Using the Uk IMC rating in N reg aircraft
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Does the holder of a UK-issued JAR PPL and the CAA IMC Rating retain ALL his privileges (i.e. those he would have flying a
G-registered aircraft) when flying an N-registered aircraft, in UK
airspace? If not, which privileges remain? If there is any reduction
in privileges, what are they and what section of the ANO supports the reduction?"
G-registered aircraft) when flying an N-registered aircraft, in UK
airspace? If not, which privileges remain? If there is any reduction
in privileges, what are they and what section of the ANO supports the reduction?"
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The privileges a pilot may exercise by virtue of his licence are mitigated by various factors. One, for example, is the class and location of the airspace he is flying in. Another, is the type of aircraft he is operating. For example, if he is operating a PFA type, he may not operate in IMC or at night, not because of some reduction of his licence privileges, but because of the restrictions associated with a PFA type.
The FARs list the rules associated with operating an N-registered aircraft. That you can fly an N-reg type at all is because the FARs expressly permit flight in an N-reg aircraft by the holder of a licence issued by the territory in which he is flying. This right is granted, not by the ANO specifically, but by the country in which the aircraft is registered.
2D
A LINE OF COUNTERARGUMENT
There is a line of argument that goes along the lines "What have the FARs and the FAA got to do with anything?" If I hold a valid CAA/JAR licence, and the aircraft is a class/type that I my licence is valid for, and we are sitting here in England, what have the Americans got to do with it?"
In my opinion, the answer to that is:
An N registered aircraft may only fly at all because the state of registry has given it a certificate of registration and airworthiness. These only remain valid if the aircraft is maintained to the schedule set down in the FARs and operated by those whom the FARs approve in a manner set down by the FARs.
You can no more pick and choose which of the licencing FARs you go along with, than you can elect to maintain it in accordance with UK maintenance schedules. The FARs govern the operation of an N-reg aircraft, because to fly contrary to the FARs is to void the registry and/or airworthiness of the aircraft. The CAA will not approve any activity that causes a foreign aircraft to operate in an unapproved condition inside UK airspace.
The same principle would apply to a G-reg aircraft. You could not take one to the US an holiday and start to forget about 50 hour checks, since you were no longer in the UK.
The FARs list the rules associated with operating an N-registered aircraft. That you can fly an N-reg type at all is because the FARs expressly permit flight in an N-reg aircraft by the holder of a licence issued by the territory in which he is flying. This right is granted, not by the ANO specifically, but by the country in which the aircraft is registered.
2D
A LINE OF COUNTERARGUMENT
There is a line of argument that goes along the lines "What have the FARs and the FAA got to do with anything?" If I hold a valid CAA/JAR licence, and the aircraft is a class/type that I my licence is valid for, and we are sitting here in England, what have the Americans got to do with it?"
In my opinion, the answer to that is:
An N registered aircraft may only fly at all because the state of registry has given it a certificate of registration and airworthiness. These only remain valid if the aircraft is maintained to the schedule set down in the FARs and operated by those whom the FARs approve in a manner set down by the FARs.
You can no more pick and choose which of the licencing FARs you go along with, than you can elect to maintain it in accordance with UK maintenance schedules. The FARs govern the operation of an N-reg aircraft, because to fly contrary to the FARs is to void the registry and/or airworthiness of the aircraft. The CAA will not approve any activity that causes a foreign aircraft to operate in an unapproved condition inside UK airspace.
The same principle would apply to a G-reg aircraft. You could not take one to the US an holiday and start to forget about 50 hour checks, since you were no longer in the UK.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knots and Knitting
Bill
Come along to the LFOTM this week and we can have a sensible group discussion abut this with our two CFII instructors.
My opinion at this point is that these discussions are twisting the regulations beyond belief! Each set of regs can only be expected to be consistent within its self, you cannot expect to get consistent regulations if you mix UK and US regs and treat it as a whole.
My view is that for the US let you fly in UK airspace and the UK let you fly in US aircraft. If you have both licences you should choose which set to apply.
This argument here seems daft to me, as we have a situation that with a US PPL you can fly at night, with a UK PPL and a night rating you can fly at night. Independently they make sense and you can fly at night.
The convoluted arguements expressed here hinge on the fact that a UK classification of night flying being "Instrument" is then applied back into the US regs ("If instrument you need an IR").
Get some common sense here! If both sets of regs let you do something (i.e. Visual Flying at Night) lets not invent convoluted hybrid rules to try and argue otherwise. Choose which set to apply, they were never designed to be consistent, together, just independently.
Ian
Come along to the LFOTM this week and we can have a sensible group discussion abut this with our two CFII instructors.
My opinion at this point is that these discussions are twisting the regulations beyond belief! Each set of regs can only be expected to be consistent within its self, you cannot expect to get consistent regulations if you mix UK and US regs and treat it as a whole.
My view is that for the US let you fly in UK airspace and the UK let you fly in US aircraft. If you have both licences you should choose which set to apply.
This argument here seems daft to me, as we have a situation that with a US PPL you can fly at night, with a UK PPL and a night rating you can fly at night. Independently they make sense and you can fly at night.
The convoluted arguements expressed here hinge on the fact that a UK classification of night flying being "Instrument" is then applied back into the US regs ("If instrument you need an IR").
Get some common sense here! If both sets of regs let you do something (i.e. Visual Flying at Night) lets not invent convoluted hybrid rules to try and argue otherwise. Choose which set to apply, they were never designed to be consistent, together, just independently.
Ian
A LINE OF COUNTERARGUMENT
Perhaps we should have a numbering scheme to save typing?
You can no more pick and choose which of the licencing FARs you go along with, than you can elect to maintain it in accordance with UK maintenance schedules.
Art 8(1) Subject to paragraph (2) an aircraft shall not fly unless there is in force in respect
thereof a certificate of airworthiness duly issued or rendered valid under the law of
the country in which the aircraft is registered or the State of the operator, and any
conditions subject to which the certificate was issued or rendered valid are complied
with.
For a UK citizen, the important aspect is that if you don't maintain the aircraft according to FAA requirements, you're in breach of Article 8 of the ANO.
Art 14 similarly delegates the equipment requirements. Art 76 delegates the requirement for carriage of documents. And so on...
That sort of delegation is required for compliance with the Chicago Convention.
But Art 21(3) is slightly different. It says that you must have a licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the state of registry or under the ANO.
That's rather different. It's making explict provision for a UK licence which is not granted or rendered valid by the state of registry to be used. If you're suggesting the aircraft must be flown in accordance with the law of the state of registry in every respect, including their personnel licensing rules, what possible reason would there be for providing an alternative?
Carbonfibre-based lifeform
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...reminded me of the line about the monks who have spent so much time together and have such a limited repertoire of jokes that all one of them needs to do is say the joke number to get the rolling in the aisles...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My own belief is that Art 21(3) does not underwrite any particular licence privilege. It simply establishes the acceptability of a UK-issued licence for commanding aircraft registered in other countries. This accords similarly with FAR 61.3(a) which permits an N reg to be commanded either by an FAA licence holder, or by the holder of a licence issued by the state in which the flight is to be conducted.
So far so good, both parties with an interest in N-reg aircraft agree that a UK pilot can fly the aircraft.
Where we differ is that I find nothing in either the ANO or the FARs to suggest that the acceptance of this principle in some way waivers all other elements of Part 61.
You would presumably acknowledge that the FAA see things in these terms. FAR 61.3(a) would be substantially redundant otherwise since the FAA believes that the omission of this clause would entirely remove the right of a CAA licence holder to fly an aircraft of N-registry in the UK.
On your Article 8 point. Compliance with the FARs is an explicit condition on which the aircraft's certificate of Registration and Airworthiness remain valid.
2D
So far so good, both parties with an interest in N-reg aircraft agree that a UK pilot can fly the aircraft.
Where we differ is that I find nothing in either the ANO or the FARs to suggest that the acceptance of this principle in some way waivers all other elements of Part 61.
You would presumably acknowledge that the FAA see things in these terms. FAR 61.3(a) would be substantially redundant otherwise since the FAA believes that the omission of this clause would entirely remove the right of a CAA licence holder to fly an aircraft of N-registry in the UK.
On your Article 8 point. Compliance with the FARs is an explicit condition on which the aircraft's certificate of Registration and Airworthiness remain valid.
2D
Last edited by 2Donkeys; 29th Jul 2004 at 19:20.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2donkeys.
So, for example, if I am flying a single engined N-Reg on my FAA airmans certificate over a UK city, I don't have to comply with UK-CAA glide clear regulations?
The CAA are quite clear on this subject, and as IO540 indicates, they will confirm that the governing legislation for the use of an N-reg aircraft are the FARs- even in UK airspace.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No.
FAR 91.703(2) requires the pilot of an N reg to comply with the Rules of the Air in force when operating in a Foreign Territory.
FAR 91.703(3) requires the crew to comply with the remainder of (in this case) Part 91 to the extent that it is not incompatible with ICAO or local rules
FAR 91.703(2) requires the pilot of an N reg to comply with the Rules of the Air in force when operating in a Foreign Territory.
FAR 91.703(3) requires the crew to comply with the remainder of (in this case) Part 91 to the extent that it is not incompatible with ICAO or local rules
My own belief is that Art 21(3) does not underwrite any particular licence privilege. It simply establishes the acceptability of a UK-issued licence for commanding aircraft registered in other countries.
Where we differ is that I find nothing in either the ANO or the FARs to suggest that the acceptance of this principle in some way waivers all other elements of Part 61.
The issue of legality and enforcement does start to blur a little here. It's obviously worth making a distinction between what is legal and what you can get away with in the context of national law. But if US law happens to be drafted in a way that has extraterritorial effect, but the US is not interested in applying that law extraterritorially, is it really meaningful to say that a UK citizen in the UK is acting illegally if that law is broken.
You would presumably acknowledge that the FAA see things in these terms. FAR 61.3(a) would be substantially redundant otherwise since the FAA believes that the omission of this clause would entirely remove the right of a CAA licence holder to fly an aircraft of N-registry in the UK. If we accept your interpretation of Article 21(3), 61.3(a) is entirely superfluous.
Here's a related issue. 21(3) requires a licence granted or rendered valid by the US for aerial work or public transport. Would 61.3(a) permit a UK CPL/ATPL to be used within the UK?
On your Article 8 point. Compliance with the FARs is an explicit condition on which the aircraft's certificate of Registration and Airworthiness remain valid.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Rubric requires compliance with applicable parts.
More generally though, Part 61 (esp 61.3) and 91 (700 series) are clearly and unambiguously drafted from the perspective that the USA asserts its right to control the basis on which N-registered aircraft are operated whilst outside the USA - irrespective of the crew licence on which the flight is conducted.
We might disagree as to whether this is practical, enforceable, desirable or otherwise, but it is exceptionally clear.
MY OPINION, is that I believe that the UK CAA would defer to the FAA on such points, should a case arise, in a way that other third party CAA's might not. Such statements as they have made in public would tend to support this view.
Like so many Pprune discussions on such points of fine detail, these things are only ever really tested in court, or by insurers. A court case is highly unlikely unless a very specific complaint is brought. An insurance glitch is much more likely. You take a view and roll the dice.
I go with the cautious route, others differ. If we all agreed, Pprune would become as dull as the average air law argument.
More generally though, Part 61 (esp 61.3) and 91 (700 series) are clearly and unambiguously drafted from the perspective that the USA asserts its right to control the basis on which N-registered aircraft are operated whilst outside the USA - irrespective of the crew licence on which the flight is conducted.
We might disagree as to whether this is practical, enforceable, desirable or otherwise, but it is exceptionally clear.
MY OPINION, is that I believe that the UK CAA would defer to the FAA on such points, should a case arise, in a way that other third party CAA's might not. Such statements as they have made in public would tend to support this view.
Like so many Pprune discussions on such points of fine detail, these things are only ever really tested in court, or by insurers. A court case is highly unlikely unless a very specific complaint is brought. An insurance glitch is much more likely. You take a view and roll the dice.
I go with the cautious route, others differ. If we all agreed, Pprune would become as dull as the average air law argument.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too think that insurance is the real issue.
The worst the CAA can do is a prosecution, and this is exceedingly unlikely unless somebody does something overt, repeated, but most importantly provocative. For example, one idiot of a CFI explained to me how he could run a flying school using N-reg planes, and how he could do the same using Private CofA planes. I didn't believe his "workarounds" would work and the CAA would certainly jump on something like that once the word got out (which, in the typical GA training establishment atmosphere, would happen immediately). Also anything involving a loss of AOC revenue gets jumped on severely...
Getting back to insurance, surely making a full disclosure of the intended use to one's insurer is good enough. They have the best paid lawyers in the business.
I have put various matters to my insurer (typically stuff concerning recovery of expenses on a business flight) and usually they just say "OK".
The worst the CAA can do is a prosecution, and this is exceedingly unlikely unless somebody does something overt, repeated, but most importantly provocative. For example, one idiot of a CFI explained to me how he could run a flying school using N-reg planes, and how he could do the same using Private CofA planes. I didn't believe his "workarounds" would work and the CAA would certainly jump on something like that once the word got out (which, in the typical GA training establishment atmosphere, would happen immediately). Also anything involving a loss of AOC revenue gets jumped on severely...
Getting back to insurance, surely making a full disclosure of the intended use to one's insurer is good enough. They have the best paid lawyers in the business.
I have put various matters to my insurer (typically stuff concerning recovery of expenses on a business flight) and usually they just say "OK".
