Flying "N" reg in the Channel Islands on a JAA licence

[dublinpilot]

gyro,

while I am sure you are fine to fly to the CI, asking the CAA is only half the story on these matters. Because it is an N reg, the FAA is the other half of the story and although the CIs can be considered British for all the reasons given in this post (and so you are ok), you could equally ask the same question of the French. They of course would probably say "that is fine" but in reality the FAA would say "that is not fine". If the FAA said it wasn't ok (which they do incidentally) then insurance would be null and void and N reg pilots in Europe could be flying illegally.

I just thought I'd point this out in case any other N reg pilots are reading this and assume it would be ok to fly abroard in an N reg on a JAA license issued in the UK.

Why? The state which is being overflown has just as much entitlement to licence a pilot to fly in it's airspace.

It the UK said that you could fly any aircraft in it's airspace provided you wore pink underwear, then that would be its entitlement (leaving aside EASA).

In this case we seem to have the CAA saying that the airspace over the Channel Islands is its airspace, and that it is happy for the pilot to fly an N reg aircraft with a JAA licence.

As alway, I wound want that in writing if I was relying on it.

dp

[englishal]

Why? The state which is being overflown has just as much entitlement to licence a pilot to fly in it's airspace.

It does but the FAA state that you can only fly an N reg in foreign airspace on the foreign license if it the licence matches the airspace being flown in - So you can fly an N reg in UK airspace on a UK issued license. BUT the FAA don't recognise the "JAA" as one entity meaning that if you want to fly an N reg in French airpace on a non-FAA license you must have a French issued licence.

This is why I believe the CI's are ok.

(PS I can never work out if it is license or licence )

[IO540]

The state which is being overflown has just as much entitlement to licence a pilot to fly in it's airspace.

That is an old sleeping dog which AFAIK has never been clarified either way.

I think it is good enough to rely on from the POV of a prosecution, because for obvious practical reasons (you have to do a little bit more than shoplifting to get extradited to the USA... well maybe not ) any prosecution is going to come from the airspace owner, and if you have a piece of paper from him which says something is legal, he hasn't got a hope of prosecuting you (even if the advice was completely wrong, so long as it appears to come from someone in a position of authority).

But insurance works the other way. The insurer has a duty (to his shareholders) to avoid paying out unless legally obliged, and anyway it is a civil action which is going to cost megabucks to argue. So if there is any doubt, he can avoid paying out and just say "sue me if you don't like it" and leave you p1ssing in the wind.

Aviation insurers have a reputation for paying out even in the most ludicrous cases of pilot negligence, but they won't pay out if they think the flight was illegal before it got off the ground. I have this from the horse's mouth - an underwriter.

FWIW, the FAA Chief Counsel has ruled on the JAA license acceptability under FAR 61.3 and it is not valid. I have the references

BUT the FAA don't recognise the "JAA" as one entity

The key word in 61.3 is issued. JAA does not issue licenses; they only mutually validate them. This was also confirmed by the FAA lawyer presentation at Luton in April (I was there).

Edited for grammar.

[Fuji Abound]

This, as you say, is a very old chestnut.

I dont think you are quite correct - I think the key words are both country and issued.

I also think that ultimately it doesnt really matter what teh CAAs or FAA interpretation is - unless of course that suites your case. On the one hand they are not going to set aside their interpretation, but if you dont like it, their interpretation renders itself liable to being test in the Courts.

In reality the whole point is academic because it is highly unlikely anyone would have the energy of resources to test anything like this in the Courts.

For the fun of the argument the Americans of course dont understand any other way of doing things than their own. They consider their own country to be a series of States that form the whole. Some of us may consider the United Kingdom to consist of a series of countries, principalites, provinces and dependencies that form the whole. Others may be more comfortable with this term referring to the British Isles. The United Emirates doubtless have their own view as to whether they are one country or something else.

Personally if the CAA told me I could fly to the CI in a N reg and I had that in writing that would do for me, but, God forbid any accidents I would probably copy the letter to my insurers and get them to confirm they were happy with the CAAs opinion.

[englishal]

This question was raised at an FAA meeting regarding N reg in Europe held at Luton Airport earlier this year (I was there too!). Present were several FAA representitives including an FAA lawyer and this question was raised. Their reply was FAR 61.3 is strictly enforced, and so as IO points out, the "country in which the certificate is issued" is therefore strictly enforced. The Chief Consul has issued interpretations on this and can be found on their website where someone has asked this very question with the example of a Belgium pilot flying an N reg on a Belgium JAA PPL cross borders.

To save the bother of finding it, here is an extract:

Section 61.3(a) (1) of the Federal regulations states "when [an] aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a current pilot license issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated may be used." A strict reading of the rule requires that the country of issuance of the pilot's license match the country in which the aircraft is operated. The FAA, through an interpretation, cannot extend the meaning of "country" under § 61.3 to include JAA member States. Additionally, Article 32a of The Chicago Convention requires that a pilot license match the state of registration of the aircraft, unless a validation is made. The FAA made a specific grant of validation respecting the Belgian license whereby a U.S.-registered aircraft may only be flown within Belgium by a Belgian licensed pilot. No JAA agreement can extend that specific validation.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by IO540

That is an old sleeping dog which AFAIK has never been clarified either way.
...

But insurance works the other way. The insurer has a duty (to his shareholders) to avoid paying out unless legally obliged, and anyway it is a civil action which is going to cost megabucks to argue. So if there is any doubt, he can avoid paying out and just say "sue me if you don't like it" and leave you p1ssing in the wind.
.....

I think you may be a bit harsh on the insurers. I would agree that things like No CofA, substantially over weight at takeoff (particularly for a takeoff accident), Un-registered aircraft, pilot with no licence or a substantially expired licence, etc. all run a high risk of the insurer walking away from the claim.

However, in a case where the insurer had agreed to insure on the basis of an FAA licence and the State where the crash occurs is not prosecuting for flight with an invalid licence, and the insurer needs to interpret a third country's legislation - I suspect they would accept it was a legitimate claim.

However, we will never know until people who have gone through this experience either confirm or deny what the insurers did. There are a number of cases where the facts would be substantially the same - such as NPPL pilots who have crashed in France (although I believe this is no longer a restriction) The BE90 that crashed at Blackbush (VP with an FAA licence but the Bermuda endorsement had expired), another BE90 (I think) in Ireland where the combination of licence, medical and rating didn't matchup (individually he had an IR, ME and was medically fit - but all from different countries)

As such, one can only try ones best to comply with the applicable laws and not just accept that if one state says something is ok that it is actually legal.

[gyrotyro]

N reg in UK airspace

During my enquiries regarding licence privileges yesterday I contacted the head of the DGAC licencing department in Paris and after explaining the situation and giving them details of my licence they sent me the following reply. (I have deleted the name of the sender to avoid the receiving spam)

"Dear xxxxx

I confirm you that the French CAA recognize your British JAR FCL PPL(A) for flying on the French territory with a N- registered aircraft.

Best regards,
xxxxx xxxxxx
Licensing Office of the French CAA"

Ps I was impressed by the fact that having given them the information in French they gave me the reply in English. I don't think the CAA would be so obliging.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by gyrotyro

During my enquiries regarding licence privileges yesterday I contacted the head of the DGAC licencing department in Paris and after explaining the situation and giving them details of my licence they sent me the following reply. (I have deleted the name of the sender to avoid the receiving spam)

"Dear xxxxx

I confirm you that the French CAA recognize your British JAR FCL PPL(A) for flying on the French territory with a N- registered aircraft.

Best regards,
xxxxx xxxxxx
Licensing Office of the French CAA"

Ps I was impressed by the fact that having given them the information in French they gave me the reply in English. I don't think the CAA would be so obliging.

An excellent example of englishal's point. The French have no ability (broadly) under ICAO to determine who can and can not fly some foreign country's aircraft. They can choose to ignore the laws the foreign country imposes on its aircraft, but that is quite different from making it legal.

[Fuji Abound]

However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used

So this is what the FARs say.

So when the French say they recognise the JAR license are they not issuing the pilot with a license to operate in their airspace - in other words what is a license? If DGAC write to me to tell me this piece of paper is a license to operate in our airspace, is that not a license which has been issued by that country. I cant imagine the FAA taking issue. Why would they?

[englishal]

Well in theory you are not licensed to fly the aeroplane (being N reg and the FAA don't recognise your license in an N reg abroad). I am sure if you were ramp checked no one would care, but if an accident happened and insurance companies became involved then strictly by the letter of the law you have been flying illegally. I am sure insurance companies would exploit this to their advantage.

[IO540]

I agree; insurance is the real issue.

Regarding a prosecution, the licensing interactions are so complicated to unravel that I don't believe there is an airport ramp policeman in the world with the brain to work them out, and that assumes you can communicate with him in English or whatever...

I can imagine a policeman having a briefing pack telling him to check for a US or locally issues license if he sees an N-reg plane. If I was in enforcement that's what I would do.

For sure, those who got caught for flying with the wrong papers or not carrying a DME etc are not going to write about it on pprune; people rarely write about run-ins they have had. Not that I think anybody has ever been done for that kind of thing, anywhere in Europe. But that isn't the risk.

I can imagine if you p*ssed off the CAA in some blatent way then they would go after you specially - that is standard police behaviour.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

So this is what the FARs say.

If DGAC write to me to tell me this piece of paper is a license to operate in our airspace, is that not a license which has been issued by that country. I cant imagine the FAA taking issue. Why would they?

The FAA has already formally 'taken issue' with this logic in the form of a formal rulling from their Chief Counsel. the FAA being bothered to take enforcement action is another question. However, if a country asked them to, I am sure they would immediately take action - and win due to the clear opinion published.

[Whopity]

I have now spoken with the CAA and they have confirmed that the CI's are part of UK airspace

In the Brest FIR LFRR! Perhaps someone should buy them a map!

[mm_flynn]

FIRs are not political boundaries. Whereas sovereign airspace is (after a sort).