the final answer as it is their aircraft but if the FAA say Yes then Ireland has no objection.

If you are flying an N reg aircraft then you are legally required to comply with the requirements of the state of registration i.e. you need to know your FARs. It is not simply a case of getting a nice JAA PPL and hopping into a N reg that is available locally.

So what has that gained - permission to fly in the UK and in Ireland. That is it. You can feel free to write to every other country and ask them as well................but isn't it the case that you can ask for permission to fly your home built unregistered just about flying and not having a pilot licence type of flying in say France and if they say yes then yes you can.

You could ask to use the IMC rating in Ireland if you want and they might let you (or they may not).

However, I think the debate was started with the idea of finding out where you can fly an N reg without having to ask every time before crossing a border.

Regards,

DFC

ock1f

5th Nov 2007, 14:49

Hi All,

From bookworm:If I were in ock1f's position I would not be afraid of FAA enforcement action, but I would be nervous about the insurance situation. Thus I would want either an opinion from the OCC or a clear statement from my insurance company.

Would it follow that if the FAA had no problem with the whole JAA licence thing then it wouldn't really matter about the insurance company as you would be in compliance or at least not breaking any rules either FAA or JAA?
By the way bookworm forgive me for asking... whats OCC refer to?

Any way i have spent the afternoon talking to various FAA depts and sections and people (thanks skype:D!) and this is a brief summary of my conversations.

First rang the Chief Counsel office and got put thru to a lawyers office who wasnt there anyway left a message and went poking around the rest of the FAA website.

My next call was to the Airmen (Oklahoma) Certification Branch. What they basically said was that they (FAA) dont really care what licence you use to fly an NREG as long as its a valid licence in that country. He stated that its the country being flown over and its regs and requiremnts that take precidence. The only time the FAA would insist on FAA licence is when actaully flying in the US of A. However he did caution to check with each JAA country on their exact requirements for flying an NREG in each country with a JAA licence. So on the face of that conversation and the reply i got from the IAA it would appear that i could quite happilly fly here-no further discussion required:) Happy days BUT THEN he said to conatct the New York Interanational Field Office as they are the ones who deal with things foreign and european.So i thanked him and rang New York expecting to hear the same thing......

I spoke to a very helpfull Inspector who dashed my hopes and said that country of issue is country of issue full stop:(. They did admit that this is a regular enquiry and that the FAA FAR regs dont take account of the fact that JAA countries have same standards throughout for licencing. Thrown into this was my converstion with the airmen branch and also the IAA correspondence i had with me. It was promised to be looked at..to see if they have anything coming up that would change this and to see if they could issue some guidance on this so i can only watch my email account with fingers crossed!!

For now
OCK1F

skybeacon

5th Nov 2007, 15:33

Quote: "You can easily get an FAA PPL issued on the basis of your UK PPL just by filling in some paperwork. Details of how to do this are covered extensively elsewhere on this forum. Once you have your FAA PPL, you can fly wherever you want to in your 'N' registered aeroplane"

It seems that the safest/easiest answer to N Reg operation in Europe is on the basis of an FAA licence.

I understand that an FAA licence issued on the back of a CAA/JAA licence is valid and current on the basis of the CAA license being current and valid- i.e. there is no requirement for a BFR or a FAA medical.

However, I hold both CAA/JAA & FAA licences- independantly (i.e. not issued on the back of one another)- so my FAA license is only current fowllowing a BFR and medical with an FAA authorised doctor.

I am tempted to ask for an FAA license to be issued on the back of my JAA/CAA one- does anyone know if this can be done while holidng a (proper) FAA license?

mm_flynn

5th Nov 2007, 16:14

A key question is who will care and in what circumstances. I can think of the following

1 - Your insurer in the event of an accident.

2 - The guy who ramp checks you.

3 - The State whose airspace you are flying in

4 - The owner of the aircraft you are flying

5 - The FAA

This is in order of PITA potential. I doubt the FAA cares, unless the State you are flying in complains - and then if you are not flying on a valid licence issued by the State (not multinational agency or Eurocracy) the FAA will throw the book at you.

If the State has said they are OK (i.e. the IAA) then they are not likely to pursue any issue.

Pretty high on the PITA list has got to be being fined at 17:59 Friday evening in some remote airfield in Europe by some random official. I have read stories of people flying IFR approaches in France on just an IMC (i.e. flying without a valid licence/rating) being hit with massive fines, but have no proof this has ever happened.

#1 has got to be the biggest worry, however, the cases I have seen where the insurer fails to pay have had significant extenuating circumstances. Does anyone have any example of a case where a technical issue (not related to the cause of the accident) was successfully used by the insurer to avoid paying out?

mm_flynn

5th Nov 2007, 16:18

Quote:[I] I understand that an FAA licence issued on the back of a CAA/JAA licence is valid and current on the basis of the CAA license being current and valid- i.e. there is no requirement for a BFR or a FAA medical.

I believe it is more the other way around. You MUST have a BFR for your FAA piggyback licence to be valid. I believe you must also have an FAA medical, although have read some comments which suggest a CAA/JAA medical may be sufficient.

However, your CAA licence does not need to be valid in the sense of having a current CofE or CofT, but must not have been revoked.

bookworm

5th Nov 2007, 16:44

By the way bookworm forgive me for asking... whats OCC refer to?

Office of the Chief Counsel. (I would suggest you write, BTW.)

Chilli Monster

5th Nov 2007, 18:17

I believe you must also have an FAA medical

You believe wrong - no FAA medical is required if you have a valid non-US medical along with your non-US licence (14 CFR 61.75 (b)(4))

IO540

5th Nov 2007, 19:36

no FAA medical is required if you have a valid non-US medical along with your non-US licence (14 CFR 61.75 (b)(4))

There is another grey area there if you have an FAA IR too, IIRC.

mm_flynn

5th Nov 2007, 20:47

You believe wrong - no FAA medical is required if you have a valid non-US medical along with your non-US licence (14 CFR 61.75 (b)(4))
I am glad I qualified my belief :O. Reading 61.75 (b)(4) and 61.3 (c)(2) vii together seems to say that either an FAA medical or a medical issued by the country which also issued the licence which provided the basis for the piggyback FAA licence is required. (That is 'Foreign' licence and medical must be issued by the same country)

ock1f

5th Nov 2007, 21:51

I am aware of a case where a pilot rumpled his rather large and expensive airplane and as far as i know didnt get an insurance payout....the reason..he had a valid JAA ppl and JAA class 2 medical an FAA ppl and FAA IR but no FAA medical so no payout...the said pilot was conducting an IFR flight at the time

If a piggyback FAA licence requires a medical issued by the same country as that of the licence then im back to square one with that too because my JAA class 2 is issued here by the IAA yet my JAA licence is issued by the UK:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:It makes a bit of a mockery of the whole JAA idea of a common licence with common standards and requirements

OCK1F

ock1f

5th Nov 2007, 22:45

Fu:yuk::{:eek:ed if i know at this stage!

mm_flynn

6th Nov 2007, 06:02

I hope I'm not hijacking a thread here (as I can't be @rsed to read it all and study the detail).
Can I, as a holder of a simple old-fashioned PPL, fly a simple N-reg aircraft in UK airspace? Assuming daytime VFR, single-engine, etc.
If said PPL is a UK PPL then yes. The FAA specifically allows it.

ockf1 - Do you have any info on the litigation that resulted from the non-payout. The background you provide is exactly what I was looking for, a licensed pilot, medically fit, current on his IR has an accident and payout is denied simply because the medical for his IR is not current, but another medical is and medical issues are not part of the reason for the crash. I would love to see the judgement upholding the insurers position.

IO540

6th Nov 2007, 06:18

ok1f - a lot of people have been looking for a ruling on that one. Any info would be much appreciated, by email/PM as appropriate to protect any sources.

ock1f

6th Nov 2007, 07:34

With reference to the case stated above this is what im prepared to say here as its on the public record.

Quote:
The PF, has an FAA issued Private Pilot’s Licence (PPL) with Instrument Rating (IR) that allows him to fly a multi-engine land, instrument airplane. The Investigation is satisfied that this licence was type proficient and IR current. The Pilot has however, been unable to produce an FAA medical certificate to validate his licence. The medical certificate produced by the Pilot was issued by an IAA approved Aero-Medical Examiner (AME) and refers to a UK PPL that the pilot also holds but which does not cover multi-engine aircraft. The AME was not an FAA approved aero-medical examiner. Accordingly, the Pilot’s FAA licence was not valid. The Pilot claimed he was unaware that the medical did not validate an FAA licence.

Quote:

CONCLUSIONS (a) Findings
1. The PF’s licence was not valid, as his aero-medical is not recognised by the FAA.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

However as for the insurance non pay out i have to say that the information i got was via the grapevine and so i can not 100% back it up. The qoutes above are taken from the AAIB report and as i said i subsequently heard on the rumour/gossip grapevine that no payout was forthcoming. The exact reason(s) for denial of payment i don't know as there were other circumstances too which could have had a major bearing on the case.

AS for the FAA response to my enquiies from yesterday ..im stil waiting

I hope that the above sheds some light for you on the medical issue.

For now

OCK1F

IO540

6th Nov 2007, 08:10

OK, I now remember reading that AAIB report and discussing it with a few people. Does anybody have a URL to it?

I vaguely recall that it was unclear whether the pilot had a standalone FAA PPL (which does need an FAA medical) or a piggyback PPL (which doesn't need an FAA medical).

I don't recall whether the pilot also having an FAA IR came into it, but this is a possibility since the FAA IR itself *may* introduce a requirement for an FAA medical. This is a grey area which has not been clarified, not even by that (no longer published) FAA FAQ.

I know for a fact that some pilots (existing FAA piggyback PPL holders) doing the FAA IR in the USA were forced to get an FAA medical. This may or may not have been correct, but U.S. schools are often anally retentive about regs and once you are out there with time off work and airline flights etc arranged it's a case of beggars can't be choosers and if they required you wear pink underpants and a 34DD bra you just go and get 3 pairs of them the same day.

This kind of thing if one of the reasons why I always recommend doing a standalone FAA PPL. When a UK pilot with a UK PPL is doing the FAA IR, the standalone FAA PPL is only an extra ~ 2 days' flying plus the written exam, which is hardly significant on the scale of the considerable effort involved in getting the FAA IR.

The first thing I did when working towards the IR was a standalone FAA PPL. It was done in the UK when it was still relatively easy.

A piggyback license is a house of cards... way back one could get them without leaving the UK but now that is not possible I can't see the point. The last thing any pilot should have is a stack of papers which can be destroyed by a single regulatory move in Europe, the land of "gold plated everything".

ock1f

6th Nov 2007, 08:24

To clarify pilot had an FAA ppl and IR-the IR certainly came into it as the flight was conducting an IFR procedure in IMC despite being on a VFR flight plan.

CONCLUSIONS (a) Findings

1. The PF’s licence was not valid, as his aero-medical is not recognised by the FAA.

OCK1F

mm_flynn

6th Nov 2007, 09:29

This (http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/9347-0.pdf) is an interesting case. It is unclear if the FAA licence is a 'based on' or stand alone. However, the only referenced 'Foreign' licence is a CAA one and the medical is an IAA, which based on the FAA's language wouldn't cut it for a based on licence and obviously (as it is not FAA) wouldn't cut it for a standalone FAA licence.

There are clearly a range of other factors which the insurer could argue about. With no third party liability, there isn't going to be the sue everyone and see who actually has the money approach. So we may never know if the insurer pays out and if not on what basis.

I still would love an actual documented example of non-payment in a situation like this (particularly for liability rather than hull)

PS -

In reading the report, I am surprised that in the cr@p weather (ceiling below minimums), ATC has this aircraft shooting approaches on a VFR flight plan. I would have thought at some point ATC and the pilot would have amended the flight plan from VFR to IFR.

IO540

6th Nov 2007, 13:15

That's the one, thank you MMF. I remember the name of the investigator; Paddy Judge :) :)

Them not noticing the aluminium skin peeling off the warped wings of the King Air after landing is straight out of Fawlty Towers.

Unfortunately AAIB reports tell us very little about insurance procedures and attitudes. And people who didn't get a payout are hardly going to advertise it on pprune.

I would very much like to know what exactly happened insurance-wise in the Graham Hill case. There is a fair bit of hearsay about but nobody seems to actually know anything. It's a bit old now as well.

DFC

6th Nov 2007, 13:18

The issue here is the Multi Engine.

UK PPL did not give multi engine privileges. Medical was valid.

FAA PPL gave multi engine privileges but had no medical.

Which way do you call it;

Flying a multi with a valid medical but no multi rating or

Flying a multi with a valid rating but no medical.

Perhaps we need to look closely at what makes a licence valid.

Regards,

DFC

172driver

6th Nov 2007, 14:46

DFC, you beat me to it - agree that (from the info available here), the ME is the factor (or main factor) that tripped the poor chap up.

mm_flynn

6th Nov 2007, 14:58

I think the actual situation was

Licence A = FAA, multi, IR (i.e. every thing he needs to fly approaches in the King Air)

Licence B = UK PPL single engine (i.e nothing he needs for an N-reg, IFR, multi flight in Irish airspace)

Medical = IAA issued for the UK Licence.

Licence A could be 'stand alone' or issued 'based on' the UK PPL and then over time had the multi and IR ratings added.

If licence A is 'stand alone' then there was no hope it would be valid without a current FAA medical

If licence A is 'based on' then if the medical was a CAA medical he would have been fine. The FAA language specifically requires the country of licence and medical to match (similar to the language saying the licence and airspace must match for operating an N-reg outside the US which stated this thread) - You could argue that the UK PPL is actually issued by the 'country of Europe' and the IAA medical is issued by the 'country of Europe' - and probably buy a new King air without help from your insurer!!

172driver

6th Nov 2007, 15:34

Sorry, mm, you are contradicting yourself - see your post here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3683275&postcount=38)

It all hinges on the question whether the FAA recognize Euroland (or, more precisely, JAA-land) as one 'country' or not. Frankly, I wouldn't want to bank on that, opens a whole supermarket of cans of worms :eek:

Assuming they mean 'country' as in 'political and geographical entity' then the chap was, most likely unbeknownst to him, flying w/o a valid license (CAA ticket, IAA medical).

Sounds just the usual story - any insurance company will always look for something unclear upon which they can base a non-payout....:(

mm_flynn

6th Nov 2007, 16:17

I know American's (me) can't do irony, but I thought the bolded bit was enough to convey my view that the first half is a ridiculous positionYou could argue that the UK PPL is actually issued by the 'country of Europe' and the IAA medical is issued by the 'country of Europe' - and probably buy a new King air without help from your insurer!!

ock1f

8th Nov 2007, 21:43

Hi all,

Got a reply today from the FAA as follows

Dear Sir,

FAR 61.3 allows a pilot to fly a "N" registered aircraft using his foreign
license in accordance with the privileges of that license. The original
intent of the regulation applied to the issuance of national (or country)
licenses by individual CAA's. The regulation has not been revised to
include the multi-country privileges of JAA issued licenses.

A valid JAA license does not meet the requirements in FAR 61.3 to fly "N"
registered aircraft in different European states. If you have a British
issued JAA pilot license, you may use it to fly "N" registered aircraft
only within Britain. If you wish to fly "N" registered aircraft in other
European states you must have a FAA pilot license. The FAA license can be
issued as a validation of the JAA license, or by taking the FAA written and
flight test.

Best Regards
qwerty(name removed-ock1f)
Aviation Safety Inspector
NY IFO

So there you have it-as i write i am filling out the change of license form and will have to look at getting me an FAA ticket if i ever want to do some serious touring.

OCK1F

IO540

9th Nov 2007, 07:55

The above is the exact opposite of another FAA response, here (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=37963&start=0):)

ock1f

9th Nov 2007, 08:53

True the two statements are in contradiction with each other but im gonna go with the correspondance I have for three reasons

1: It is a named and identifiable person with a title in the New York International Field office who i believe have jurisdiction (from the FAA's perspective) over european matters eg this office grants flight examinership in europe and only this office.

2: With all due respect to the other post and the official qouted in it they made a number of mistakes not only in spelling but meaning and understanding

3: Having had the correspondence from the NYIFO i would be very foolish to operate as PIC in an N reg here in ireland with my UK license . Especially if something happened that required the attention of our insurers.

OCK1F

IO540

9th Nov 2007, 10:43

I don't disagree. Until there is a high level FAA statement this will remain a grey area, and people will have to be content with whatever they get in writing.

Personally, I would forward the email to your insurer, by recorded delivery, so that you are making a full disclosure of all relevant facts. Then they are free to pass it by their lawyers and chuck it out of they don't like it.

It's curious that the earlier statement was written by John Lynch who not only wrote the FAA FAQ but is also rumoured to have written large chunks of the FAR/AIM. I wonder what the politics behind this is... I am sure that JL does understand exactly what JAA is and how it works. He may not spell but neither can most Americans... the Brits are catching up fast, too.

ock1f

9th Nov 2007, 16:47

Mr. OCK1F
61.3 is very specific, in that it pertans to a Civil Aircraft of U.S. registry (N-registered aircraft).

An airman may not act as pilot in command of a U.S. registered aircraft in the United States unless that airman holds a U.S. pilot certificate. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 61.3 provides for a foreign registered aircraft to be operated within the United States by a pilot who holds a valid pilot license issued by the country in which the aircraft is registered. An aircraft registered in the U.S. may be operated within a foreign country by a pilot holding a license issued by that country. ICAO standards require that the pilot on an international flight hold a valid pilot's license issued by the country in which the aircraft is registered.
I hope this has sufficiently answered your question. An Inpsector at one of our Flight Standards District Office's may also have information that would be helpful to you.
To contact one of our FAA inspectors at the nearest Flight Standard District office, you can find a link on our website at http://registry.faa.gov for FSDO offices.
Best Regards,
Airmen Certification Branch

Oh dear it gets worse :( but im still arguing my case :ugh:

OCK1F

tigerbatics

9th Nov 2007, 17:42

The position here is quite plain I think.

1) A JAA PPL issued by the UK is not compliant with FAA requirements for flight in 'N' reg aeroplanes outside UK airspace.

2) A UK issued JAA PPL is sufficient for legal use in Irish airspace in 'N' reg aeroplanes.

3) Do the FAA rules matter? Whether an action is 'legal' or 'illegal' cannot be answered in the abstract. It is all a question of who is asking the question and why. In the event of an accident in Ireland to an 'N' reg machine based in Ireland, beneficialy owned and flown by an Irish National I have little doubt that Irish law would be applied by an Irish Court. The FAA restriction would not be relevant since Irish law allowed the licence arrangement.

4) The fact that the law is in conflict here is not unusual and is why I say that questions of 'legality' where different legal jurisdictions are concerned must be answered by looking at who is asking the question and why. It does not follow that the answer need be the same in all jurisdictions. It frequently is not.

5) Always insurers should be given the full picture.

Flyin'Dutch'

10th Nov 2007, 02:25

The latter statement of the FAA NY is, as people have commented, in direct contradiction of what can be found on their website.

If someone truly wants to know what the FAA means I would suggest they write back to the FAA quoting both 'answers'

To clarify a couple of issues:

An FAA license issued in accordance with FAR 61.75 (based on or 'piggyback' licence) confers the holder the same privileges as those of the licence on which it was based. So if you have a vanilla PPL i.e. SEP and no night qualification then you that is what you are allowed to do with your FAA license.

Conversely if you hold a MEP licence (say on your CAA ticket) you will be able to fly a twin on that FAA license too.

You can add ratings to these FAA licenses such as an IR.

These licenses require either an FAA medical or a medical which renders the licence which was the basis for the issue of the FAA license to be valid. The medical requirements do not change with the addition of any ratings.

You can only add the privilege to fly a twin to these licenses by either adding one a twin rating to your CAA/JAR licence or doing an FAA flight test for the issue of an FAA multiengine license (which will then give you an FAA PPL or CPL) and you will need an FAA medical.

A standalone FAA license requires an FAA medical.

All FAA tickets require a BFR.

A BFR is valid for all flavours licenses. There is no such thing as a single engine or multi engine BFR. You can do your BFR for an ATP in a C150.

Flyin'Dutch'

10th Nov 2007, 02:28

3) Do the FAA rules matter? Whether an action is 'legal' or 'illegal' cannot be answered in the abstract. It is all a question of who is asking the question and why. In the event of an accident in Ireland to an 'N' reg machine based in Ireland, beneficialy owned and flown by an Irish National I have little doubt that Irish law would be applied by an Irish Court. The FAA restriction would not be relevant since Irish law allowed the licence arrangement.

Wrong.

You have to comply with the law of the country in who's airspace you fly and the country of the aeroplane's register.

Where there are differences it would pay to stick to the most restrictive.

tigerbatics

10th Nov 2007, 09:24

Flyin'Dutch'

10th Nov 2007, 10:45

No, it is not wrong. An Irish Court is not in the business of enforcing FAA regulations which are contrary to Irish Law.

If Irish law permits flight in certain circumstances and that is the applicable law in the given instance then the flight is legal in those circumstances

Only if the flight also complies with FAA rules.

And Irish Courts are indeed not in the business of enforcing FAA rules.

Your post seemed to intimate that if something is permitted under Irish law then it was pukka whatever the FAA rules said.

bookworm

10th Nov 2007, 14:46

Only if the flight also complies with FAA rules.

Why? Are you in the habit of complying with the Nepalese rules on wearing pink underwear on a Thursday when walking down the street in the UK? ;)

FAA rules are relevant in Ireland where:

a) Irish law requires them to be obeyed
or
b) The US decides to send an army to enforce them (OK, perhaps, "chooses to enforce them despite local law to the contrary").

Tigerbatics makes the point very well in his 3 and 4.

Flyin'Dutch'

10th Nov 2007, 17:26

Why? Are you in the habit of complying with the Nepalese rules on wearing pink underwear on a Thursday when walking down the street in the UK?

Oi! Don't let the secret out!

We are talking about flying N reg aeroplanes here aren't we?

Maybe I misunderstand what you both are saying but I read in those statements that you say that you'll be OK as long comply with the Irish regs irrespective of what FAA regs state.

Surely you can not be serious about that.

DFC

10th Nov 2007, 18:06

The Irish Courts will not rule on US law.

However, to operate an N reg aircraft in Irish Airspace without complying with the FAA requirements is illegal.

The Irish Courts would no doubt defer to the other jurisdiction and would not interfere. Should the FAA find that the flight was illegal then they would take the appropriate action.

Having done so, the Irish Courts could then again look into the matter without fear of prejiduce.

Only US citizens can own an N reg aircraft.

An Officer of the IAA can only give their opinion of what the various SIs say. It would be up to the courts to decide and the courts are going to read "issued by the country in which the flight takes place" in the same way as the FAA as to do otherwise would be to interfere with another jurisdiction's law.

In non-aviation matters as tigerbatics will be aware, Irish Courts have awaited decisions of the UK bench before proceeding further. I would expect the same in a case such as this.

Regards,

DFC

bookworm

10th Nov 2007, 19:13

The Irish Courts would no doubt defer to the other jurisdiction and would not interfere.

Can you cite any case in which the state in which an incident has taken place has "deferred" to the jurisdiction of the state of registration despite local law to the contrary?

Note that FAR 61.3(b) has the reciprocal provision:

(b) Required pilot certificate for operating a foreign-registered aircraft. A person may not act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of foreign registry within the United States, unless that person's pilot certificate:
(1) Is valid and in that person's physical possession, or readily
accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot
certificate; and
(2) Has been issued under this part, or has been issued or validated
by the country in which the aircraft is registered.

I wonder how the judge in Texas is going to react when the CAA apply for the extradition of a US citizen flying a G-reg around Texas under IFR in controlled airspace on the basis of an FAA IR...

IO540

10th Nov 2007, 19:53

I would think we would all agree that there is close to zero chance of this ever being tested in a Court.

The real issue is with insurance not paying out, and getting the "Graham Hill" situation. That is when it might get tested, because if an insurer doesn't pay out you have to sue him.

IMHO, IANAL, the court could well look at 61.3 at it applies to the flight in Europe and disregard the reciprocal provision which bookworm describes, because we are not talking about the pilot facing any music.

Chilli Monster

10th Nov 2007, 19:56

I wonder how the judge in Texas is going to react when the CAA apply for the extradition of a US citizen flying a G-reg around Texas under IFR in controlled airspace on the basis of an FAA IR...

YAWN!!!!!!! :zzz:

We've had the same debate, we've the same hackneyed answers, here and in other places. There are only two important factors to consider:

1) The 11th commandment - Thou shalt not get caught.

2) If you break (1) above and it involves accident, injury or damage then you're $hagged - because the insurers won't pay.

You all have a conscience - you decide.

tigerbatics

10th Nov 2007, 20:10

OH what fun!

I was not trying to produce an overall answer but to make the point that there is no overall answer.

To be 'legal' without reference to what jurisdiction 'legal' refers to is meaningless.

IO540 is right: from a practical perspective insurance is the important point. If the contract is under Irish law there is no problem if Irish law is complied with.

bookworm

11th Nov 2007, 07:30

The longer I stare at Article 1 of the Chicago Convention, the more clear cut this looks.

Article 1
Sovereignty
The contracting States recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory.

Doesn't that make the conflict-of-laws issue straightforward to resolve?

DFC

11th Nov 2007, 10:00

Bookworm,

I can't think of an aviation one other than the prossicution of the people involved in the Pan Am in-flight terrorist act. Illegal under US law on US aircraft and in US jurisdiction aboard the aircraft but prossicuted in UK.

There was the recent custody battle where an Irish court awaited the decision of a UK court before deciding how to proceed.

It happens all the time and you can argue about Soverign Territory but only if you want to disregard international agreements, obligations and treaties.

The CAA have no problem with an appropriately licensed US pilot flying a G reg aircraft in the CONUS on the basis of their US licence. Obvously it would be for a short period because the FAA requires aircraft based in the CONUS to be placed on the N register. The FAA in return do not object to an N reg aircraft being flown in the UK by a person holding a valid licence issued by the UK.

What the debate is about is an aircraft registered in country A being operated in country B by a pilot licensed in country C. That is not allowed under ICAO and consequently national regulations.

The problem is simply that licenses issued by JAA countries are legally validated by other countries.

What the FAA is waiting for is the European law (in each state) to be changed to say that a licence issued by EASA shall be given the same status as a licence isued by any other EASA country.

Regards,

DFC

bookworm

11th Nov 2007, 10:25

I can't think of an aviation one other than the prossicution of the people involved in the Pan Am in-flight terrorist act. Illegal under US law on US aircraft and in US jurisdiction aboard the aircraft but prossicuted in UK.

There was the recent custody battle where an Irish court awaited the decision of a UK court before deciding how to proceed.

Exploding a bomb on an aircraft is clearly a crime in the UK, so there doesn't appear to be a conflict of law. I can't comment on the second case without further detail.

It happens all the time and you can argue about Soverign Territory but only if you want to disregard international agreements, obligations and treaties.

Far from disregarding international agreements, obligations and treaties, I'm quoting from them. The only reason why we even contemplate that US law may be relevant to the case of an Irish citizen operating an aircraft in Ireland is because of the Chicago Convention 1944. The convention places obligations on contracting states to permit certain activities amounting to international air navigation. Article 1 makes it clear that it has no intention of restricting local law save for the requirement to fulfil those obligations.

The CAA have no problem with an appropriately licensed US pilot flying a G reg aircraft in the CONUS on the basis of their US licence.

The ANO prohibits the operation of a G-reg aircraft under IFR in controlled airspace without a valid UK or JAA IR. Thus a similar conflict of law issue arises in the scenario I described.