Flying "N" reg in the Channel Islands on a JAA licence

[gyrotyro]

I have been speaking to the Belgrano this morning but it appears that they are short staffed and could not give me a answer.

I am trying to clarify that it is possible to fly an "N" registered aircraft in the UK including the Channel Islands using a UK issued JAA PPL.

I have had a look in LASORS but haven't found any reference yet.

Can anyone help please.

[englishal]

No you can't. It is the FAA which governs who can fly an N reg aeroplane, and it was recently clarified that Europe is NOT considered one entity as far as licensing goes. You need an FAA Certificate.

[gyrotyro]

Thanks englishal but I am only interested in whether the CI's count as UK airspace with regards to licence priviledges. Not other European countries.

IE Is it ok to fly between the CI's and the UK in an "N" reg with a UK JAA PPL ?

[englishal]

OOps sorry, I read your post as FRANCE. I am not 100% sure about the CI as it lies within the BREST FIR...but I think you'd be ok....????

[mm_flynn]

There are various sections of the ANO that define privileges or restrictions with regard to a geographic area of , The United Kingdom, Channel Islands, and Isle of Man. In addition, I am 99% sure that the CI issued licences and medicals are effectively UK JAA issued. This would tend to confirm that there is a single overarching regulator. As such, it would be remarkably unlikely for the US to take a view that a UK JAA PPL is not issued by the 'country' relevant to the Channel Islands (which must reasonably be the UK)

[Whopity]

The CI is not part of the JAA but has elected to use licences issued by the UK CAA. Therefore; there is no difference between the State of Issue of your UK issued licence and one held by a CI resident. On that basis, you are OK as far as the FAA is concerned, to fly N Reg in the CI. The Belgrano won't have a clue about FAA legislation even if there was someone there.

[gyrotyro]

Thanks folks.

I have now received confirmation from the head of ATC in the Channel Islands that it is OK to fly to and from the UK and CI's in an "N" reg a/c using a JAA issued PPL.

Someone has been trying to tell me that it was only possible up to the 12 mile limit from the UK and any of the CI's which appears to be nonsense.

[Fuji Abound]

Yes, you / they are correct.

That someone has confused themselves with the ANOs reference to territorial waters and ignored the "and by international agreement part" and possibly cross refrenced all this to the IMC rating. :) N reg on a CAA license is good for the CI's, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

With consent it maybe good elsewhere.

[IO540]

This 12 mile limit bit has come up before somewhere... I cannot believe it is anything other than total bollox. The 12 miles is something else.

Otherwise, you could do all kinds of crazy things... buzzing boats at 100ft, 13nm offshore. Somehow I think that if you did that, some people would get quite excited :)

[Cathar]

The CAA have no responsibility over what happens in Jersey so would not be able to answer your question.

Article 26 of the Air Naviagtion Order 2005 as applied to Jersey by The Air Navigation (Jersey) Order 2008 (http://www.jerseylaw.je/Law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce%5Chtm%5CLawFiles%5C2008%2FL-44-2008.htm) states that "A person shall not act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft unless he is the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid by the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or the State of the operator and satisfying the minimum standards established under Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention."

Therefore you should have a FAA licence to fly an N reg in Jersey airspace unless the Director of Civil Aviation has issued an exemption to the requirements of article 26. The reference to "the State of the operator" refers only to aircraft operated under Artricle 83 bis agreements.

[OA32]

Cathar is correct the UK ANO does not apply in the CICTR so should not be referenced and you should check the Jersey (and where relevant the Guernsey) ANO. Even though the majority of the ANO is lifted from the UK there are differences, some of which are quite important. It is best to check with the DCA as he is responsible for the entire Channel Islands as opposed to Jersey ATC who are responsible for the CICTR and Guernsey ATC who have responsibility for Guernsey and Alderney and again differ from Jersey in some areas.


mm_flynn

There is no such thing as a Channel Island issued licence or medical, most PPL's have JAA licences issued by the UK CAA and there are local AME's who issue medicals on behalf of the CAA and FAA where required.

[Whopity]

Article 26 of the Air Naviagtion Order 2005 A bit out of date! The ANO 2009 was issued in a totally different format and Art 26 as was, is now somewhere in Part 6 between Arts 50 and 63.

[mm_flynn]

Cathar is correct the UK ANO does not apply in the CICTR so should not be referenced and you should check the Jersey (and where relevant the Guernsey) ANO....

mm_flynn

There is no such thing as a Channel Island issued licence or medical, most PPL's have JAA licences issued by the UK CAA and there are local AME's who issue medicals on behalf of the CAA and FAA where required.

I was fairly sure that was true. It puts one in a slightly odd position that the Channel Islands are not (I think) a Contracting State and they don't issue licences, but they do issue regulations. As such, it is not that clear what Country (as defined by the FAA) the CI are and if they are not the UK, then the CI is a country which does not issue licences and hence N-Reg operation is only legal with an FAA rating.

The general structure of the UK ANO, which stretches its authority in a number of areas to cover the IOM and CI, would suggest the CI is not really a separate country and as such a UK licence (which is what one gets if one passes ones test in the CI) is the licence issued by the country of operation (i.e. the CI). The FAA considers as valid for operations a licence issued by the country of operation, which should tick th box in the quoted CI regs (assuming the CI are part of the country of the UK from the perspective of licence issue)

The opinion of the UK and CI regulators is not technically relevant as the licence requirements of an N-reg are defined solely by the US. However, the US will in all likelihood only prosecute at the request of the CI/UK authorities. As such, if the UK/CI are happy, you are from a practical perspective good to go, even if technically the operation would be illegal under US law (as you have no real chance of being prosecuted)

[OA32]

I was fairly sure that was true. It puts one in a slightly odd position that the Channel Islands are not (I think) a Contracting State and they don't issue licences, but they do issue regulations. As such, it is not that clear what Country (as defined by the FAA) the CI are and if they are not the UK, then the CI is a country which does not issue licences and hence N-Reg operation is only legal with an FAA rating.

The Channel Islands are not a contracting state as that is merely a reference to their geographical location. Jersey and Guernsey are separate jurisdictions and are both Crown dependencies along with the Isle of Man. The UK signed up to the Chicago convention on behalf of the Crown dependencies who are self governing and have their own legislation, Jersey and Guernsey also share a DCA but do so only to save money. They are not part of the EU which is why they have their own legislation as EU and UK law is not enforceable there. You'll probably find that the FAA haven't thought about it at all as the licences are issued by the UK CAA.

[IO540]

There is no issue with prosecution, IMHO. The entire issue is whether insurance is valid.

[mm_flynn]

There is no issue with prosecution, IMHO. The entire issue is whether insurance is valid.


Which of course is a question for the insurer, rather than any regulator.

However, it would also be surprising for the insurer to care in this instance, as a the status of the Crown dependencies is unclear in this particular respect and the pattern of behaviour affirms that a UK licence is 'the licence of the Country' with respect to operations in the Channel Islands.


OA32 - you are of course correct that my shorthand reference to the CI's as legal entities is not technically correct. However, the powers of the Crown Dependencies to act internationally seems quite limited and almost wholly assumed by the UK (with some approval processes). As such, the FAA likely regards them as dependencies operating under the overarching control of the UK with regard to international obligations.

[IO540]

I agree, but getting insurers to rule on something is like pulling teeth.

I have tried it many times.

They just say "you have to comply with the regs, etc".

The most charitable explanation for this behaviour (incidentally mirrored by my house insurer) is that they are reluctant to spend money on lawyers, in getting the answers.

Half the job, IMHO, IANAL, is that making a full disclosure of the intended operation to the insurer gives you some protection (from them walking off a claim). I bet there is a ton of case law on this though... it must come up all the time.

[gyrotyro]

I have now spoken with the CAA and they have confirmed that the CI's are part of UK airspace and that they are quite happy for me to use my JAA licence to fly an "N" reg a/c in that airspace.

[englishal]

gyro,

while I am sure you are fine to fly to the CI, asking the CAA is only half the story on these matters. Because it is an N reg, the FAA is the other half of the story and although the CIs can be considered British for all the reasons given in this post (and so you are ok), you could equally ask the same question of the French. They of course would probably say "that is fine" but in reality the FAA would say "that is not fine". If the FAA said it wasn't ok (which they do incidentally) then insurance would be null and void and N reg pilots in Europe could be flying illegally.

I just thought I'd point this out in case any other N reg pilots are reading this and assume it would be ok to fly abroard in an N reg on a JAA license issued in the UK.

[mm_flynn]

gyro,

... Because it is an N reg, the FAA is the other half of the story and although the CIs can be considered British for all the reasons given in this post (and so you are ok), you could equally ask the same question of the French. They of course would probably say "that is fine" but in reality the FAA would say "that is not fine". If the FAA said it wasn't ok (which they do incidentally) then insurance would be null and void and N reg pilots in Europe could be flying illegally.

I just thought I'd point this out in case any other N reg pilots are reading this and assume it would be ok to fly abroard in an N reg on a JAA license issued in the UK.


The FAA are probably more than the other half, in that they establish what is legal in an N-reg (but not necessarily what is illegal).

It is reasonably clear from some recent FAA opinions that a UK licence is not valid for flying an N-Reg in France (or anywhere other than the UK - and Crown Dependencies are from a practical perspective the UK in this context). that means it is definitely against US law to operate N-reg in France on a UK licence.

However, a UK insurer is not in anyway bound by the US view of what is legal or not. To the extent the State in which the flight occurs thinks something is OK, it would be surprising if the insurer took a different view, or the FAA choose to take enforcement action (despite it being against US law).

(I personally wouldn't take chances and would make sure I was legal in the eyes of the state of registry and the state of operation and I would also check with my insurer if there was any ambiguity).

[dublinpilot]

gyro,

while I am sure you are fine to fly to the CI, asking the CAA is only half the story on these matters. Because it is an N reg, the FAA is the other half of the story and although the CIs can be considered British for all the reasons given in this post (and so you are ok), you could equally ask the same question of the French. They of course would probably say "that is fine" but in reality the FAA would say "that is not fine". If the FAA said it wasn't ok (which they do incidentally) then insurance would be null and void and N reg pilots in Europe could be flying illegally.

I just thought I'd point this out in case any other N reg pilots are reading this and assume it would be ok to fly abroard in an N reg on a JAA license issued in the UK.

Why? The state which is being overflown has just as much entitlement to licence a pilot to fly in it's airspace.

It the UK said that you could fly any aircraft in it's airspace provided you wore pink underwear, then that would be its entitlement (leaving aside EASA).

In this case we seem to have the CAA saying that the airspace over the Channel Islands is its airspace, and that it is happy for the pilot to fly an N reg aircraft with a JAA licence.

As alway, I wound want that in writing if I was relying on it.

dp

[englishal]

Why? The state which is being overflown has just as much entitlement to licence a pilot to fly in it's airspace.
It does but the FAA state that you can only fly an N reg in foreign airspace on the foreign license if it the licence matches the airspace being flown in - So you can fly an N reg in UK airspace on a UK issued license. BUT the FAA don't recognise the "JAA" as one entity meaning that if you want to fly an N reg in French airpace on a non-FAA license you must have a French issued licence.

This is why I believe the CI's are ok.

(PS I can never work out if it is license or licence :O)

[IO540]

The state which is being overflown has just as much entitlement to licence a pilot to fly in it's airspace.That is an old sleeping dog which AFAIK has never been clarified either way.

I think it is good enough to rely on from the POV of a prosecution, because for obvious practical reasons (you have to do a little bit more than shoplifting to get extradited to the USA... well maybe not ;) ) any prosecution is going to come from the airspace owner, and if you have a piece of paper from him which says something is legal, he hasn't got a hope of prosecuting you (even if the advice was completely wrong, so long as it appears to come from someone in a position of authority).

But insurance works the other way. The insurer has a duty (to his shareholders) to avoid paying out unless legally obliged, and anyway it is a civil action which is going to cost megabucks to argue. So if there is any doubt, he can avoid paying out and just say "sue me if you don't like it" and leave you p1ssing in the wind.

Aviation insurers have a reputation for paying out even in the most ludicrous cases of pilot negligence, but they won't pay out if they think the flight was illegal before it got off the ground. I have this from the horse's mouth - an underwriter.

FWIW, the FAA Chief Counsel has ruled on the JAA license acceptability under FAR 61.3 and it is not valid. I have the references :)

BUT the FAA don't recognise the "JAA" as one entityThe key word in 61.3 is issued. JAA does not issue licenses; they only mutually validate them. This was also confirmed by the FAA lawyer presentation at Luton in April (I was there).

Edited for grammar.

[Fuji Abound]

This, as you say, is a very old chestnut.

I dont think you are quite correct - I think the key words are both country and issued.

I also think that ultimately it doesnt really matter what teh CAAs or FAA interpretation is - unless of course that suites your case. :) On the one hand they are not going to set aside their interpretation, but if you dont like it, their interpretation renders itself liable to being test in the Courts.

In reality the whole point is academic because it is highly unlikely anyone would have the energy of resources to test anything like this in the Courts.

For the fun of the argument the Americans of course dont understand any other way of doing things than their own. They consider their own country to be a series of States that form the whole. Some of us may consider the United Kingdom to consist of a series of countries, principalites, provinces and dependencies that form the whole. Others may be more comfortable with this term referring to the British Isles. The United Emirates doubtless have their own view as to whether they are one country or something else.

Personally if the CAA told me I could fly to the CI in a N reg and I had that in writing that would do for me, but, God forbid any accidents I would probably copy the letter to my insurers and get them to confirm they were happy with the CAAs opinion.

[englishal]

This question was raised at an FAA meeting regarding N reg in Europe held at Luton Airport earlier this year (I was there too!). Present were several FAA representitives including an FAA lawyer and this question was raised. Their reply was FAR 61.3 is strictly enforced, and so as IO points out, the "country in which the certificate is issued" is therefore strictly enforced. The Chief Consul has issued interpretations on this and can be found on their website where someone has asked this very question with the example of a Belgium pilot flying an N reg on a Belgium JAA PPL cross borders.

To save the bother of finding it, here is an extract:

Section 61.3(a) (1) of the Federal regulations states "when [an] aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a current pilot license issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated may be used." A strict reading of the rule requires that the country of issuance of the pilot's license match the country in which the aircraft is operated. The FAA, through an interpretation, cannot extend the meaning of "country" under § 61.3 to include JAA member States. Additionally, Article 32a of The Chicago Convention requires that a pilot license match the state of registration of the aircraft, unless a validation is made. The FAA made a specific grant of validation respecting the Belgian license whereby a U.S.-registered aircraft may only be flown within Belgium by a Belgian licensed pilot. No JAA agreement can extend that specific validation.

[mm_flynn]

That is an old sleeping dog which AFAIK has never been clarified either way.
...

But insurance works the other way. The insurer has a duty (to his shareholders) to avoid paying out unless legally obliged, and anyway it is a civil action which is going to cost megabucks to argue. So if there is any doubt, he can avoid paying out and just say "sue me if you don't like it" and leave you p1ssing in the wind.
.....
I think you may be a bit harsh on the insurers. I would agree that things like No CofA, substantially over weight at takeoff (particularly for a takeoff accident), Un-registered aircraft, pilot with no licence or a substantially expired licence, etc. all run a high risk of the insurer walking away from the claim.

However, in a case where the insurer had agreed to insure on the basis of an FAA licence and the State where the crash occurs is not prosecuting for flight with an invalid licence, and the insurer needs to interpret a third country's legislation - I suspect they would accept it was a legitimate claim.

However, we will never know until people who have gone through this experience either confirm or deny what the insurers did. There are a number of cases where the facts would be substantially the same - such as NPPL pilots who have crashed in France (although I believe this is no longer a restriction) The BE90 that crashed at Blackbush (VP with an FAA licence but the Bermuda endorsement had expired), another BE90 (I think) in Ireland where the combination of licence, medical and rating didn't matchup (individually he had an IR, ME and was medically fit - but all from different countries)

As such, one can only try ones best to comply with the applicable laws and not just accept that if one state says something is ok that it is actually legal.

[gyrotyro]

During my enquiries regarding licence privileges yesterday I contacted the head of the DGAC licencing department in Paris and after explaining the situation and giving them details of my licence they sent me the following reply. (I have deleted the name of the sender to avoid the receiving spam)

"Dear xxxxx

I confirm you that the French CAA recognize your British JAR FCL PPL(A) for flying on the French territory with a N- registered aircraft.

Best regards,
xxxxx xxxxxx
Licensing Office of the French CAA"

Ps I was impressed by the fact that having given them the information in French they gave me the reply in English. I don't think the CAA would be so obliging.

[mm_flynn]

During my enquiries regarding licence privileges yesterday I contacted the head of the DGAC licencing department in Paris and after explaining the situation and giving them details of my licence they sent me the following reply. (I have deleted the name of the sender to avoid the receiving spam)

"Dear xxxxx

I confirm you that the French CAA recognize your British JAR FCL PPL(A) for flying on the French territory with a N- registered aircraft.

Best regards,
xxxxx xxxxxx
Licensing Office of the French CAA"

Ps I was impressed by the fact that having given them the information in French they gave me the reply in English. I don't think the CAA would be so obliging.


An excellent example of englishal's point. The French have no ability (broadly) under ICAO to determine who can and can not fly some foreign country's aircraft. They can choose to ignore the laws the foreign country imposes on its aircraft, but that is quite different from making it legal.

[Fuji Abound]

However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used


So this is what the FARs say.

So when the French say they recognise the JAR license are they not issuing the pilot with a license to operate in their airspace - in other words what is a license? If DGAC write to me to tell me this piece of paper is a license to operate in our airspace, is that not a license which has been issued by that country. I cant imagine the FAA taking issue. Why would they?

[englishal]

Well in theory you are not licensed to fly the aeroplane (being N reg and the FAA don't recognise your license in an N reg abroad). I am sure if you were ramp checked no one would care, but if an accident happened and insurance companies became involved then strictly by the letter of the law you have been flying illegally. I am sure insurance companies would exploit this to their advantage.

[IO540]

I agree; insurance is the real issue.

Regarding a prosecution, the licensing interactions are so complicated to unravel that I don't believe there is an airport ramp policeman in the world with the brain to work them out, and that assumes you can communicate with him in English or whatever...

I can imagine a policeman having a briefing pack telling him to check for a US or locally issues license if he sees an N-reg plane. If I was in enforcement that's what I would do.

For sure, those who got caught for flying with the wrong papers or not carrying a DME etc are not going to write about it on pprune; people rarely write about run-ins they have had. Not that I think anybody has ever been done for that kind of thing, anywhere in Europe. But that isn't the risk.

I can imagine if you p*ssed off the CAA in some blatent way then they would go after you specially - that is standard police behaviour.

[mm_flynn]

So this is what the FARs say.

If DGAC write to me to tell me this piece of paper is a license to operate in our airspace, is that not a license which has been issued by that country. I cant imagine the FAA taking issue. Why would they?

The FAA has already formally 'taken issue' with this logic in the form of a formal rulling from their Chief Counsel. the FAA being bothered to take enforcement action is another question. However, if a country asked them to, I am sure they would immediately take action - and win due to the clear opinion published.

[Whopity]

I have now spoken with the CAA and they have confirmed that the CI's are part of UK airspaceIn the Brest FIR LFRR! Perhaps someone should buy them a map!

[mm_flynn]

FIRs are not political boundaries. Whereas sovereign airspace is (after a sort).