Are the EASA dual-papers anti-N-reg proposals enforceable?

[peterh337]

I have been wondering about this.

Imagine a law was passed requiring you to wear pink underpants while riding a bike.

There is no doubt such a law could be passed, in theory. Or it may have been passed centuries ago and never repealed. There are loads of laws like that.

It could not be enforced, due to irrelevance.

Same way as you cannot be prosecuted for filing a false tax return if no tax is actually due.

Under ICAO, the EASA-mandated dual papers will mostly be invalid. For example, N-reg requirements for non-US flight are in FAR 61.3 and that means a UK issued JAA/EASA PPL/IR will be valid UK airspace only. The moment you cross the FIR boundary into say France, the JAA/EASA papers will be invalid under ICAO. They will be worth no more than a certificate in taxidermy.

Obviously, if true, this would have huge implications for a lot of aviation regs. For example, enforcing the requirement to carry an ADF for enroute IFR in CAS. It is an irrelevance, and any half competent lawyer would be able to demonstrate that. I wonder if this is why the UK CAA has never enforced this stuff.

[achimha]

I think there are two main legal principles in play here:

1. The airspace is owned by the state and solely its jurisdiction applies.

2. ICAO regulations are not valid law but instead ICAO members commit themselves to implementing conforming law more or less.

EASA/EU directives are valid law in all EU countries. Even if you fly N-reg, US law shouldn't matter as long as you're overflying EASA territory but EASA countries will treat your N-reg according to the valid law which in theory should be ICAO conforming. In reality, countries violate the ICAO agreements all the time.

[peterh337]

Yes; I was thinking of the UK specifically (since that is the only place I know anything about).

Maybe there is an EU country where they will prosecute "trivia".

But in the UK it seems to be difficult. So while your Point 1 is absolutely right, will the political will be present to force this? The resulting prosecution would be a bit of a farce - like a prosecution of a pilot flying IFR without an ADF.

I suppose I come back to the insurance=void angle, which is why I did the JAA IR in the first place. If an insurer simply refuses to pay out because of that, he doesn't have to provide any justification, and you have exactly 2 options:

1) Sue him (and he will have awfully good lawyers)

2) P*ss in the wind :)

[Fuji Abound]

A prosecution is unlikely in circumstances following an insurance claim and therefore far more likely following, say, an n reg flight coming off alirways. The pilot cant argue the toss as to whether or not he was in class a airspace, unlike whether or not he was imc or held a imcr, so the state need only test whether his faa ir was adequate. I also doubt they would bother.

[Whopity]

The moment you cross the FIR boundary into say France, the JAA/EASA papers will be invalid under ICAONo they will be invalid under FAR-AIM.

I wonder what will happen to all the US airline pilots who live in Europe!

[mm_flynn]

No they will be invalid under FAR-AIM.

I wonder what will happen to all the US airline pilots who live in Europe!
Nothing as the rules only require dual papers if the operator is EASA based not the pilot. US airlines operating under a US operators certificate are clearly not EASA based. The fun and games starts below that (eg. US headquartered company with jet based in London serving the EMEA business units - where is the 'Operator')

Also, ICAO seems to define that the State of Registry decides the rules as to who can operate its aircraft and under what circumstances. The State of Airspace can then impose additional restrictions which must be complied with. It is less obvious where the State of Airspace allows less restrictive rules if that prevents a prosecution by the State of Registry.

[englishal]

The problem is the wording is not very clear. I see we're talking about EASA based operator but in all the documents I have read before, it does not say EASA based. It says EU based.

How does this then affect other EASA members who are not in the EU ! Examples being Norway, Isle of Man, Channel Islands etc...

What is the definition of Operator? Clearly this cannot mean "pilot" for the reasons mentioned above. Who determins who is an operator?

Etc.....

[peterh337]

No they will be invalid under FAR-AIM.

Correct, but isn't that the basis of ICAO i.e. a license matching the state of registry is what gives you the privileges? The SofR principally determines what privileges (if any) a given set of papers gives you.

I wonder what will happen to all the US airline pilots who live in Europe!

Everybody used to say that AOC holders were exempted. Isn't that in the regs? If not, then somebody is in for a whole lot of fun.

US airlines operating under a US operators certificate are clearly not EASA based

I am sure there are plenty of foreign operators which have an operating base in the EU. Basically, this would mean that e.g. Delta would have to be really careful to not open any kind of admin facility in the EU.

Also, ICAO seems to define that the State of Registry decides the rules as to who can operate its aircraft and under what circumstances.

That's also true, and makes a further mockery of the EASA regs.

I think the regs were written by a load of pub lawyers.