FAA in G-Reg abroad. Worrying development. [Archive]

ILOC

2nd Mar 2010, 15:31

So here's the situation.

I have an FAA PPL and am trying to join a syndicate in the UK. My understanding (and that of a lot of others here and on Flyer) is that I am automatically validated by the ANO to fly a G-Reg and should then be able to fly day VFR in any other ICAO country.

Two members of the syndicate, a CFI and a CAA examiner, were absolutely adamant that this wasn't the case. Myself and the syndicate secretary independently phoned the CAA and both spoke to a Denisha Pelia to seek confirmation. She conferred with a senior policy bod called Joan Gardner and called me to confirm this. I asked for an email confirmation and was assured I would get one.

Despite this the CAA examiner (and the CFI) weren't convinced. The examiner was so unhappy about being wrong that he said he was going to take it up with the CAA himself (worrying considering he works there).

Fast-forward 2 1/2 weeks and having got no email I got worried and phoned up to chase. I then got sent an email saying I would need the permission of each country I wanted to fly in. After being given the run around for a couple of days I finally, by making a serious nuisance of myself, spoke to Joan Gardner directly. She now stated that this was indeed the case.

I argued back and forth for 45 mins about whether the position was that under ICAO if I was validated in a G-Reg by the ANO then I was allowed by default and an explicit difference would have to be filed to forbid me and she absolutely refused to give me a straight answer. All she would do is keep repeating that either way the only way to find out would be to contact each country individually and therefore what difference would it make?

As far as I'm concerned it's a massive difference between the default position being I'm not allowed unless some sort of agreement is in place and being allowed unless a difference is in place.

I raised my concerns that this all seemed a bit of a change following a CAA examiner promising to get involved and she was pretty non-committal.

Does anyone have any record or names wrt to conversations they've had with the CAA over this? I really need to get some sort of definitive answer and have now spoken to apparently the person whose word goes and still got nowhere.

Everything I've read on here and Flyer led me to believe this issue was fairly cut and dried. Help!

This affects everyone on an ICAO PPL and flying a G-reg so it would be great to get something definitive.

Cusco

2nd Mar 2010, 16:17

IO540

2nd Mar 2010, 16:19

Two members of the syndicate, a CFI and a CAA examiner, were absolutely adamant that this wasn't the case. Ask them for a reference. Aviation is full of bullsh*t.

Myself and the syndicate secretary independently phoned the CAA and both spoke to a Denisha Pelia to seek confirmation. She conferred with a senior policy bod called Joan Gardner and called me to confirm this. I asked for an email confirmation and was assured I would get one.You aren't going to get one (unless it is more bullsh*t) ;)

Despite this the CAA examiner (and the CFI) weren't convinced. The examiner was so unhappy about being wrong that he said he was going to take it up with the CAA himself (worrying considering he works there).Good on him. It's in the ANO - the old article 26.

Fast-forward 2 1/2 weeks and having got no email Gosh, there's a suprise.

I got worried and phoned up to chase. I then got sent an email saying I would need the permission of each country I wanted to fly in. Bollox. Ask them for a reference.

After being given the run around for a couple of days I finally, by making a serious nuisance of myself, spoke to Joan Gardner directly. She now stated that this was indeed the case.Ask her for a reference.

I argued back and forth for 45 mins about whether the position was that under ICAO if I was validated in a G-Reg by the ANO then I was allowed by default and an explicit difference would have to be filed to forbid me and she absolutely refused to give me a straight answer. Gosh, there's a suprise.

All she would do is keep repeating that either way the only way to find out would be to contact each country individually and therefore what difference would it make?She is wrong.

The real problem is that, over the last 2-3 years, nearly everybody smart in the CAA has retired or left.

I used to get great replies, with references, to these kinds of questions. A reply plainly stated, without references, is worthless because somebody could just make it up. (An affirmative reply is a different thing, because you are entitled to rely on it, and if it is wrong you are entitled to get a correction, and if one doesn't come then you can rely on the communication - if in writing, obviously...)

More recently, somebody I knew had a plane on the N-reg. He asked the CAA if he could fly it on a UK PPL. They said NO, which was bull**** (it's up to the FAA anyway; ref FAR 61.3, and IMHO they should have told him that since they know this stuff perfectly well). So he sold the plane - at a substantial loss as is always the case. Then he found out the truth.....

That doesn't happen: Why should you be any different?Because the ANO says so - for a G-reg. What happens in US airspace is up to the FAA.

The fact that there isn't a direct reciprocity between the USA and the UK is irrelevant because you can get a 61.75 piggyback FAA PPL for peanuts, instantly. Can't do that in JAA-land...

ILOC

2nd Mar 2010, 16:26

Am I missing something or is your situation akin to a UK CAA/JAA/EASA (call it what you like) PPL holder going off to USA and expecting to hop into a N Reg and fly off into the blue yonder?

That doesn't happen: Why should you be any different?

Because, unlike the FAA, the CAA (via the ANO) automatically validates all ICAO PPL holders to fly G-reg planes, that's why.

This is borne out by the fact that the CAA aren't denying I can fly in the UK. Unfortunately they are saying that it is not up to them whether or not I can fly a G-reg in any other country (which as I understand it is incorrect).

Ask her for a reference.

I think the odds of ever getting to speak to her again are vanishingly small. I was never supposed to get that high up in the first place and only managed it by making a serious nuisance of myself.

I guess what a really need is something from the ICAO stating that the default position between member countries is to allow any pilot flying another ICAO country's plane that is validated by that country.

Anybody got any ideas about how I go about getting that? :eek:

paulthornton

2nd Mar 2010, 16:30

I did a reasonable amount of investigating on this topic as I have an Australian PPL and flew G reg aircraft on it up until late last year (when I finally got around to doing a skills test, and therefore now have a shiny JAA PPL as well).

When I first started doing this, the perceived wisdom - with which I had nothing to challenge - was that I could not take a G reg aircraft out of the UK. This very much seems to be the accepted view around flying schools etc. This, however, isn't stated anywhere - nor is it implied.

I did as much digging as I could and still even have the relevant bits of the ANO printed in my headset bag for dealing with people who did not accept what I was saying as the law:

Essentially, ANO (2005) section 26 (https://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051970.htm#26) para (3) then (4a) states unequivocally that an ICAO license is "... deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this order". There are two things you are not allowed to do - paraphrasing slightly, but (i) is act in a commercial role and remunerated for your flying, and (ii) is flying under IFR in controlled airspace.

Now paragraph (4b) states "a JAA licence shall, unless the CAA gives direction to the contrary, be deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this Order". This is the same wording as stated in (4a) and therefore apart from the two things specifically disallowed, it implies that the "deeming" is equal in both cases.

This is also stated in LASORS, section A7 - but the ANO is of course the authoritative source.

Now I'm not a legal expert by any means, and I'm sure someone here will have a more knowledgeable view, but it does look like the CAA are acting against the letter of the ANO here.

Paul.

ILOC

2nd Mar 2010, 16:40

Thanks Paul.

I'm more than a little suspicious of the fact that their initial standpoint was it was fine and then when a CAA examiner got the hump (basically because he didn't like the fact that it appeared I was right) and said he would take the matter up with them a couple of weeks pass and they seem to have changed their stance.

Cusco

2nd Mar 2010, 16:51

Hmmm:

Sounds like you're heading for a great start in your syndicate..........

ILOC

2nd Mar 2010, 17:04

Hmmm:

Sounds like you're heading for a great start in your syndicate..........

Yup, I agree that is a worry. Looking over my emails it seems that the examiner may not actually be in the syndicate, just a friend of the CFI. If that's the case I would have less reservations.

Anyway unfortunately it's all rather academic at the moment because unless I can get this matter cleared up I won't buy into a syndicate where I'm limited to UK only.

paulthornton

2nd Mar 2010, 17:06

The other thing worth mentioning here is that the aircraft's insurance may have some caveat that would mean you were not insured.

In my case as there was only one aircraft that I flew, the flying school who operated it on behalf of its owner specifically checked with the insurers to make sure there was no doubt that I was covered in case something happened.

As Cusco said, maybe now might be time to consider another syndicate though...

Paul.

IO540

2nd Mar 2010, 17:33

I won't buy into a syndicate where I'm limited to UK only.

I wouldn't buy into any syndicate where there is a doubt over getting on with the others. It soon becomes too much hassle.

the aircraft's insurance may have some caveat that would mean you were not insured.

I'd cover this by making a full disclosure of the intended use, with Art 26 references etc, to the insurer, and request a written acknowledgement.

DLT1939

2nd Mar 2010, 18:32

Article 26 ANO 2005 has been superceded by Article 62 ANO 2009. Although the wording is slightly different the effect appears to be the same.

As I understand it, ICAO Annex 6 Chapter 2.7.2.1 is the international authority requiring pilots to have licenses issued by or rendered valid by the the state of registry of the aircraft. Individual countries can file differences if they wish.

BackPacker

2nd Mar 2010, 21:47

SoCal, what ILOC meant, and I think he's right in this case, is that any ICAO PPL is *automatically and implicitly* validated under the ANO (with the exceptions and limitations noted). So you do NOT have to make an appointment with an FSDO for a short visit, nor do a BFR, nor get an additional bit of plastic or register your details with the UK CAA. Your original (valid and current) FAA PPL bit of plastic is all that you need to fly a G-reg, worldwide.

With the FAA, the validation process is a process requiring several steps. Easy, quick and cheap steps, I'll grant you that, but you still have to go through them.

IO540

3rd Mar 2010, 07:28

I think it is true.

It is right to say that the UK is unusual in automatically validating other countries' licenses, but actually most countries have a similar process albeit involving some paperwork. Outside JAA, it appears this is even more common especially if the one you are trying to validate is the de facto world standard (FAA). This is an area which is hard to research because these facilities (especially where a whole new local-country license results i.e. a conversion) are rarely advertised openly. I've been offered one such direct conversion for my FAA CPL/IR to the local CPL/IR (and there must be more) involving no more than paperwork but had to have a "relationship" with a local commercial operator).

BTW this thread is duplicated here (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=61805) but with some additional input.

BroomstickPilot

3rd Mar 2010, 08:44

Hi ILOC,

I suspect there is something at work here that I think you may be unaware of.

There is, among those involved in British flight training, a certain hatred of people who go abroad to get their PPLs, as they see it, 'on the cheap'.

They consider that flight training exists for the sole purpose of providing them with an opportunity to earn money.

They believe we should all be prepared, to tollerate the endless weather delays and to pay the exorbitant operating costs of flight training in the UK. Given the chance, I am sure they would have all training abroad banned.

So when they encounter someone who has got their PPL by that means, they look for ways of making life difficult for them.

I once mentioned to a UK instructor that I wanted to get an FAA CPL and he more or less went for me, giving me a lecture effectively about my duty to provide him with a (post retirement) living.

On another occasion, I happened to mention to another UK instructor my wish to obtain a share in an 'N' reg aeroplane. She tried to tell me that if I owned an 'N' reg aeroplane in the UK, I would only be allowed to fly it for six months of any year; not true.

Now let's talk about dealing with civil servants, (i.e. those who work for any branch of central government, including the CAA). These days, there is no point in speaking to people in departments of central government over the telephone on any contentious matter. (Believe me, I speak from much BITTER experience with three different departments, including the CAA).

Telephone conversations are deniable. They will tell you whatever it takes to make you go away and then, if questioned afterwards will deny, either what they said, or even ever having spoken to you at all.

The ONLY way to deal with them on any contentious matter is to WRITE to them, SENDING YOUR LETTER EITHER BY REGISTERED MAIL OR BY RECORDED DELIVERY (so they cannot deny that it arrived) and insist on a written reply, citing any regulation or article of the ANO upon which their reply will be based. Then you should count the working days that elapse afterwards and send a follow up letter if you do not receive a reply within the 15 working days.

If they fail to provide a satisfactory response to your enquiry, don't hesitate to threaten them with involving your MP, or the Ombudsman, or both, if they fail to deal with your question in writing and within a reasonable time, and don't hesitate to carry out your threat if they do fail to deal with it.

You don't need to contact ICAO, and indeed they will not become involved in what they will regard as a local matter.

Broomstick.

ILOC

3rd Mar 2010, 09:07

Thankyou everyone for all the useful advice and information. Please keep it coming.

I will collect as much information/ammunition as I can and then approach the CAA again. Whether that is by post or by appointment I don't know....

Part of the problem is that Joan Gardner who is one of the licensing policy people was very hard to get through to as apparently she is to important to deal with the public (a good attitude for a public servant). Given how totally non-committal she was I'm not sure who to try and deal with in the future when trying to get something a bit more definitive.

As IO540 pointed out I have also posted this on the Flyer forum here (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=61805). There is a fair bit of duplication but also some additional information that is useful and interesting.

IO540

3rd Mar 2010, 10:36

The obvious legal position is that everything not prohibited is allowed :)

This should be obvious, because e.g. no law says you cannot fly wearing pink underpants, therefore you can.

So, if somebody says you cannot do XYZ, they need to provide a reference for that.

The FARs do not contain any known stuff banning the use of an FAA license in a non-N-reg plane. So that is allowed.

The UK CAA allows the use of any ICAO license for a G-reg. So, that's good :ok:

The only issue that I see is if the owner of the (non UK) airspace where you are flying objects to such a license / aircraft registry combination. The airspace owner is entitled to do this, because (fairly obviously) every country, ICAO member or not, has absolute jurisdiction within its frontiers. But I have never heard of any country thus objecting. It would make a mockery of its ICAO membership, for starters.

The above is for Europe. Most of the globe is what we call "3rd world", and most of it comprises of military dictatorships. You cannot just jump into your G-reg, with a UK PPL, thinking that is fine, and fly across Russia, Iran, China, Angola, Libya, etc. You need overflight / landing permissions, crew visas, etc etc etc. But that's a different topic. Once you get these permits, these countries still respect ICAO, AFAIK. (well unless you happen to be a citizen of one, in which case they might grab you and make you do the military service ;) )

ILOC

3rd Mar 2010, 11:16

So, if somebody says you cannot do XYZ, they need to provide a reference for that.

Absolutely. Unfortunately the lady from the CAA just kept on repeating that this was nothing to do with the UK and any reference would have to come from the specific countries I wanted to fly in.

All I wanted was confirmation that the default position (at least in Europe) is that I'm allowed. All she would say was that nobody could state that as it was up to the individual country.

Whopity

3rd Mar 2010, 11:26

A UK registered Aircraft is operated in accordance with the UK ANO wherever it may be in the World. The licensing requirements for that aircraft are contained in the UK ANO. Art 62(1) validates any valid ICAO licence to allow you to operate that aircraft on a private flight under conditions specified in the Article. There is no territorial limit imposed in Article 62, so you can do it anywhere in the World. Nothing to do with anyone else!Deeming a non-United Kingdom flight crew licence valid
62.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), paragraph (2) applies to any licence which authorises the holder to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft and is granted—
(a) under the law of a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom but which is not a JAA licence; or
(b) under the law of a relevant overseas territory.
(2) Subject to paragraph (4), for the purposes of this Part, such a licence is, unless the CAA gives a direction to the contrary, deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this Order.
(3) Paragraph (2) does not apply to such a licence if it authorises the holder to act as a student pilot only.
(4) A licence deemed valid under paragraph (2) does not entitle the holder—
(a) to act as a member of the flight crew of any aircraft flying for the purpose of commercial air transport, public transport or aerial work or on any flight for which the holder receives remuneration for services as a member of the flight crew; or
(b) in the case of a pilot’s licence, to act as pilot of any aircraft flying in controlled airspace in circumstances requiring compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules or to give any instruction in flying.
(5) A JAA licence is, unless the CAA gives a direction to the contrary, a licence rendered valid under this Order.

You have no problem whatsoever operating that aircraft. One thought however, as you have a FAA Pilot Certificate which of course has no RT privileges outside the USA I presume you have a FCC Radiotelephone Certificate Form No FCC 605-FRC

ILOC

3rd Mar 2010, 11:29

BackPacker

3rd Mar 2010, 11:33

Well, you've got the ANO article itself, which states that any ICAO license is valid on a G-reg, within the limitations stated. What art. 62 means by "Contracting State" is any state contracting to ICAO, which is essentially all of the civilized world.

The only other bit of text you need is the ICAO article/annex/whatever, that states that ICAO states will accept any aircraft for overflight/landing/whatever where the flight crew has a legal, valid and current license under the laws of the state of registry of the aircraft. Or wording to that effect.

In other words, if the UK deems your combo G-reg/FAA license to be legal, then other states are supposed to accept it as such.

Whopity

3rd Mar 2010, 11:47

ICAO Annex 11.2.1 Authority to act as a flight crew member
A person shall not act as a flight crew member of an aircraft
unless a valid licence is held showing compliance with the
specifications of this Annex and appropriate to the duties to be
performed by that person. The licence shall have been issued
by the State of Registry of that aircraft or by any other
Contracting State and rendered valid by the State of Registry
of that aircraft.
Note.— Article 29 of the Convention on International Civil
Aviation requires that the flight crew members carry their
appropriate licences on board every aircraft engaged in
international air navigation.
Art 62(1) renders the licence valid. The CAA does not confirm items of law, that's a matter for a Lawyer.

mm_flynn

3rd Mar 2010, 12:08

The CAA does not confirm items of law, that's a matter for a Lawyer.It is a tad disappointing when the law is so opaque the regulator can read it and conclude - 1 Yes it is OK, 2 No it is not OK, 3 - our validation rules for G-regs don't apply extraterritorially so you need to ask each country - all within 2 1/2 weeks.

The last one also begs the questions of which other rules any normal person would view as included in the extraterritorial provisions don't actually apply ;)

PS - In this case the law seems crystal clear - just the CAA who seem a bit muddled.

englishal

3rd Mar 2010, 13:06

This is making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill. I also don't see how the CAA can answer for foreign aviation authorities.

What I did (although it is irrelevant as I have both FAA & JAA licenses) is write to the various aviation authorities that concerned me - in my case it was the DGAC in France and Germany...I think I did a few more but can't remember which ones.

Anyway in each case they said "if the UK allow you to fly in their airspace, then we will too"....I'd just write to them (email) and get it in writing then keep it with you. They even said that all ratings were valid which raised an interesting point which was discussed several years ago - because the CAA validate an FAA IR for flight OCAS....how this translates to Euroland...

mm_flynn

3rd Mar 2010, 13:40

This is making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill. I also don't see how the CAA can answer for foreign aviation authorities.
There are a couple of key principles

Does a NAA have the authority to validate licences for world wide use in aircraft on their register - generally people assume this is true, however, the argument being made is that the CAA validation is only good in the UK (or where specifically accepted).
Is the UK CAA's process of validation ineffective globally because it is automatic and does not produce a validation document. As a follow on, does this ineffective process comply with their ICAO obligation to facilitate validation of other countries licences ( recall this obligation but don't have a reference to hand).
More generally, does the ANO apply to G-reg aircraft extraterritorially or not. The ANO says yes, the argument implies no. (Clearly, there are lots of regulations which I will call 'Airspace Regulation' which apply to all aircraft operating in a country). However, for example, would one expect US law or UK law to apply to the maintenance of a G-reg aircraft in the US? - and generally (and famously with a 3 engine BA 747 out of SFO) the general consensus seems to be it is the law of the country of register that applies in these airframe/licencing issues).

For me it is an interesting mole hill with regard to what does an NAA control in practice.

IO540

3rd Mar 2010, 14:15

Does a NAA have the authority to validate licences for world wide use in aircraft on their register - generally people assume this is true, however, the argument being made is that the CAA validation is only good in the UK (or where specifically accepted).The UK is the only place where the CAA definitely has the power to do so. Elsewhere, the local airspace owner could object.

Is the UK CAA's process of validation ineffective globally because it is automatic and does not produce a validation document. As a follow on, does this ineffective process comply with their ICAO obligation to facilitate validation of other countries licences ( recall this obligation but don't have a reference to hand).Yes, there is such an obligation in ICAO.

More generally, does the ANO apply to G-reg aircraft extraterritorially or not. The ANO says yes, the argument implies no. (Clearly, there are lots of regulations which I will call 'Airspace Regulation' which apply to all aircraft operating in a country). The ANO clearly can apply outside the UK. If you have under-age sex in say Thailand (or elsewhere but I gather Thailand is a popular destination for Westerners ;) ) then you can get done for it when you come back to the UK.

However, for example, would one expect US law or UK law to apply to the maintenance of a G-reg aircraft in the US? - and generally (and famously with a 3 engine BA 747 out of SFO) the general consensus seems to be it is the law of the country of register that applies in these airframe/licencing issues).That seems to be the universal principle on which ICAO is built. The State of Registry determines what privileges (if any) any given license (theirs or anybody else's) has on a plane on their register, and everybody else is supposed to respect that.

I even got exactly this from the CAA, in ~ 2003, when I asked them whether (as far as they are concerned) the IMCR is valid in an N-reg. They said they have no objection but it is up to the FAA (which is IMHO 100% correct). The FAA had no objection. Got all this in writing, too.

The other thing is that this stuff is very old and myself, or anybody I have ever spoken to, has ever heard of any problem with the above. And I am sure that if there was an issue, we would have heard of it by now. Loads of people have got FAA PPLs and are flying G-reg planes. Maybe not many on the club/rental scene but that's not suprising given the revelations in this thread... And over the years there would have been many insurance claims. And your paperwork is the first thing the insurer checks.

Whopity

3rd Mar 2010, 14:15

You would not go to a Police Station to find out about the Law. Why would you expect the CAA to be any different? Their function is to enforce it not explain it!

Does a NAA have the authority to validate licences for world wide use in aircraft on their register Yes because by virtue of the registration, the aircraft is effectively a little part of the UK. As there is nothing in the law to prohibit it the law applies wherever that little bit of the UK goes.

IO540

3rd Mar 2010, 14:19

You would not go to a Police Station to find out about the LawI think you mean that slightly tongue in cheek, Whopity :) I bet you most people would go to the local nick to ask about a point of law concerning whether their car is legal, or (for the Big Brother audience) whether it is legal to kick somebody's head in.

The other thing is that while there is a criminal law lawyer on every corner, and the yellow pages are packed with them, aviation lawyers are really rare, and AFAICT really expensive.

IMHO, the CAA has an obligation to give straight and accurate answers OR give no answers at all and email people back with a list of lawyers.

englishal

3rd Mar 2010, 14:21

I did once have a letter from the CAA stating that my FAA certificate privileges could be exercised in a G reg aeroplane, including all ratings, without formality. They sent me the section from the ANO and the restrictions placed upon the IR. I'd assume this is good enough to act as a "validation" of the foreign license to show foreign authorities if ramp checked or to show a flight school / syndicate. If you write to them and ask a specific question they normally reply (though saying that they have yet to reply to my last email of 2 months ago - I'm expecting the "sorry for the delay in replying" letter soon ;) ).

FTR one of our syndicate only has an FAA PPL for fixed wing and our current aeroplane is G reg (despite being a famous aviator who flew around the world non stop several years ago). It has never been an issue wrt insurance or flying to France.

Whopity

3rd Mar 2010, 14:23

The CAA can tell you what the law says, and it certain cases give you an exemption from it in writing, but they are not allowed to give an interpretation because that is not necessarily the interpretation a court would place on it. I'd put Mr Plod in the same group.

It sounds to me as though they have given a straight and correct answer Art 62(1) says it all. Has any insurer actually failed to believe this? The odd ill informed CFI might.

englishal

3rd Mar 2010, 14:28

but highlighted sections of the ANO which state what you can do, surely must be good enough....

mm_flynn

3rd Mar 2010, 14:33

Yes because by virtue of the registration, the aircraft is effectively a little part of the UK. As there is nothing in the law to prohibit it the law applies wherever that little bit of the UK goes.
Except this thread is premised on the answer actually being either 'NO' or thar our CAA's process doesn't work world wide.

Whopity

3rd Mar 2010, 14:36

WHY? What possible reason could there be for thinking that?

Perhaps the misunderstanding is that the CAAs jurisdiction does not go beyond the UK. That is true but as the aircraft is part of the UK then the CAAs jurisdiction continues within the aircraft, which enjoys overflight privileges subject to complying with the laws of the State over which it is flying. Those laws require that the pilot holds an ICAO licence, and it is the responsibility of the State of Registration to ensure this. In this case the UK CAA have done so.

Flying Boat

3rd Mar 2010, 14:39

I do not profess to know what the law says in detail.

I do not profess to know what the law fully means.

I do however know about a case of a PPL going from CAA to FAA and still flying G Reg aircraft.

He was allowed to fly G Reg Aircraft by the CAA, he was allowed to fly them in UK airspace, but was instructed by the CAA to contact each European Authority in which country he wishes to fly a G Reg aircraft.

He did this, for example France responded in a few weeks, and he always flies with a copy of the letter for the authorities at that particular airfield.

Never under estimate the power of people of authority on an airfield; if they are not satisfied that you can legally fly the G Reg aircraft, you will not be allowed to fly, regardless of what you think, what you are told on this forum, what you are told by someone in an office and regardless what a lawyer says.

By the time you clear up the problem the aircraft could have been impounded for a few months.

If there is doubt there are guaranteed problems, because the people on the ground have the same questions as you do; but they can stop you.

Get a letter from each country you will want to fly to, it is not too much of a problem. Or, convert to a JAA licence then this is purely accademic.

Good Luck

FB

Whopity

3rd Mar 2010, 14:53

but was instructed by the CAA to contact each European Authority in which country he wishes to fly a G Reg aircraft.That simply shows that the Clerk at the other end didn't know what they were talking about.

IO540

3rd Mar 2010, 15:40

He was allowed to fly G Reg Aircraft by the CAA, he was allowed to fly them in UK airspace, but was instructed by the CAA to contact each European Authority in which country he wishes to fly a G Reg aircraft.He was taken for a ride.

Never under estimate the power of people of authority on an airfield; if they are not satisfied that you can legally fly the G Reg aircraft, you will not be allowed to fly, regardless of what you think, what you are told on this forum, what you are told by someone in an office and regardless what a lawyer says.That's true but they could hassle you for no reason, because most of them are ex MacDonalds employees (or equivalent) who haven't got a clue anyway. 99% of them will be incapable of understanding anything on this topic.

That's why one needs to be fairly careful when flying in the 3rd world. Ask any grey-haired ex 707 cargo pilot and he will tell you a few stories :)

In Europe, this is simply not a known issue - once you have complied with the ever present piece of anal retention: PPR/PNR.

I guess one could print out article 62 and carry it, but I doubt anybody will ever want to see it. Unlike some other docs, like the certificate of free circulation for VAT around which there are more scary stories than one could tell.... like the N-reg TBM700 owner who landed at Tarbes (the factory, no less) and had to hand over the VAT, only to get it back some days (or weeks?) later. Can I confirm this? No, but based on some other stuff I've heard it is probably true. An EU citizen cannot fly an N-reg around the EU without this paperwork being straight.

Flying Boat

3rd Mar 2010, 15:43

Exactly Whopity

The same as most people he will encounter (yourself excluded).

More importantly he will face these people in Europe and will not be able to win an arguement when stopped from departing from a regional airfield, unless he has someone of your knowledge and experience on board.
(Who can speak the language and quote their air law as well as CAA & ICAO).

Prevention is always better than cure, or in this case a winning legal arguement misunderstood by the masses.

I wish him good luck

mm_flynn

3rd Mar 2010, 15:54

I wish him good luck
which is an indictment of the UK validation process. Most other countries have a sensible process with no ambiguity for validation which creates a piece of paper (or plastic) which will make sense to any of IO's burger flippers.

WHY? What possible reason could there be for thinking that?The title of the thread, the CAA clerk responses, the 'be it on your head' views - all of these are based on the ANO validation not being valid or effective or being subject to random challenge at foreign airports.

I think it is a non-issue, have never heard of anyone coming to grief on this point and the ANO is very clear about the automatic validation process.

RatherBeFlying

3rd Mar 2010, 16:09

All she would say was that nobody could state that as it was up to the individual country.Absolutely correct, the CAA can not speak or answer for the actions or interpretations of any other NAA. As others have done, it is wisest to contact each NAA whose airspace you plan to use and carry their replies with you as that will be the only persuasive bit of paper to any inquiring authority over there.

And do not forget the VAT paperwork -- or bring lots of cash;)

BackPacker

3rd Mar 2010, 16:17

In that case, the right question would be "Are you a state contracting to ICAO, and have you filed a difference against ICAO Annex I, para 1.2.1". If the answer is "Yes, we are and No, we have not" then you're good to go.

But I'm getting the feeling that for these sorts of discussions, particularly if you're getting ramp checked, there should be an ICAO "Language Proficiency in Legalese" before you're allowed to participate.

ILOC

4th Mar 2010, 09:51

I'm a little confused Whopity:

It sounds to me as though they have given a straight and correct answer Art 62(1) says it all. Has any insurer actually failed to believe this? The odd ill informed CFI might.
They told me I need explicit permission from each country I want to fly in. No insurer has refused to believe this but because the CFI and CAA examiner are remaining resolute (and now the CAA has executed a U-turn and is agreeing with them) the syndicate are insisting on something clear in writing from the CAA. Pointing them at the ANO and ICAO Annex just won't cut it when 2 of their most experienced members (and now apparently the CAA) are giving them a different interpretation.

But then you go on to say:

but was instructed by the CAA to contact each European Authority in which country he wishes to fly a G Reg aircraft.

That simply shows that the Clerk at the other end didn't know what they were talking about.

I don't see how both can be true? How can they have given a straight and correct answer to me saying I need permission from each country and then in the case where they instructed someone else to contact each country the clerk doesn't know what they are talking about? It is essentially the same advice.