EASA proposal to stop N-reg

[Fuji Abound]

Didn't someone post once that the FAA treat Europe as one airspace.

Yes, I think that was IO. I think he is correct, after all they now think Europe is like America except it is governed from Brussels instead of Washington - and they are probably right. They cant imagine how Scotland for example can have any degree of sovreignty - after all they have towns bigger than Scotland.

When we are all licensed by EASA they might even be closer to the truth.

Dont forget that a FAA license doesn't need an expensive renewal every few years.

Except my CAA license was issued for life, until of course the politicians forgot what the word meant - what a bunch of half wits. How simple would it have been to make it a condition of signing up to EASA that existing life licenses would be validated by EASA as such. In the fullnes of time they would work their way out of the system.

[S-Works]

Myself and another forumite wrote to all of the European Aviation agencies and asked if a pilot with a JAA Licence and a JAA IR could fly in their airspace in an N reg aircraft.

The answer from everyone was yes. So a pilot with a UK JAA licence with a JAA IR may fly an N Reg aicraft airways on the JAA licence anywhere in Europe. The FAR's permit a pilot to fly an N Reg aircraft OUTSIDE of the USA on a foreign licence.

The FAA do consider European airspace as a single sky because we are all under JAA/EASA.

[Fuji Abound]

Myself and another forumite wrote to all of the European Aviation agencies and asked if a pilot with a JAA Licence and a JAA IR could fly in their airspace in an N reg aircraft.

What, all of them, all 24, and got a reply from everyone, or are you only referring to the ones that replied? By European Agencies do you mean those signed up to EASA SRO?

Never the less a good effort on your part.

Would you like to share with us the letter you wrote and the reply received?

Mind you as worth while as your quest clearly was for someone flying only N reg it would seem far less time consuming to simply do the foreigh pilot conversion - after all out goes the annual renewal to be replaced with rolling currency, out goes the annual fees and out goes any doubt that might arise from any EASA member that forgot they wrote to you saying it was OK.

Never the less a good job for anyone flying both N and G reg.

[IO540]

Didn't someone post once that the FAA treat Europe as one airspace.

Yes, I think that was IO.

I am not sure it was me. I am sure it would be more accurate to say that most Americans, even those working in FAA offices, don't know much about Europe, about the JAA mutual-validation system, etc. and that is why one gets different replies from different bits.

Similar with JAA regulators - few of them will know anything about FAA regs.

I know a man who bought an N-reg TB-something; the CAA told him he cannot fly it in the UK on a UK PPL, so (on the basis of that crap piece of advice) he sold it

I must emphasise that on the subject of whether a JAA license meets FAR 61.3 (which uses the word "issued" which a JAA license certainly is not, except in the one country which issued it) there are conflicting replies from the FAA. If anybody wants some examples, email me.

Whether a particular FAA reply is good for insurance purposes, well a lawyer could answer that.

I do know that, in UK law, an incorrect reply from an apparently authoritative source in an organisation does not modify the law, but the recipient has a reasonable expectation of receiving the correct information from an organisation (unless the reply from from somebody signing as the lavatory cleaner, and obviously subject to a full disclosure of relevant facts, etc) and can thus rely on that reply. This principle makes a criminal prosecution virtually impossible, if the recipient relied on a reply which turned out to be incorrect. This principle has led to the CAA losing some well publicised court cases - the defendant had a letter from them which they "never knew" they had written.

Whether this is good enough for insurance purposes (a civil action, not a criminal action), I don't know but I would hope it would be.

[Fuji Abound]

IO - I think the insurance issue is a bit of a red herring - the safe option is to copy the correspondence on which you rely to the insurance company and ask them if they are satisfied that the practise you propose will not invalidate your policy - if they agree it will not (in writing) all will be well.

For example while off airport landings are not illegal as such there are clearly a raft of considerations so I wrote and asked if off airport landings would be covered and whether any specific restrictions would apply.

[IO540]

the safe option is to copy the correspondence on which you rely to the insurance company and ask them if they are satisfied that the practise you propose will not invalidate your policy - if they agree it will not (in writing) all will be well.

I agree, but I have found - on these standard aviation law sleeping dogs - that the insurance co. simply says "you must comply with the legal requirements" and that's it.

This way, they reserve the right to pay out or not according to their lawyers' advice when you actually crash. They don't want to spend money on lawyers answering your questions before you crash

But I tend to agree that simply making a full disclosure puts the ball substantially in their court.

[AC-DC]

No one will be effected as fuel prices will kill GA well before 2012.

[Fuji Abound]

Electric powered gliders in the lower airways - now there is a thought.

[MIKECR]

Thanks for the replies gents. Seem's like the answer to my question is very much open to debate. I was aware we could do VFR in UK on the N reg but wasnt sure if we could stretch it to IFR in Europe. I think the best bet is an email to the FAA.

Failing that, we can go by arrow or seneca(both G Reg). The seneca is unfortunately pricey, for obvious reasons!!