Air space, licences and aeroplane regs

[Mad Girl]

Hi all - I hope you're the right people to ask.....

When I sat Air Law...... I remember there being something saying that to fly legally 2 of the following criteria MUST be the same.... Registration of Aeroplane, Country of pilots licence issue, and the airspace in which you're flying...

i.e. A UK issued JAR PPL, with a G reg aeroplane, in French, German etc airspace is ok....

But what's the case concerning a UK issued JAR PPL, D reg aeroplane, French airspace??

From what I remember that isn't allowed............ but has that changed with JAR and EASA, or do sovereign states still exist in Europe?????.....

Confused!!!

[scherzo]

A JAA licence, as when everything european is universal across Europe. You can fly any class/tytpe for which you have a rating in any JAA State.
Now go and see how you get on explaining that one the DGAC (French CAA!) (The french have also said that they would not issue a JAA FI rating takenin the UK - illegal but they get away with it!)

[Jumbo Driver]

... and what about a UK (not JAR) PPL, a D-reg aircraft and French airspace ... ?

Sorry MG, more questions and no answers ... ! I'm not even sure where to look to find out !!


JD

[Duchess_Driver]

IIRC the problem is more to do with N reg.....

JAA licence, JAA Aircraft and JAA Airspace = OK

JAA licence, N Aircraft in JAA Airspace <> OK

Could be wrong.

[Cobalt]

When I sat Air Law...... I remember there being something saying that to fly legally 2 of the following criteria MUST be the same.... Registration of Aeroplane, Country of pilots licence issue, and the airspace in which you're flying...

not true.

There is only one thing that is univerally true: To fly an aircraft registered in country A you need a licence issue by country A or accepted by country A.

Example: To fly an N-reg you need a FAA licence or a licence accepted by the FAA. For flying an N-reg in country B, the FAA accepts a licence of that country.

Other example: To fly a G-Reg (day VFR) anywhere, the CAA accepts any ICAO licence. So you can fly a G-Reg on a US licence in France (good counterexample for the "two-out-of-three" rule)

Other example: To fly a D-Reg anywhere, the German LBA does not accept any non-JAR licence. So you can't fly a D-reg in Germany on a US licence.

Airspace has nothing to do with it - only which licence the country accepts for flying its aircraft, and these rules vary country by country.

With JAR, however, all JAR countries accept without any further formality all JAR licences. So you can fly a D-reg on a UK JAR licence (not NPPL) anywhere in the world, since the licence is accepted by the German authorities. Again, airspace has nothing to do with it.

[Mad Girl]

With JAR, however, all JAR countries accept without any further formality all JAR licences. So you can fly a D-reg on a UK JAR licence (not NPPL) anywhere in the world, since the licence is accepted by the German authorities. Again, airspace has nothing to do with it.

So to try and clarify this...

A UK issued JAR licence holder could fly a D reg aircraft anywhere in JAR land....

But, for example, the holder of an old UK PPL/CPL couldn't??? (To answer JD's further question)

[Cobalt]

UK issued JAR licence holder could fly a D reg aircraft anywhere in JAR land....

no, anywhere in the world. The German authorities set the rules who can fly German aircraft, and they accept ("validate") any JAR licence for this purpose. Airspace has nothig to do with it. This validation is automatic, ie, no paperwork is required, and applies to all JAR licences and all JAR ratings.

But, for example, the holder of an old UK PPL/CPL couldn't??? (To answer JD's further question)

Day VFR only, again anywhere in the world. This is due to an old (pre-JAR) EU reg that all European countries accept ("validate") each other's PPLs for day VFR. Again no paperwork is required. The law actually says a PPL, so you are restricted to privae ops even if you have a CPL.

But an FAA PPL holder, for example, couldn't.


All the above is according to German law (para. 28 and 28a LuftVZO).

The equivalent regulations in the UK ar ANO 26 (4)(b) (validation of all JAR licence for use on G-Reg aircraft) and ANO 26 (4)(a) (validation of all ICAO licences for private day VFR operations). Note that the UK allows any ICAO licence for this, but Germany only accepts EU issued licences. You can read them up in CAP393.

[bookworm]

Airspace has nothing to do with it - only which licence the country accepts for flying its aircraft, and these rules vary country by country.

I would take issue with that. Airspace has everything to do with it. The country in whose airspace you are flying has sovereignty over that airspace and can make whatever rules it pleases subject to its international obligations. Those international obligations (under the Chicago Convention) mean that it must grant foreign registered aircraft the right to perform international air navigation based on flight crew licences issued or rendered valid by the state of registry. If it chooses to make more permissive regulations than the state of registry does, it's difficult to see what jurisdiction the state of registry would have, particularly if the crew were not nationals of the state of registry.

[Cobalt]

Those international obligations (under the Chicago Convention) mean that it must grant foreign registered aircraft the right to perform international air navigation based on flight crew licences issued or rendered valid by the state of registry.

Article 5 of the convention says (amongst other things)

Each contracting State agrees that all aircraft of the other contracting States, being aircraft not engaged in scheduled international air services shall have the right, subject to the observance of the terms of this Convention, to make flights into or in transit non-stop across its territory and to make stops for non-traffic purposes without the necessity of obtaining prior permission...

So you are right that countries have to grant overflight and landing rights as long as the other rules are adhered to.

If it chooses to make more permissive regulations than the state of registry does, it's difficult to see what jurisdiction the state of registry would have, particularly if the crew were not nationals of the state of registry.

Article 32 of the Chicago Convention says

a) 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 licenses issued or rendered valid by the State in which the aircraft is registered.

That means that the state of registry has not only the right to licence the pilots, but the obligation to ensure the crew has one of its licences or one validated by it.

So I don't think the convention helps here at all.

And even if there is the the theoretical possiblity that, say, Turkey has something in their air law allowing you to fly a Kasakhstan registered aircraft on an Algerian licence, I would really like to see that regulation...
you need just one example to prove me wrong.

[bookworm]

That means that the state of registry has not only the right to licence the pilots, but the obligation to ensure the crew has one of its licences or one validated by it.

If the crew wishes to exercise its rights under Article 5 to perform international air navigation, yes. But if the state in whose airspace the aircraft is flying says "regardless of the state of registration's rules, we permit you to fly any aircraft with a licence of the following type" then the crew's compliance with Article 32 is irrelevant, as is the concept of "international air navigation".

And even if there is the the theoretical possiblity that, say, Turkey has something in their air law allowing you to fly a Kasakhstan registered aircraft on an Algerian licence, I would really like to see that regulation...
you need just one example to prove me wrong.

There's an example much closer to home. UK law permits the holder of a JAA PPL issued in any JAA state to fly a foreign-registered aircraft for private purposes (ANO Art 26(3)). The FARs render valid only licences issued by the local authority.

"However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a current pilot license issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated may be used" (14CFR 61.3(a)(1)).

Thus the laws are potentially in conflict when it comes to the use of a non-UK-issued JAA PPL to fly an N-reg in the UK. If I'm a UK citizen (er, sorry, subject) with no intention of getting an FAA licence, why should I care if my use of an aeroplane that happens to have an 'N' painted on the side in compliance with UK law happens to violate the law of a foreign state?

[Cobalt]

Ah, I see it now - thanks for the correction.

Thus the laws are potentially in conflict when it comes to the use of a non-UK-issued JAA PPL to fly an N-reg in the UK. If I'm a UK citizen (er, sorry, subject) with no intention of getting an FAA licence, why should I care if my use of an aeroplane that happens to have an 'N' painted on the side in compliance with UK law happens to violate the law of a foreign state?

Because Aircraft have the "nationality" of the state of registry and you should obey their rules as well as ours... a moot point in the case of N regs as both UK and US law allow you to fly in the UK on a UK issued PPL. And probably moot anyway as nobody checks.

[bookworm]

Because Aircraft have the "nationality" of the state of registry and you should obey their rules as well as ours...

I've certainly heard that put as a counterargument. However, as you point out, as with many issues of jurisdiction and conflict of law, what is "legal" tends to come down to who cares about it and how big their army is.