FAA in G-Reg abroad. Worrying development.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA in G-Reg abroad. Worrying development.
So here's the situation.
I have an FAA PPL and am trying to join a syndicate in the UK. My understanding (and that of a lot of others here and on Flyer) is that I am automatically validated by the ANO to fly a G-Reg and should then be able to fly day VFR in any other ICAO country.
Two members of the syndicate, a CFI and a CAA examiner, were absolutely adamant that this wasn't the case. Myself and the syndicate secretary independently phoned the CAA and both spoke to a Denisha Pelia to seek confirmation. She conferred with a senior policy bod called Joan Gardner and called me to confirm this. I asked for an email confirmation and was assured I would get one.
Despite this the CAA examiner (and the CFI) weren't convinced. The examiner was so unhappy about being wrong that he said he was going to take it up with the CAA himself (worrying considering he works there).
Fast-forward 2 1/2 weeks and having got no email I got worried and phoned up to chase. I then got sent an email saying I would need the permission of each country I wanted to fly in. After being given the run around for a couple of days I finally, by making a serious nuisance of myself, spoke to Joan Gardner directly. She now stated that this was indeed the case.
I argued back and forth for 45 mins about whether the position was that under ICAO if I was validated in a G-Reg by the ANO then I was allowed by default and an explicit difference would have to be filed to forbid me and she absolutely refused to give me a straight answer. All she would do is keep repeating that either way the only way to find out would be to contact each country individually and therefore what difference would it make?
As far as I'm concerned it's a massive difference between the default position being I'm not allowed unless some sort of agreement is in place and being allowed unless a difference is in place.
I raised my concerns that this all seemed a bit of a change following a CAA examiner promising to get involved and she was pretty non-committal.
Does anyone have any record or names wrt to conversations they've had with the CAA over this? I really need to get some sort of definitive answer and have now spoken to apparently the person whose word goes and still got nowhere.
Everything I've read on here and Flyer led me to believe this issue was fairly cut and dried. Help!
This affects everyone on an ICAO PPL and flying a G-reg so it would be great to get something definitive.
I have an FAA PPL and am trying to join a syndicate in the UK. My understanding (and that of a lot of others here and on Flyer) is that I am automatically validated by the ANO to fly a G-Reg and should then be able to fly day VFR in any other ICAO country.
Two members of the syndicate, a CFI and a CAA examiner, were absolutely adamant that this wasn't the case. Myself and the syndicate secretary independently phoned the CAA and both spoke to a Denisha Pelia to seek confirmation. She conferred with a senior policy bod called Joan Gardner and called me to confirm this. I asked for an email confirmation and was assured I would get one.
Despite this the CAA examiner (and the CFI) weren't convinced. The examiner was so unhappy about being wrong that he said he was going to take it up with the CAA himself (worrying considering he works there).
Fast-forward 2 1/2 weeks and having got no email I got worried and phoned up to chase. I then got sent an email saying I would need the permission of each country I wanted to fly in. After being given the run around for a couple of days I finally, by making a serious nuisance of myself, spoke to Joan Gardner directly. She now stated that this was indeed the case.
I argued back and forth for 45 mins about whether the position was that under ICAO if I was validated in a G-Reg by the ANO then I was allowed by default and an explicit difference would have to be filed to forbid me and she absolutely refused to give me a straight answer. All she would do is keep repeating that either way the only way to find out would be to contact each country individually and therefore what difference would it make?
As far as I'm concerned it's a massive difference between the default position being I'm not allowed unless some sort of agreement is in place and being allowed unless a difference is in place.
I raised my concerns that this all seemed a bit of a change following a CAA examiner promising to get involved and she was pretty non-committal.
Does anyone have any record or names wrt to conversations they've had with the CAA over this? I really need to get some sort of definitive answer and have now spoken to apparently the person whose word goes and still got nowhere.
Everything I've read on here and Flyer led me to believe this issue was fairly cut and dried. Help!
This affects everyone on an ICAO PPL and flying a G-reg so it would be great to get something definitive.
Last edited by ILOC; 2nd Mar 2010 at 15:48.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I missing something or is your situation akin to a UK CAA/JAA/EASA (call it what you like) PPL holder going off to USA and expecting to hop into a N Reg and fly off into the blue yonder?
That doesn't happen: Why should you be any different?
An EASAPPL?
That doesn't happen: Why should you be any different?
so it would be great to get something definitive.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two members of the syndicate, a CFI and a CAA examiner, were absolutely adamant that this wasn't the case.
Myself and the syndicate secretary independently phoned the CAA and both spoke to a Denisha Pelia to seek confirmation. She conferred with a senior policy bod called Joan Gardner and called me to confirm this. I asked for an email confirmation and was assured I would get one.
Despite this the CAA examiner (and the CFI) weren't convinced. The examiner was so unhappy about being wrong that he said he was going to take it up with the CAA himself (worrying considering he works there).
Fast-forward 2 1/2 weeks and having got no email
I got worried and phoned up to chase. I then got sent an email saying I would need the permission of each country I wanted to fly in.
After being given the run around for a couple of days I finally, by making a serious nuisance of myself, spoke to Joan Gardner directly. She now stated that this was indeed the case.
I argued back and forth for 45 mins about whether the position was that under ICAO if I was validated in a G-Reg by the ANO then I was allowed by default and an explicit difference would have to be filed to forbid me and she absolutely refused to give me a straight answer.
All she would do is keep repeating that either way the only way to find out would be to contact each country individually and therefore what difference would it make?
The real problem is that, over the last 2-3 years, nearly everybody smart in the CAA has retired or left.
I used to get great replies, with references, to these kinds of questions. A reply plainly stated, without references, is worthless because somebody could just make it up. (An affirmative reply is a different thing, because you are entitled to rely on it, and if it is wrong you are entitled to get a correction, and if one doesn't come then you can rely on the communication - if in writing, obviously...)
More recently, somebody I knew had a plane on the N-reg. He asked the CAA if he could fly it on a UK PPL. They said NO, which was bull**** (it's up to the FAA anyway; ref FAR 61.3, and IMHO they should have told him that since they know this stuff perfectly well). So he sold the plane - at a substantial loss as is always the case. Then he found out the truth.....
That doesn't happen: Why should you be any different?
The fact that there isn't a direct reciprocity between the USA and the UK is irrelevant because you can get a 61.75 piggyback FAA PPL for peanuts, instantly. Can't do that in JAA-land...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I missing something or is your situation akin to a UK CAA/JAA/EASA (call it what you like) PPL holder going off to USA and expecting to hop into a N Reg and fly off into the blue yonder?
That doesn't happen: Why should you be any different?
That doesn't happen: Why should you be any different?
This is borne out by the fact that the CAA aren't denying I can fly in the UK. Unfortunately they are saying that it is not up to them whether or not I can fly a G-reg in any other country (which as I understand it is incorrect).
Ask her for a reference.
I guess what a really need is something from the ICAO stating that the default position between member countries is to allow any pilot flying another ICAO country's plane that is validated by that country.
Anybody got any ideas about how I go about getting that?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Near EGKK
Age: 51
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did a reasonable amount of investigating on this topic as I have an Australian PPL and flew G reg aircraft on it up until late last year (when I finally got around to doing a skills test, and therefore now have a shiny JAA PPL as well).
When I first started doing this, the perceived wisdom - with which I had nothing to challenge - was that I could not take a G reg aircraft out of the UK. This very much seems to be the accepted view around flying schools etc. This, however, isn't stated anywhere - nor is it implied.
I did as much digging as I could and still even have the relevant bits of the ANO printed in my headset bag for dealing with people who did not accept what I was saying as the law:
Essentially, ANO (2005) section 26 para (3) then (4a) states unequivocally that an ICAO license is "... deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this order". There are two things you are not allowed to do - paraphrasing slightly, but (i) is act in a commercial role and remunerated for your flying, and (ii) is flying under IFR in controlled airspace.
Now paragraph (4b) states "a JAA licence shall, unless the CAA gives direction to the contrary, be deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this Order". This is the same wording as stated in (4a) and therefore apart from the two things specifically disallowed, it implies that the "deeming" is equal in both cases.
This is also stated in LASORS, section A7 - but the ANO is of course the authoritative source.
Now I'm not a legal expert by any means, and I'm sure someone here will have a more knowledgeable view, but it does look like the CAA are acting against the letter of the ANO here.
Paul.
When I first started doing this, the perceived wisdom - with which I had nothing to challenge - was that I could not take a G reg aircraft out of the UK. This very much seems to be the accepted view around flying schools etc. This, however, isn't stated anywhere - nor is it implied.
I did as much digging as I could and still even have the relevant bits of the ANO printed in my headset bag for dealing with people who did not accept what I was saying as the law:
Essentially, ANO (2005) section 26 para (3) then (4a) states unequivocally that an ICAO license is "... deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this order". There are two things you are not allowed to do - paraphrasing slightly, but (i) is act in a commercial role and remunerated for your flying, and (ii) is flying under IFR in controlled airspace.
Now paragraph (4b) states "a JAA licence shall, unless the CAA gives direction to the contrary, be deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this Order". This is the same wording as stated in (4a) and therefore apart from the two things specifically disallowed, it implies that the "deeming" is equal in both cases.
This is also stated in LASORS, section A7 - but the ANO is of course the authoritative source.
Now I'm not a legal expert by any means, and I'm sure someone here will have a more knowledgeable view, but it does look like the CAA are acting against the letter of the ANO here.
Paul.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Paul.
I'm more than a little suspicious of the fact that their initial standpoint was it was fine and then when a CAA examiner got the hump (basically because he didn't like the fact that it appeared I was right) and said he would take the matter up with them a couple of weeks pass and they seem to have changed their stance.
I'm more than a little suspicious of the fact that their initial standpoint was it was fine and then when a CAA examiner got the hump (basically because he didn't like the fact that it appeared I was right) and said he would take the matter up with them a couple of weeks pass and they seem to have changed their stance.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm:
Sounds like you're heading for a great start in your syndicate..........
Sounds like you're heading for a great start in your syndicate..........
Anyway unfortunately it's all rather academic at the moment because unless I can get this matter cleared up I won't buy into a syndicate where I'm limited to UK only.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Near EGKK
Age: 51
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other thing worth mentioning here is that the aircraft's insurance may have some caveat that would mean you were not insured.
In my case as there was only one aircraft that I flew, the flying school who operated it on behalf of its owner specifically checked with the insurers to make sure there was no doubt that I was covered in case something happened.
As Cusco said, maybe now might be time to consider another syndicate though...
Paul.
In my case as there was only one aircraft that I flew, the flying school who operated it on behalf of its owner specifically checked with the insurers to make sure there was no doubt that I was covered in case something happened.
As Cusco said, maybe now might be time to consider another syndicate though...
Paul.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I won't buy into a syndicate where I'm limited to UK only.
the aircraft's insurance may have some caveat that would mean you were not insured.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uxbridge
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article 26 ANO 2005 has been superceded by Article 62 ANO 2009. Although the wording is slightly different the effect appears to be the same.
As I understand it, ICAO Annex 6 Chapter 2.7.2.1 is the international authority requiring pilots to have licenses issued by or rendered valid by the the state of registry of the aircraft. Individual countries can file differences if they wish.
As I understand it, ICAO Annex 6 Chapter 2.7.2.1 is the international authority requiring pilots to have licenses issued by or rendered valid by the the state of registry of the aircraft. Individual countries can file differences if they wish.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SoCal, what ILOC meant, and I think he's right in this case, is that any ICAO PPL is *automatically and implicitly* validated under the ANO (with the exceptions and limitations noted). So you do NOT have to make an appointment with an FSDO for a short visit, nor do a BFR, nor get an additional bit of plastic or register your details with the UK CAA. Your original (valid and current) FAA PPL bit of plastic is all that you need to fly a G-reg, worldwide.
With the FAA, the validation process is a process requiring several steps. Easy, quick and cheap steps, I'll grant you that, but you still have to go through them.
With the FAA, the validation process is a process requiring several steps. Easy, quick and cheap steps, I'll grant you that, but you still have to go through them.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is true.
It is right to say that the UK is unusual in automatically validating other countries' licenses, but actually most countries have a similar process albeit involving some paperwork. Outside JAA, it appears this is even more common especially if the one you are trying to validate is the de facto world standard (FAA). This is an area which is hard to research because these facilities (especially where a whole new local-country license results i.e. a conversion) are rarely advertised openly. I've been offered one such direct conversion for my FAA CPL/IR to the local CPL/IR (and there must be more) involving no more than paperwork but had to have a "relationship" with a local commercial operator).
BTW this thread is duplicated here but with some additional input.
It is right to say that the UK is unusual in automatically validating other countries' licenses, but actually most countries have a similar process albeit involving some paperwork. Outside JAA, it appears this is even more common especially if the one you are trying to validate is the de facto world standard (FAA). This is an area which is hard to research because these facilities (especially where a whole new local-country license results i.e. a conversion) are rarely advertised openly. I've been offered one such direct conversion for my FAA CPL/IR to the local CPL/IR (and there must be more) involving no more than paperwork but had to have a "relationship" with a local commercial operator).
BTW this thread is duplicated here but with some additional input.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Foreign' Haters and dealing with the Civil Service
Hi ILOC,
I suspect there is something at work here that I think you may be unaware of.
There is, among those involved in British flight training, a certain hatred of people who go abroad to get their PPLs, as they see it, 'on the cheap'.
They consider that flight training exists for the sole purpose of providing them with an opportunity to earn money.
They believe we should all be prepared, to tollerate the endless weather delays and to pay the exorbitant operating costs of flight training in the UK. Given the chance, I am sure they would have all training abroad banned.
So when they encounter someone who has got their PPL by that means, they look for ways of making life difficult for them.
I once mentioned to a UK instructor that I wanted to get an FAA CPL and he more or less went for me, giving me a lecture effectively about my duty to provide him with a (post retirement) living.
On another occasion, I happened to mention to another UK instructor my wish to obtain a share in an 'N' reg aeroplane. She tried to tell me that if I owned an 'N' reg aeroplane in the UK, I would only be allowed to fly it for six months of any year; not true.
Now let's talk about dealing with civil servants, (i.e. those who work for any branch of central government, including the CAA). These days, there is no point in speaking to people in departments of central government over the telephone on any contentious matter. (Believe me, I speak from much BITTER experience with three different departments, including the CAA).
Telephone conversations are deniable. They will tell you whatever it takes to make you go away and then, if questioned afterwards will deny, either what they said, or even ever having spoken to you at all.
The ONLY way to deal with them on any contentious matter is to WRITE to them, SENDING YOUR LETTER EITHER BY REGISTERED MAIL OR BY RECORDED DELIVERY (so they cannot deny that it arrived) and insist on a written reply, citing any regulation or article of the ANO upon which their reply will be based. Then you should count the working days that elapse afterwards and send a follow up letter if you do not receive a reply within the 15 working days.
If they fail to provide a satisfactory response to your enquiry, don't hesitate to threaten them with involving your MP, or the Ombudsman, or both, if they fail to deal with your question in writing and within a reasonable time, and don't hesitate to carry out your threat if they do fail to deal with it.
You don't need to contact ICAO, and indeed they will not become involved in what they will regard as a local matter.
Broomstick.
I suspect there is something at work here that I think you may be unaware of.
There is, among those involved in British flight training, a certain hatred of people who go abroad to get their PPLs, as they see it, 'on the cheap'.
They consider that flight training exists for the sole purpose of providing them with an opportunity to earn money.
They believe we should all be prepared, to tollerate the endless weather delays and to pay the exorbitant operating costs of flight training in the UK. Given the chance, I am sure they would have all training abroad banned.
So when they encounter someone who has got their PPL by that means, they look for ways of making life difficult for them.
I once mentioned to a UK instructor that I wanted to get an FAA CPL and he more or less went for me, giving me a lecture effectively about my duty to provide him with a (post retirement) living.
On another occasion, I happened to mention to another UK instructor my wish to obtain a share in an 'N' reg aeroplane. She tried to tell me that if I owned an 'N' reg aeroplane in the UK, I would only be allowed to fly it for six months of any year; not true.
Now let's talk about dealing with civil servants, (i.e. those who work for any branch of central government, including the CAA). These days, there is no point in speaking to people in departments of central government over the telephone on any contentious matter. (Believe me, I speak from much BITTER experience with three different departments, including the CAA).
Telephone conversations are deniable. They will tell you whatever it takes to make you go away and then, if questioned afterwards will deny, either what they said, or even ever having spoken to you at all.
The ONLY way to deal with them on any contentious matter is to WRITE to them, SENDING YOUR LETTER EITHER BY REGISTERED MAIL OR BY RECORDED DELIVERY (so they cannot deny that it arrived) and insist on a written reply, citing any regulation or article of the ANO upon which their reply will be based. Then you should count the working days that elapse afterwards and send a follow up letter if you do not receive a reply within the 15 working days.
If they fail to provide a satisfactory response to your enquiry, don't hesitate to threaten them with involving your MP, or the Ombudsman, or both, if they fail to deal with your question in writing and within a reasonable time, and don't hesitate to carry out your threat if they do fail to deal with it.
You don't need to contact ICAO, and indeed they will not become involved in what they will regard as a local matter.
Broomstick.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou everyone for all the useful advice and information. Please keep it coming.
I will collect as much information/ammunition as I can and then approach the CAA again. Whether that is by post or by appointment I don't know....
Part of the problem is that Joan Gardner who is one of the licensing policy people was very hard to get through to as apparently she is to important to deal with the public (a good attitude for a public servant). Given how totally non-committal she was I'm not sure who to try and deal with in the future when trying to get something a bit more definitive.
As IO540 pointed out I have also posted this on the Flyer forum here. There is a fair bit of duplication but also some additional information that is useful and interesting.
I will collect as much information/ammunition as I can and then approach the CAA again. Whether that is by post or by appointment I don't know....
Part of the problem is that Joan Gardner who is one of the licensing policy people was very hard to get through to as apparently she is to important to deal with the public (a good attitude for a public servant). Given how totally non-committal she was I'm not sure who to try and deal with in the future when trying to get something a bit more definitive.
As IO540 pointed out I have also posted this on the Flyer forum here. There is a fair bit of duplication but also some additional information that is useful and interesting.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The obvious legal position is that everything not prohibited is allowed 
This should be obvious, because e.g. no law says you cannot fly wearing pink underpants, therefore you can.
So, if somebody says you cannot do XYZ, they need to provide a reference for that.
The FARs do not contain any known stuff banning the use of an FAA license in a non-N-reg plane. So that is allowed.
The UK CAA allows the use of any ICAO license for a G-reg. So, that's good
The only issue that I see is if the owner of the (non UK) airspace where you are flying objects to such a license / aircraft registry combination. The airspace owner is entitled to do this, because (fairly obviously) every country, ICAO member or not, has absolute jurisdiction within its frontiers. But I have never heard of any country thus objecting. It would make a mockery of its ICAO membership, for starters.
The above is for Europe. Most of the globe is what we call "3rd world", and most of it comprises of military dictatorships. You cannot just jump into your G-reg, with a UK PPL, thinking that is fine, and fly across Russia, Iran, China, Angola, Libya, etc. You need overflight / landing permissions, crew visas, etc etc etc. But that's a different topic. Once you get these permits, these countries still respect ICAO, AFAIK. (well unless you happen to be a citizen of one, in which case they might grab you and make you do the military service )
This should be obvious, because e.g. no law says you cannot fly wearing pink underpants, therefore you can.
So, if somebody says you cannot do XYZ, they need to provide a reference for that.
The FARs do not contain any known stuff banning the use of an FAA license in a non-N-reg plane. So that is allowed.
The UK CAA allows the use of any ICAO license for a G-reg. So, that's good
The only issue that I see is if the owner of the (non UK) airspace where you are flying objects to such a license / aircraft registry combination. The airspace owner is entitled to do this, because (fairly obviously) every country, ICAO member or not, has absolute jurisdiction within its frontiers. But I have never heard of any country thus objecting. It would make a mockery of its ICAO membership, for starters.
The above is for Europe. Most of the globe is what we call "3rd world", and most of it comprises of military dictatorships. You cannot just jump into your G-reg, with a UK PPL, thinking that is fine, and fly across Russia, Iran, China, Angola, Libya, etc. You need overflight / landing permissions, crew visas, etc etc etc. But that's a different topic. Once you get these permits, these countries still respect ICAO, AFAIK. (well unless you happen to be a citizen of one, in which case they might grab you and make you do the military service
)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, if somebody says you cannot do XYZ, they need to provide a reference for that.
All I wanted was confirmation that the default position (at least in Europe) is that I'm allowed. All she would say was that nobody could state that as it was up to the individual country.
A UK registered Aircraft is operated in accordance with the UK ANO wherever it may be in the World. The licensing requirements for that aircraft are contained in the UK ANO. Art 62(1) validates any valid ICAO licence to allow you to operate that aircraft on a private flight under conditions specified in the Article. There is no territorial limit imposed in Article 62, so you can do it anywhere in the World. Nothing to do with anyone else!
You have no problem whatsoever operating that aircraft. One thought however, as you have a FAA Pilot Certificate which of course has no RT privileges outside the USA I presume you have a FCC Radiotelephone Certificate Form No FCC 605-FRC
Deeming a non-United Kingdom flight crew licence valid
62.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), paragraph (2) applies to any licence which authorises the holder to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft and is granted—
(a) under the law of a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom but which is not a JAA licence; or
(b) under the law of a relevant overseas territory.
(2) Subject to paragraph (4), for the purposes of this Part, such a licence is, unless the CAA gives a direction to the contrary, deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this Order.
(3) Paragraph (2) does not apply to such a licence if it authorises the holder to act as a student pilot only.
(4) A licence deemed valid under paragraph (2) does not entitle the holder—
(a) to act as a member of the flight crew of any aircraft flying for the purpose of commercial air transport, public transport or aerial work or on any flight for which the holder receives remuneration for services as a member of the flight crew; or
(b) in the case of a pilot’s licence, to act as pilot of any aircraft flying in controlled airspace in circumstances requiring compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules or to give any instruction in flying.
(5) A JAA licence is, unless the CAA gives a direction to the contrary, a licence rendered valid under this Order.
62.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), paragraph (2) applies to any licence which authorises the holder to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft and is granted—
(a) under the law of a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom but which is not a JAA licence; or
(b) under the law of a relevant overseas territory.
(2) Subject to paragraph (4), for the purposes of this Part, such a licence is, unless the CAA gives a direction to the contrary, deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this Order.
(3) Paragraph (2) does not apply to such a licence if it authorises the holder to act as a student pilot only.
(4) A licence deemed valid under paragraph (2) does not entitle the holder—
(a) to act as a member of the flight crew of any aircraft flying for the purpose of commercial air transport, public transport or aerial work or on any flight for which the holder receives remuneration for services as a member of the flight crew; or
(b) in the case of a pilot’s licence, to act as pilot of any aircraft flying in controlled airspace in circumstances requiring compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules or to give any instruction in flying.
(5) A JAA licence is, unless the CAA gives a direction to the contrary, a licence rendered valid under this Order.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A UK registered Aircraft is operated in accordance with the UK ANO wherever it may be in the World. The licensing requirements for that aircraft are contained in the UK ANO. Art 62(1) validates any valid ICAO licence to allow you to operate that aircraft on a private flight under conditions specified in the Article. There is no territorial limit imposed in Article 62, so you can do it anywhere in the World. Nothing to do with anyone else!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, you've got the ANO article itself, which states that any ICAO license is valid on a G-reg, within the limitations stated. What art. 62 means by "Contracting State" is any state contracting to ICAO, which is essentially all of the civilized world.
The only other bit of text you need is the ICAO article/annex/whatever, that states that ICAO states will accept any aircraft for overflight/landing/whatever where the flight crew has a legal, valid and current license under the laws of the state of registry of the aircraft. Or wording to that effect.
In other words, if the UK deems your combo G-reg/FAA license to be legal, then other states are supposed to accept it as such.
The only other bit of text you need is the ICAO article/annex/whatever, that states that ICAO states will accept any aircraft for overflight/landing/whatever where the flight crew has a legal, valid and current license under the laws of the state of registry of the aircraft. Or wording to that effect.
In other words, if the UK deems your combo G-reg/FAA license to be legal, then other states are supposed to accept it as such.