Flying a N-reg. a/c with a UK licence?

[FlyingGoat]

Are there any restrictions with flying a N-reg. SEP a/c, based in the UK, with a UK licence, either in the UK or abroad?

Would appreciate any feedback.

[BackPacker]

Yes. The restriction is you can't do it.

To fly a G-reg on an FAA license is no problem because the UK does an implicit validation of any ICAO license, essentially up to vanilla PPL privileges. But the other way around, flying an N-reg on a non-FAA license is not possible. You need to have your ICAO license explicitly validated, upon which the FAA will issue you an FAA "based on" license.

This is very easy to arrange when you are in the States, but is virtually impossible to arrange from elsewhere, since it requires a visit to an FSDO.

There's ample information about this on this forum. Search for "piggyback" or "91.75" and you should find any information you need.

[IO540]

Are there any restrictions with flying a N-reg. SEP a/c, based in the UK, with a UK licence, either in the UK or abroad?Check out FAR 61.3.

You can fly an N-reg outside the USA if you have a license issued by the owner of the airspace in which you are flying.

So if you have a UK issued license (JAA or not) you can fly it in the UK only.

If you wanted to fly it to France you would need a French issued license.

I can dig out references to FAA chief counsel statements supporting this, if you send me an email (not a PM).

IOW, the only practical way to fly an N-reg around Europe is with an FAA license (standalone or 61.75).

If you want to fly IFR you need an IR which is on the license on which you are then flying, so e.g. a JAA IR (on a UK issued PPL) is only good for IFR in UK airspace, even if you have an FAA PPL.

[BackPacker]

Interesting.

I wonder what's going to happen if in a few years time our licenses are no longer issued by countries but by a pan-European organization (EASA)...

They should have said "issued or rendered valid".

[FlyingGoat]

Thanks, guys, that's much appreciated.

[IO540]

They should have said "issued or rendered valid".They should have but they didn't :)

I first recall reading this debate in Usenet, c. 2003... it was only in 2010 (thanks to Englishal here) that the two FAA rulings (ref SoCal above) were discovered and that settled it. Prior to that, there were numerous opinions from various FSDOs which went one way or the other.

[Mike Cross]

Hmmm......

Since when did the US have jurisdiction in UK airspace?

Art 61(b) of the ANO is what allows it.
Requirement for appropriate licence to act as member of flight crew of aircraft registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom
61 A person must not act as a member of the flight crew which must by or under this Order be carried in an aircraft registered in a country other than the United Kingdom unless:
(a) in the case of an aircraft flying for the purpose of commercial air transport, public transport or aerial work, that person is the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or the State of the operator; or
(b) in the case of an aircraft on a private flight, that person is the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or under this Order, and the CAA does not give a direction to the contrary.


I read it as saying that you can fly an aircraft of any nationality on a Private Flight using a licence granted under the ANO. Since the ANO is UK legislation it has no effect in granting you similar privileges in anyone else's airspace.

[IO540]

This is a bit of a grey area which TMK has never been settled.

From the prosecution POV it is true that the UK CAA (not the FAA) would prosecute an alleged breach in UK airspace, and they could hardly succeed if no UK law was broken. I know that under ICAO they are supposed to prosecute if requested to do so by another CAA (as happened to me over that French TRA bust in 2003) but IMHO they still can't actually do anything unless a UK law was broken.

However from the insurance POV it would IMHO be based on the state of registry requirements (but I am not a lawyer and have never seen any reports in this area). Maybe an aviation lawyer has come across this?

[mm_flynn]

All part of ICAO back scratching.
I have not looked, but suspect the ICAO agreement obligations include

1 each state will define what licences are valid in their own aircraft
2 each state will allow foreign aircraft to be operated in their airspace based on the state of registry's rules for licence validation/issue (so long as the licences are ICAO compliant)
3 each state will allow their aircraft to be operated within a second state in accordance with the second state's licensing laws


Probably across 2 pages of text!

[bookworm]

In exactly the same manner that reciprocal approval is granted in 61.3(b) allowing foreign registered aircraft (e.g. G reg) to be flown in the US by a FAA cert holder provided that the FAA cert is rendered valid by the foreign authority (UK CAA).

Eh? There's no requirement for validation by the foreign authority. A simple FAA certificate suffices.

61.3 (b) Required pilot certificate for operating a foreign-registered aircraft. No person may serve 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 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.

Of course operation without a valid foreign licence/certificate might be a violation of foreign law. But can you imagine a US citizen facing extradition to the UK to face the charge that he flew a G-reg aircraft in California without a UK licence? ;)