Consultation on foreign aircraft
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The interesting thing about self regulating through insurance is that whilst that may be the case within the US, it is not the case for an FAA ME pilot outside the US (in the UK for example).
In those cases there is neither the statutory blunt instrument of annual check flights, nor monetary incentive through insurance only being available if current and with 100s of hours on type.
In those cases there is neither the statutory blunt instrument of annual check flights, nor monetary incentive through insurance only being available if current and with 100s of hours on type.
There is no FAA requirement to have insurance.
Coming from a nanny state you must wonder how it all works.
As most pilots are sensible when it comes to looking after their lives and houses, the answer is very well indeed.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The interesting thing about self regulating through insurance is that whilst that may be the case within the US, it is not the case for an FAA ME pilot outside the US (in the UK for example).
In those cases there is neither the statutory blunt instrument of annual check flights, nor monetary incentive through insurance only being available if current and with 100s of hours on type.
In those cases there is neither the statutory blunt instrument of annual check flights, nor monetary incentive through insurance only being available if current and with 100s of hours on type.
Perhaps this has occurred to the insurance companies. My insurers are AXA. They are not a small business and they employ actuaries who may know more about risk assessment than even the commentators on this forum. If they do not differentiate in premiums between the JAR regime and the FAA one for operations in Europe, perhaps, despite all your concerns, it is because there is no safety issue, as the Dft admitted in its original consultation.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no problem in demonstating my IR skills in a BFR and in fact this has previously been incorporated into the BFR when the instructor knows I hold an IR and intend to do a bit of touring. As EA points out its all down to common sense and if you are comfortable that the flight you are about to undertake is within your limits - if it is not then prehaps you need to visit an instructor for a couple of hours. I also undertake a full IPC every 2 years if I need one or not.
The other point in favour of demonstrating your instrument skills in a BFR or IPC is that you are not forking out thousands to line the pocket of a JAA Examiner and the flight school. A BFR normally lasts 1-1.5 hours at normal rates, an IPC will set you back 3-4 hours at, again, normal instructor rates. NOTE : An FAA examiner (and therefore a JAA exmainer if this option was adopted in the UK), not required!
The JAA IR is not only expensive to obtain but expensive to keep.
The other point in favour of demonstrating your instrument skills in a BFR or IPC is that you are not forking out thousands to line the pocket of a JAA Examiner and the flight school. A BFR normally lasts 1-1.5 hours at normal rates, an IPC will set you back 3-4 hours at, again, normal instructor rates. NOTE : An FAA examiner (and therefore a JAA exmainer if this option was adopted in the UK), not required!
The JAA IR is not only expensive to obtain but expensive to keep.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cirencester UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update on EASA - reference licences and IR
Catching up after long absence from the forum. One reason, I have been busy as a nominated expert on one of the EASA work groups, the oddly named MDM.032 (MDM=Multi Disciplinary Measure, which makes it sound like school detention). The initial work (since March 06) of MDM.032 was published as an Advance NPA in August and by the mid October deadline for responses we had c. 4,500 to read !
I just wanted to give you all a small insight into EASA and its thinking, and also the current state of play as regards licensing and ops. The proposed extension of EASA's scope to licensing and operations (known as COM 579) is currently being considered by the Aviation Working Party of the Council of Ministers, which meets again this Monday. This WP is made up of civil service reps from each member state (UK - DfT where the rep is well briefed by us), supported by the technical expertise of the respective National Aviation Authorities. The plan is for COM 579 to go to the EU Parliament in January 07.
A few of us in the light aviation community in Europe (I am a board member of Europe Air Sports, which alongside IAOPA and ECOGAS are the only pan European GA organisations officially recognised by the EU institutions) have spent the last few years, in my case as a volunteer, getting to know the people at EASA and working with them to try and develop a fresh approach to regulation. I think - cautiously - it is beginning to work. But the way the European system of regulation and rule making works, with the various institutions and processes, there is no guarantee that EASA's thinking will be the final determining factor in the outcome. That is evident in the present events around COM 579 where amendments are being proposed to the Basic Regulation (1592/2002) right now that generate the 'law of unintended consequences' because of a lack of detailed knowledge of our (light aviation) sector. We are doing what we can to inform, but it is not easy operating at a distance from the decision makers. The stage the process is at means that EASA no longer has a direct say in any proposed changes, though they may be consulted by the Commission and / or Council WP.
Anyway, enough background. If the Council and Parliament reach agreement on the text to extend EASA's role in early 2007, that will set what are called the Essential Requirements for Licensing and Ops. In other words the high level EU legal framework. The next stage is for EASA to draft the Implementing Rules (IRs - rather confusingly, in view of this thread's interest in Instrument Ratings) and supporting Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMCs) and Guidance Material (GM). Over the last year, probably as a result of collective representations on various matters, EASA decided to bring experts from the light aviation industry into the working groups that draft the IRs, AMCs and GM. They recognise we know a great deal about how things actually are and how they need to be, and EASA is keen to utilise our knowledge. So, as a so-called 'industry expert' (actually from a UK air sport governing body and chairman of NPLG Ltd) I am in a position to try and get a resolution to the FAA / JAA IR problem.
The MDM.032 group will be concerned with IRs, AMC and GM for the < 2000kg MTOM aircraft category, for which there will be a new licence based more than likely, at least for the most part, on the UK NPPL framework but with some extension of rights and limited to non-commercial operations. The original threshold proposed for this new licence was < 5700kg but that proved politically unacceptable to the Council, so a compromise was reached. It will be pan European for one thing. And the intention is that it should have an Instrument Rating, whereas the UK NPPL does not (yet). A separate group (FCL.001), including industry experts, will be dealing with the transfer of JAR FCL into EU Implementing Rules for aircraft > 2000kg MTOM and < 5700kg. My guess is that EASA will not want to take risks of political interference in that process and will want to make changes, after due consultation, after the transfer, not during it (read that bit carefully!). The Implementing Rules will go through a public consultation stage - currently forecast for late summer 2007 - and they have to be agreed by the Commission, but not by the Council or Parliament.
So, what does this all tell us? Mainly that the future Implementing Rules and associated support material will have a direct input, but not a majority vote, from the experts representing 'industry' i.e. the owners and pilots as well as GA support organisations. Secondly, EASA is bringing some fresh thinking to this whole contenious area of over-regulation. They recognise officially that the regulations have to be proportional to the risks, and in that we are mainly talking of risks to uninvolved third parties rather than pilots themselves (if operating non-commerically). That risk, historically, has been very low - with the UK CAA this last year in the Regulatory Review we put together a comprehensive overview of fatal accidents and identified those involving such third parties - a very small number indeed over 20 years. Thirdly, I believe, at this stage, there is a genuine desire on the part of EASA to find a more appropriate solution to the IR problem because they recognise that having an IR mitigates risk more than not having one, put quite simply. Lastly, the draft Implemeting Rules and thereby any proposal for a fresh look at Instrument Ratings for light aviation, will be subjected to public consultation by EASA before the final drafts go to the Commission for approval. So you will get a chance to inut your views.
Hope this is helpful
I just wanted to give you all a small insight into EASA and its thinking, and also the current state of play as regards licensing and ops. The proposed extension of EASA's scope to licensing and operations (known as COM 579) is currently being considered by the Aviation Working Party of the Council of Ministers, which meets again this Monday. This WP is made up of civil service reps from each member state (UK - DfT where the rep is well briefed by us), supported by the technical expertise of the respective National Aviation Authorities. The plan is for COM 579 to go to the EU Parliament in January 07.
A few of us in the light aviation community in Europe (I am a board member of Europe Air Sports, which alongside IAOPA and ECOGAS are the only pan European GA organisations officially recognised by the EU institutions) have spent the last few years, in my case as a volunteer, getting to know the people at EASA and working with them to try and develop a fresh approach to regulation. I think - cautiously - it is beginning to work. But the way the European system of regulation and rule making works, with the various institutions and processes, there is no guarantee that EASA's thinking will be the final determining factor in the outcome. That is evident in the present events around COM 579 where amendments are being proposed to the Basic Regulation (1592/2002) right now that generate the 'law of unintended consequences' because of a lack of detailed knowledge of our (light aviation) sector. We are doing what we can to inform, but it is not easy operating at a distance from the decision makers. The stage the process is at means that EASA no longer has a direct say in any proposed changes, though they may be consulted by the Commission and / or Council WP.
Anyway, enough background. If the Council and Parliament reach agreement on the text to extend EASA's role in early 2007, that will set what are called the Essential Requirements for Licensing and Ops. In other words the high level EU legal framework. The next stage is for EASA to draft the Implementing Rules (IRs - rather confusingly, in view of this thread's interest in Instrument Ratings) and supporting Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMCs) and Guidance Material (GM). Over the last year, probably as a result of collective representations on various matters, EASA decided to bring experts from the light aviation industry into the working groups that draft the IRs, AMCs and GM. They recognise we know a great deal about how things actually are and how they need to be, and EASA is keen to utilise our knowledge. So, as a so-called 'industry expert' (actually from a UK air sport governing body and chairman of NPLG Ltd) I am in a position to try and get a resolution to the FAA / JAA IR problem.
The MDM.032 group will be concerned with IRs, AMC and GM for the < 2000kg MTOM aircraft category, for which there will be a new licence based more than likely, at least for the most part, on the UK NPPL framework but with some extension of rights and limited to non-commercial operations. The original threshold proposed for this new licence was < 5700kg but that proved politically unacceptable to the Council, so a compromise was reached. It will be pan European for one thing. And the intention is that it should have an Instrument Rating, whereas the UK NPPL does not (yet). A separate group (FCL.001), including industry experts, will be dealing with the transfer of JAR FCL into EU Implementing Rules for aircraft > 2000kg MTOM and < 5700kg. My guess is that EASA will not want to take risks of political interference in that process and will want to make changes, after due consultation, after the transfer, not during it (read that bit carefully!). The Implementing Rules will go through a public consultation stage - currently forecast for late summer 2007 - and they have to be agreed by the Commission, but not by the Council or Parliament.
So, what does this all tell us? Mainly that the future Implementing Rules and associated support material will have a direct input, but not a majority vote, from the experts representing 'industry' i.e. the owners and pilots as well as GA support organisations. Secondly, EASA is bringing some fresh thinking to this whole contenious area of over-regulation. They recognise officially that the regulations have to be proportional to the risks, and in that we are mainly talking of risks to uninvolved third parties rather than pilots themselves (if operating non-commerically). That risk, historically, has been very low - with the UK CAA this last year in the Regulatory Review we put together a comprehensive overview of fatal accidents and identified those involving such third parties - a very small number indeed over 20 years. Thirdly, I believe, at this stage, there is a genuine desire on the part of EASA to find a more appropriate solution to the IR problem because they recognise that having an IR mitigates risk more than not having one, put quite simply. Lastly, the draft Implemeting Rules and thereby any proposal for a fresh look at Instrument Ratings for light aviation, will be subjected to public consultation by EASA before the final drafts go to the Commission for approval. So you will get a chance to inut your views.
Hope this is helpful
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David, many thanks for that, and for the vast amount of work that lies behind it.
It makes me a lot more hopeful for a sensible set of aviation rules in the future, although the process where experts are excluded from the ultimate decision making reminds me of my own dealings with the EU in a different activity.
It makes me a lot more hopeful for a sensible set of aviation rules in the future, although the process where experts are excluded from the ultimate decision making reminds me of my own dealings with the EU in a different activity.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't doubt that "VFR GA" has a secure future. It seems to be accepted that basic flying has a place in society, alongside all the other leisure activities.
Farm strip flying will always be safe, and beyond that is depends on what happens to all the airfields which currently accept GA at reasonable prices.
It is the IFR GA side of things which is uncertain. The N-reg scene is 99%about IFR - whether it is a little SEP or a business jet.
Farm strip flying will always be safe, and beyond that is depends on what happens to all the airfields which currently accept GA at reasonable prices.
It is the IFR GA side of things which is uncertain. The N-reg scene is 99%about IFR - whether it is a little SEP or a business jet.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(a) Pilot certificate. A person may not act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry, unless that person--
(1) ...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; and
So a UK licence holder can fly an N-reg in the UK, but not in other countries.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 70N90E
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always understood that you had to have 2 out of three from
1, Licence
2, A/C Reg
3, Airspace
Therefore if UK licence holder could fly N reg in UK FIR But not N reg in French FIR. But Could Fly G reg in US. Hope That makes sense!
1, Licence
2, A/C Reg
3, Airspace
Therefore if UK licence holder could fly N reg in UK FIR But not N reg in French FIR. But Could Fly G reg in US. Hope That makes sense!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "2 out of three rule" is an unhelpful approximation which leads to incorrect conclusions. For instance FAA in G-reg flying in France is OK (but doesn't fit with 2 from 3), UK-PPL in N-reg flying in USA not OK (but does fit 2 from 3).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2 out of 3 rule should be laid to rest, along with fifty other urban myths that generate a lot of internet bandwidth 
There are 3 things
a) country of aircraft reg
b) country of License issue (or Rating issue)
c) country of airspace
If a) and b) match then you have worldwide privileges, noncommercial, VFR and (if you have a matching IR) IFR also.
This is what drives the FAA PPL/IR + N-reg scene. One could do it equally with a Mongolian PPL/IR and a Mongolian reg plane, etc, but the FAA regime is the choice one because they run most of the known universe.
So we have a+b = OK. This is per ICAO and is the cornerstone of international aviation.
The other two possibilities i.e.
a+c
b+c
work sometimes but not through any treaty obligation. When they happen to work, it is through local concessions (or oversights) only. There are a few examples, the best known one is the UK CAA one:
Any ICAO PPL + G-reg is OK worldwide but any IFR privilege is OCAS only.
Some others are quite interesting but I won't post them because I don't have references, and they could become ever so useful one day.
I also don't think this stuff is necessarily in the respective national AIP, either.
There are 3 things
a) country of aircraft reg
b) country of License issue (or Rating issue)
c) country of airspace
If a) and b) match then you have worldwide privileges, noncommercial, VFR and (if you have a matching IR) IFR also.
This is what drives the FAA PPL/IR + N-reg scene. One could do it equally with a Mongolian PPL/IR and a Mongolian reg plane, etc, but the FAA regime is the choice one because they run most of the known universe.
So we have a+b = OK. This is per ICAO and is the cornerstone of international aviation.
The other two possibilities i.e.
a+c
b+c
work sometimes but not through any treaty obligation. When they happen to work, it is through local concessions (or oversights) only. There are a few examples, the best known one is the UK CAA one:
Any ICAO PPL + G-reg is OK worldwide but any IFR privilege is OCAS only.
Some others are quite interesting but I won't post them because I don't have references, and they could become ever so useful one day.
I also don't think this stuff is necessarily in the respective national AIP, either.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sec. 61.3
Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(a) Pilot certificate. A person may not act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry, unless that person--
(1) ...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; and
So a UK licence holder can fly an N-reg in the UK, but not in other countries.
Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(a) Pilot certificate. A person may not act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry, unless that person--
(1) ...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; and
So a UK licence holder can fly an N-reg in the UK, but not in other countries.
“FAR 61.3.2 Indicates that a “N” reg aircraft can be flown in a foreign country if the pilot holds a current pilot's licence issued by the country in which the aircraft is flown. Does that pilot’s licence have to be an ICAO recognised licence or can it be a national licence issued by that country which covers the aircraft type being flow”
And received a reply.
“This is an autoresponse message. We have received your support request and will be responding soon”
Having not heard anything by June I responded again with.
“I am still awaiting a response to this question. Put simply.
i.e, If I fly a "N" reg. aircraft solely within UK airspace, on a National Licence licence issued by that country, to fly that aircraft type, does the FAA have any objections.”
To which their FAA (Expert), their quote not mine, replied.
“I am forwarding your question on to our international division. They will send me the answer and I will forwarded it on to you. You should receive the answer by early next week.”
A further follow up with them in Nov. resulted in a final closing response of.
“We recommend that you contact one of our Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO). These offices are staffed to assist with airmen certification, aircraft operations, airworthiness issues, and enforcement and investigations.”
Which in other words meant we don’t want to be put on the spot here, lets elbow it somewhere to close this.
I can’t say that I’m surprised by their response but it was worth asking the question in case I got a positive reply. Being only too grateful to be able to still fly with a NPPL I didn’t want to rock the boat too much, but if someone really wanted to push this issue it would be interesting to see what the experts would say. At the end of the day the CAA say I am qualified to fly a certain type of aircraft under certain flying conditions in UK airspace and it would seem from the FAR’s that the FAA are happy for me to fly one of their same type “N” reg aircraft in the UK if I have a licence issued by that country, which I have, where’s the problem. Don’t tell me “I think I’ve already answered my own question”.
Yankee
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless the word "license" is defined as e.g. an ICAO license elsewhere, then I agree with you Yankee that you can fly an N-reg on an NPPL in UK airspace.
(Note that UK airspace in this context doesn't include the Channel Islands, and suprisingly it doesn't include the IOM which has its own rules).
I got a similar sort of reply from the FAA a while ago, confirming that the UK IMC Rating is valid in an N-reg. The CAA also said it's up to the FAA.
We can all dissect these replies, but it doesn't really matter because it's pretty obvious that if anybody went after you for an alleged breach, such an email would be a pretty good defence.
(Note that UK airspace in this context doesn't include the Channel Islands, and suprisingly it doesn't include the IOM which has its own rules).
I got a similar sort of reply from the FAA a while ago, confirming that the UK IMC Rating is valid in an N-reg. The CAA also said it's up to the FAA.
We can all dissect these replies, but it doesn't really matter because it's pretty obvious that if anybody went after you for an alleged breach, such an email would be a pretty good defence.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks mm_flynn
the issue here is whether 61.3 was written before JAA was set up and if the wording "pilot license issued by the country" can consequently be interpreted as a JAA license is required in JAA countries.
Besides FAA authorization, is an authorization from the local authorities also required ?
the issue here is whether 61.3 was written before JAA was set up and if the wording "pilot license issued by the country" can consequently be interpreted as a JAA license is required in JAA countries.
Besides FAA authorization, is an authorization from the local authorities also required ?
Sec. 61.3
Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(a) Pilot certificate. A person may not act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry, unless that person--
(1) ...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; and
So a UK licence holder can fly an N-reg in the UK, but not in other countries.
Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(a) Pilot certificate. A person may not act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry, unless that person--
(1) ...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; and
So a UK licence holder can fly an N-reg in the UK, but not in other countries.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ant1,
My limited understanding of JAA licensing is that they aren't Eurolicenses (in the sense an FAA licence is a Federal licence valid in all States of America) but a set of 'harmonised' licences issued by individual States (hence the CAA's involvement in UK pilot's JAA licences), so I suspect the interpretation that is correct would be a UK issue JAA licence is ok for UK airspace in an N-reg but not for French Airspace. However, I will need to defer to EuroLawyers who will no doubt provide a more substantive answer.
As to the second part of your question, it will be down to the local country's laws as to any restrictions placed on their pilot's operating other nation's aircraft in their airspace. In general though if you are going to operate N-reg - get an FAA license.
My limited understanding of JAA licensing is that they aren't Eurolicenses (in the sense an FAA licence is a Federal licence valid in all States of America) but a set of 'harmonised' licences issued by individual States (hence the CAA's involvement in UK pilot's JAA licences), so I suspect the interpretation that is correct would be a UK issue JAA licence is ok for UK airspace in an N-reg but not for French Airspace. However, I will need to defer to EuroLawyers who will no doubt provide a more substantive answer.
As to the second part of your question, it will be down to the local country's laws as to any restrictions placed on their pilot's operating other nation's aircraft in their airspace. In general though if you are going to operate N-reg - get an FAA license.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Besides FAA authorization, is an authorization from the local authorities also required ?
Unless the local airspace owner specifically prohibits something (which is very rare(++)) then the privileges are entirely down to the aircraft registry and the pilot's privileges.
This is why nobody in Europe can stop an N-reg plane flown by an FAA PPL/IR holder, IFR in the Class A airways. They would love to stop it (to support their gold plated JAA crap) but they can't.
For example they also can't (currently) stop single pilot jet operations - under FAA you don't generally need a type rating for under 5700kg and you can fly an N-reg Citation in the airways on an FAA PPL/IR. The Euro CAAs really hate this, and tell everybody so quite openly, but they can't stop it without a lot of potential repercussions.
I also don't believe one can read the FARs differently according to JAR or no-JAR. One has to read them exactly as they are written. So if you have
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
then that means exactly what it says. If Gary Glitter buys an island, with its own sovereign airspace (very hard to do these days) then he can issue you with a license (handwritten on the back of a fag packet) to fly in his airspace, and that license would satisfy the above FAA requirement for an N-reg.
Incidentally, is an NPPL for G-reg only, or doesn't it say? That's the first thing I would check.
My limited understanding of JAA licensing is that they aren't Eurolicenses (in the sense an FAA licence is a Federal licence valid in all States of America) but a set of 'harmonised' licences issued by individual States (hence the CAA's involvement in UK pilot's JAA licences), so I suspect the interpretation that is correct would be a UK issue JAA licence is ok for UK airspace in an N-reg but not for French Airspace. However, I will need to defer to EuroLawyers who will no doubt provide a more substantive answer.
I don't think the above would be applicable since the FARs use the word "country" and there is no way that UK and France could be regarded as one country.
(++) the common exception to this is the equipment carriage requirements. If the UK CAA mandates an ADF for IFR in CAS, then every plane has to have an ADF in this airspace in the UK, regardless of state of registry. But requirements for additional equipment carriage are a world away from prohibiting certain privileges granted by the registry State. There are I believe some other exceptions connected with max pilot age in jet transports but I know nothing about this.
Unless the local airspace owner specifically prohibits something (which is very rare(++)) then the privileges are entirely down to the aircraft registry and the pilot's privileges.
This is why nobody in Europe can stop an N-reg plane flown by an FAA PPL/IR holder, IFR in the Class A airways. They would love to stop it (to support their gold plated JAA crap) but they can't.
For example they also can't (currently) stop single pilot jet operations - under FAA you don't generally need a type rating for under 5700kg and you can fly an N-reg Citation in the airways on an FAA PPL/IR. The Euro CAAs really hate this, and tell everybody so quite openly, but they can't stop it without a lot of potential repercussions.
I also don't believe one can read the FARs differently according to JAR or no-JAR. One has to read them exactly as they are written. So if you have
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
then that means exactly what it says. If Gary Glitter buys an island, with its own sovereign airspace (very hard to do these days) then he can issue you with a license (handwritten on the back of a fag packet) to fly in his airspace, and that license would satisfy the above FAA requirement for an N-reg.
Incidentally, is an NPPL for G-reg only, or doesn't it say? That's the first thing I would check.
My limited understanding of JAA licensing is that they aren't Eurolicenses (in the sense an FAA licence is a Federal licence valid in all States of America) but a set of 'harmonised' licences issued by individual States (hence the CAA's involvement in UK pilot's JAA licences), so I suspect the interpretation that is correct would be a UK issue JAA licence is ok for UK airspace in an N-reg but not for French Airspace. However, I will need to defer to EuroLawyers who will no doubt provide a more substantive answer.
I don't think the above would be applicable since the FARs use the word "country" and there is no way that UK and France could be regarded as one country.
(++) the common exception to this is the equipment carriage requirements. If the UK CAA mandates an ADF for IFR in CAS, then every plane has to have an ADF in this airspace in the UK, regardless of state of registry. But requirements for additional equipment carriage are a world away from prohibiting certain privileges granted by the registry State. There are I believe some other exceptions connected with max pilot age in jet transports but I know nothing about this.