N-Reg aircraft based in UK
 

Up until recently I was able to work in the UK on a UK based N registered aircraft on the basis of my FAA licence and rating. I also hold an EASA licence but without a rating on that aircraft type. Because of the passing of the recent August deadline regarding the use of non-EASA crew licences or validations (CAA IN 2016075) the operator of this aircraft now requires flight crew to be dual licenced and rated (i.e. FAA and EASA).

I contacted the CAA regarding this and had a couple of email exchanges, however, despite this, it is still not completely clear to me if I can continue legitimately flying the N-Reg aircraft without having to hold an EASA type rating. Understandably the aircraft operator does not want to risk the embarrassment of an awkward ramp check.

This has now resulted in my losing significant work, and I was wondering if there are other people in a similar position - and if there is any clear guidance anywhere on this that has enabled them to continue without having to repeat a type rating course (required if < 500hours on type).

The FAA are completely uninterested except to say that they will not co-operate with any attempt at enforcement.

I'd be grateful for any views or experience. I'm aware of a few recent posts but these tended to lean toward part NCC ops.

Thanks,

Unfortunately the regulation contains the word 'may'. I've heard the CAA are unlikely to play ball with that one, but the IAA are supposed to be very helpful. Perhaps a change of state of issue would solve your problem if the CAA say no.

Get an address in America . Can't force us pilots to an easa licence

Sadly not correct. It is where the operator is based that matters, not the aircraft or the pilot.

Ah , I assumed it was a US operator

this is irrelevant as far as part NCC is concerned, if the aircraft has its main base of operations in Europe then part NCC applies

CL300,

Please post the document that supports your post.

this is not troll bait, I am truly interested to see this written somewhere. As of now everything I have read, refers to only the operators base or offices.

Thanks
j

we are talking complex airplanes ok ?? i could have quote 800/2013 it is the same

EC N° 216/2008 Article 3 (h) 'operator' shall mean any legal or natural person, operating or proposing to operate one or more aircraft
Article 4
(c) registered in a third country and used by an operator established or residing in the community
(d) registered in a third country, and used by a third country operator into, within or out of the community

For N registered airplanes in Europe, mainly registered by trustees, they are de-facto controlled by european operators, they have been imported in Europe, they have adresses for fees to be sent in europe, etc...

If the aircraft commutes in and out , no issues, if the aircraft stays with a subsidiary or the real owner, or whatever, part NCC applies

one might escape the scheme, but by and large.... no way out..

my initial wording was cutting short airplane / operator, NCC for third countries registered planes really address the owner/operator/pilot, therefore the aircraft base.

CL300,

This is straight from the horses mouth.

EASA-NCC.eu - NCC 800
NCC/NCO Check
1. Is your aircraft registered in a EU State?
Yes/No (N registered will check NO)
2. Are you a private operator with a principle place of business inside of any EASA State?
Yes/No (if the operator is not based in the EU, they will check NO)

Result: No EASA documentation required.

In conclusion, according to the EASA website, if the operator is based somewhere other than the EU (i.e. the US, Asia, Canada, etc..) NCC does not apply. It does not matter where the owner lives, nor does it matter where the airplane spends it's time. All that they are concerned about is where the operator's principle base of business is.

g450cpt

So let's put it into really simple terms.

You have a Falcon on the N-reg requiring FAA licence.
The aircraft is owned (on the registration plate) but a person financed through Wells Fargo in the USA.
The 'owner' is actually a man who lives in the EU predominantly (but we all know that wherever the sunshine and the boat are.....)
The aircraft has permanent crew, who are pay rolled through a management company.
This management company is (for argument sake) Tag based in Farmborough. All invoices and flight planning services go through here.

Do the crew require the EASA licence endorsement?

BBJ Captain,

In your scenario the answer is yes, you have to comply with NCC, because the operator is based in Europe.

j

G450

Along the manuals i had done, i encountered all versions of the story, however, and bottom line, EASA people are not idiots, and a plane sitting in europe for the last two years or more, sending Eurocontrol invoices to whoever in Europe is considered as have it's principal place of operation in Europe.
Now , i cannot say that you cannot try to cheat the system or slip through it, if genuine, this is fine. Most of the time after a thorough audit, it was found most of the time that NCC was indeed applicable.
Again this is not a pain, as for N reg for example, one that operates outside USofA needs a proper MEL and an international procedures manual ( among other things), transition to NCC is painless.

The most impacted are and were the owner/pilot in its CJ or equivalent thing, that has NO clue about an escape route, a W&B or any form of paperwork and storage of it. The rest of the crowd is having a less steeper learning curve.

Part SPO are the next to suffer, and depending on the country of residence, the transition is sometimes quite tough.

CL300,

As I stated earlier (if the management company is based somewhere other than the EU), then why would a Eurocontrol invoice be mailed to someone inside of Europe when the management company (the operator responsible for paying that bill) is based outside of Europe. Lets take for example a N registered airplane being operated by a US based management company under FAA part 91 rules for an owner that has homes in different areas of the world. Let's say the owner wants to spend the summer in Spain. Under your scenario that aircraft would fall under NCC, which would also require the pilots to have EASA licenses. Using the web link that I previously posted, one can clearly see that is not the case. I agree that they should have proper MEL, IOM, SMS (most upstanding management companies have these) but the requirement for EASA licenses is not mandatory. BTW trying to obtain an EASA license for a FAA pilot is indeed painful.

g450cpt

If the owner spends the summer in Spain, he is not based there is he ? he had not imported the airframe did he ?
Part NCC assess planes / operators based Europe, even though they are N or what else registered.
In your case , if the airplane does not sit in its hangar in FAB or CEQ or anywhere else in Europe all year long , no worries, else NCC applies.
You can deny some facts or answer wrongly to the question, and i say again, one might slip through the net, for a while, usually insurance claim is the wake up call..

Hi all,

this conversation is very interesting and people is pulling out very good matters and example. My personal believe is that we are here talking about Part 91 operations for N-reg. as such, all the problems are from the holder of the LOA, as this is the main operator, if the LOA holder is not one of the pilots but it's a mgmt company that's quite simple. If the mgmt company is european part NCC applies. If the LOA Responsible person is EU/UK Resident Part NCC applies, if he is not EU/EK resident and there is no European/UK mgmt Company then Part-NCC does not apply.

As a very humble and personal consideration, if you have a job in Europe on an N-reg airplane you should know this amendment to EASA is 2 years old, you should have start your conversion way before as you are working in a country with the wrong licences, you know it could not be forever...nothing personal to anybody. I dream an aviation world in which there is not such painful conversion and problems, just one world license (probably it will remain a dream) but An American pilot flying in Europe any day is NOT different from an European pilot flying in US, regulations and procedures are NOT the same, hence my statement of the WRONG LICENCES for the country your are working in. one thing it to overfly or just make a single trip or landing, another story is to work permanently in a country without having a clue of a background of the country regulations and not complying to the very expensive and strict legal requirements we all have to follow in Europe or in US or anywhere we want to bring this example in.
Safe flights

You cannot imagine the number of people operating a "complex" airplane and being completely ignorant about the applicable regulations. The number of LOA being signed by the seller ( yes by the seller, or broker or whatever you call them), and not being updated. You cannot imagine the state of some AFM. The list is VERY long.
As far as safety is concerned ( if i read along your lines), one trip a year is safer than being based without the 'proper' licenses, this i doubt very much.
EASA and FAA have been talking about this for years, and the base line being taken is the fact that if you are paid to fly, then you should get a valid license for your operation area.
Will it make the flights safer ? hell no ! but it will tackle here and then some operations. by an large it is not very significant ( except for the individuals concerned of course).
I have 3 exemptions (or waivers) going on for clarification of documentation (2 regarding the use of LOA 95 vs 195, and one regarding the requested ground training on a specific case) planes are flying, legally although not having a definitive answer on these matters, and the 45 days waivers are edited since August.....
Good case to come i believe, will se..

I am not a national of any EASA state. So according to ICAO, EASA has no right to require me to have any other licence than the one required by the aircraft's state of registry.

I've brought this up several times and no one has ever commented on how I am wrong in believing this.

@mad2fly This is correct, however EASA can say that in order to operate an aircraft for compensation or for hire within EASA, you need to have an EASA license..

The only ICAO rule that allows a state to not recognise a license issued by the state of aircraft registry is:

1.2.4.2 Licences of Personnel - Article 32
The pilot of every aircraft and the other members of the operating crew of every aircraft engaged in
international navigation shall be provided with certificates of competency and licences issued or rendered
valid by the State in which the aircraft is registered. Each Contracting State reserves the right to refuse to
recognise, for the purpose of flight above its own territory, certificates of competency and licences granted to
any of its nationals by another Contracting State.

What ICAO rule allows this to apply to a national of a non-EASA state if they are flying for hire.

ICAO has desires, EASA rules...
The article you quote is for a flight arriving or departing, not doing A to A within EASALand.

The spirit of the regulation is to have people with EASA licenses IF the aircraft is based in EASA Land. All countries are sovereign over their territory, as a consequence, IF you are paid for driving a plane, and that you are based in EASA, THEN you need an EASA License, ELSE you are not in the scope of law.