Austrian CAA: FAA licenses remain valid for N-reg in Europe
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Austrian CAA: FAA licenses remain valid for N-reg in Europe
German pilot magazine Pilot und Flugzeug published an article citing an official response by the Austrian CAA to a pilot asking about the future of N-reg flying in Europe with Part FCL.
Austro Control (the equivalent of a CAA) states:
This appears to be radically different from what we have heard so far. Let's hope the CAA guy didn't make a mistake here.
Austro Control (the equivalent of a CAA) states:
Auf Ihre Frage hin teilen wir Ihnen mit, dass gemäß den Bestimmungen des Abkommens über die Internationale Zivilluftfahrt (Regelungen der ICAO) ein Pilot weltweit (grenzüberschreitend) am Luftverkehr teilnehmen darf, solange der Staat, in welchem das Luftfahrzeug registriert wurde, auch die Pilotenlizenz ausgestellt hat. Registerstaat des Luftfahrzeuges und Lizenzausstellerstaat müssen also ident sein. Selbstverständlich gilt dies nur, wenn sowohl die Lizenz als auch das Luftfahrzeug allen Vorschriften der ICAO entsprechen.
Mit einer von den USA ausgestellten Pilotenlizenz können Sie also ein in den USA registriertes LFZ in Europa fliegen. Daran ändert sich auch nach Inkrafttreten der neuen Bestimmungen der VO (EU) 1178/2011 nichts.
A rough translation would be:Mit einer von den USA ausgestellten Pilotenlizenz können Sie also ein in den USA registriertes LFZ in Europa fliegen. Daran ändert sich auch nach Inkrafttreten der neuen Bestimmungen der VO (EU) 1178/2011 nichts.
In response to your inquiry, we hereby inform you that according to the regulations of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a pilot is allowed to participate in international aviation on a worldwide basis, as far as the State, in which the aircraft is registered also issued the pilot license. State of registry of the aircraft and state of issuance of the license have to be identical. Of course this only applies, if both the license and the aircraft conform to all requirements of ICAO.
With a pilot license issued by the USA, you are allowed to fly an aircraft in Europe which is registered in the USA. This will not change after the new regulations of Directive (EU) 1178/2011 come into effect.
With a pilot license issued by the USA, you are allowed to fly an aircraft in Europe which is registered in the USA. This will not change after the new regulations of Directive (EU) 1178/2011 come into effect.
This appears to be radically different from what we have heard so far. Let's hope the CAA guy didn't make a mistake here.
Last edited by achimha; 15th Jun 2012 at 15:00.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks for posting this here. Previously it appeared in a forum on which external reposting is prohibited 
This is good news - even if stating what has been obvious for years.
The problem is that while EASA/EU self evidently cannot prevent overflight and "casual" visitation by any ICAO certified aircraft flown solely on pilot papers issued by the State of Registry of the aircraft (without descending into "African" style of airspace and landing control) the EU can force member states to apply additional EU airspace / EU soil controls as it wishes, because its directives are EU law. The EU could mandate pink underpants to be worn.
So I don't see the Austrian position as terribly helpful in clarifying the uselessly vague EASA FCL "EASA duplicate-pilot-papers required if operator EU based" reg. They are stating the obvious when it comes to overflight and casual visits. Only 3rd World AK47-governed states (most of the ICAO members, numerically
) mess with those, providing a nice income opportunity for a load of "overflight agents". If the said pilot can get a statement which explicitly includes long term parking / aircraft flown/owned/operated by Austrian residents/citizens/etc/etc that would be something very different...
Depending on your view of the competence of the Austrian CAA respondent (I cannot understand the language so can't judge, and all CAAs have their share of muppets occassionally officially commenting on stuff they don't understand) this may well be a nail in the coffin of the EASA FCL anti-N-reg provisions IF the writer knew what he was talking about...
This is good news - even if stating what has been obvious for years.
The problem is that while EASA/EU self evidently cannot prevent overflight and "casual" visitation by any ICAO certified aircraft flown solely on pilot papers issued by the State of Registry of the aircraft (without descending into "African" style of airspace and landing control) the EU can force member states to apply additional EU airspace / EU soil controls as it wishes, because its directives are EU law. The EU could mandate pink underpants to be worn.
So I don't see the Austrian position as terribly helpful in clarifying the uselessly vague EASA FCL "EASA duplicate-pilot-papers required if operator EU based" reg. They are stating the obvious when it comes to overflight and casual visits. Only 3rd World AK47-governed states (most of the ICAO members, numerically
) mess with those, providing a nice income opportunity for a load of "overflight agents". If the said pilot can get a statement which explicitly includes long term parking / aircraft flown/owned/operated by Austrian residents/citizens/etc/etc that would be something very different...Depending on your view of the competence of the Austrian CAA respondent (I cannot understand the language so can't judge, and all CAAs have their share of muppets occassionally officially commenting on stuff they don't understand) this may well be a nail in the coffin of the EASA FCL anti-N-reg provisions IF the writer knew what he was talking about...
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes you can still fly them.
But if you are a resident of a EU state you also have to have a EU license as well as a FAA one.
And for a 100 hour plus PPL who only wants to fly VFR it is a relatively simple process to get a license. Although more expensive than going the oppersite way.
The problem that occurs is when you start looking at the process if you want to fly using an instrument rating.
But if you are a resident of a EU state you also have to have a EU license as well as a FAA one.
And for a 100 hour plus PPL who only wants to fly VFR it is a relatively simple process to get a license. Although more expensive than going the oppersite way.
The problem that occurs is when you start looking at the process if you want to fly using an instrument rating.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My guess is the CAA guy just got it wrong. The inquiry was from an Austrian FTO and the responding CAA person is responsible for FTOs. The request specifically asked whether FAA registered locals can continue to fly their N-regs under only FAA licenses.
As Peter said, we're dealing with a EU directive that is valid law in all member countries so it would be hard to imagine Austria and others ignoring parts of it.
As Peter said, we're dealing with a EU directive that is valid law in all member countries so it would be hard to imagine Austria and others ignoring parts of it.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a quick look at the BR and found interestingly in the preamble
which has very clearly been accomplished 
with the use of 'Operator' and 'Established' (neither of which as we know are defined)
In addition, (and some what amusingly, at least to me) the last point of Article 4 (which imposes the 3rd country requirements) says,
Obviously other than the right for third countries to have their aircraft, operated by their pilots (as we tend to think is specified in ICAO), without requiring pilots licences issued by the various countries/supranational organisations in which they may operate.
The assumption by those much more knowledgeable than I is, EASA and the EU decision makers must have taken legal advice that paragraph 6 does not obviate the requirements of the second half of Article 4 1c. On the other hand, the UK does like to write laws that state one thing in the first paragraph and then 3 paragraphs later put an override in that nullifies the first statement! Maybe the same drafters have 'helped' EASA.
Who knows, all food for the very important lobbying and legal professions to ensure a sustainable source of fees.
(Must be in a particularly sarcastic mood today)
(6) The scope of Community action should be clearly defined so that persons, organisations and products subject to this Regulation and its implementing rules can be identified without ambiguity. Such scope should be clearly defined by referring to a list of aircraft which are exempted from the application of this Regulation.
with the use of 'Operator' and 'Established' (neither of which as we know are defined)In addition, (and some what amusingly, at least to me) the last point of Article 4 (which imposes the 3rd country requirements) says,
6. This Regulation shall not affect the rights of third countries as specified in international conventions, in particular the Chicago Convention.
The assumption by those much more knowledgeable than I is, EASA and the EU decision makers must have taken legal advice that paragraph 6 does not obviate the requirements of the second half of Article 4 1c. On the other hand, the UK does like to write laws that state one thing in the first paragraph and then 3 paragraphs later put an override in that nullifies the first statement! Maybe the same drafters have 'helped' EASA.
Who knows, all food for the very important lobbying and legal professions to ensure a sustainable source of fees.
(Must be in a particularly sarcastic mood today)
Last edited by mm_flynn; 15th Jun 2012 at 19:31.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we have done this one to death for the Nth time
For a laugh, we could have a poll on how many think EASA got legal advice on the anti N-reg proposals.
To me, it looks like they didn't. It would not be suprising, given that EASA sneaked this in quickly, partly by conning the Transport Committee with a false promise of a BASA with the USA. So the stuff made the books without anybody looking at it closely.
That would be virtually impossible to do in the UK system.
OTOH one aviation barrister advises me that a lot of European law is like that - poorly drafted. That is the "cockup v. conspiracy" position i.e. a cockup.
Then, I don't understand the point of an EU Directive which is vague and useless, and which every national court will interpret potentially differently, and perhaps most countries will never enforce it. Assuming there was an intelligent intention behind this bit of EASA FCL, it could only be to create FUD, to continue to keep a lid on the N-reg scene without anybody actually doing anything much...
Some insider stuff from EASA suggests this was a private project of several high placed individuals, and the "FUD theory" would then make sense.
For a laugh, we could have a poll on how many think EASA got legal advice on the anti N-reg proposals.
To me, it looks like they didn't. It would not be suprising, given that EASA sneaked this in quickly, partly by conning the Transport Committee with a false promise of a BASA with the USA. So the stuff made the books without anybody looking at it closely.
That would be virtually impossible to do in the UK system.
OTOH one aviation barrister advises me that a lot of European law is like that - poorly drafted. That is the "cockup v. conspiracy" position i.e. a cockup.
Then, I don't understand the point of an EU Directive which is vague and useless, and which every national court will interpret potentially differently, and perhaps most countries will never enforce it. Assuming there was an intelligent intention behind this bit of EASA FCL, it could only be to create FUD, to continue to keep a lid on the N-reg scene without anybody actually doing anything much...
Some insider stuff from EASA suggests this was a private project of several high placed individuals, and the "FUD theory" would then make sense.
....we're dealing with a EU directive that is valid law in all member countries so it would be hard to imagine Austria and others ignoring parts of it.
Last edited by BillieBob; 15th Jun 2012 at 22:01.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EASA wording does not hang its coat on pilot or operator citizenship (a.k.a. nationality).
They use
[my bold]
If you, a private pilot, are the owner, then you are probably the "operator" so that bit is probably simple (until you get a defence lawyer involved ).
But yeah.... will your 6 months' stay on EU soil be enough to force you to get the duplicate EASA pilot papers? Nobody knows.
Does that mean that no EU country needs to implement it?
They use
[Aircraft] registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community; [...] shall comply with this Regulation.
[my bold]
If you, a private pilot, are the owner, then you are probably the "operator" so that bit is probably simple (until you get a defence lawyer involved
).But yeah.... will your 6 months' stay on EU soil be enough to force you to get the duplicate EASA pilot papers? Nobody knows.
the Aircrew Regulation is not an EU Directive
Last edited by peterh337; 16th Jun 2012 at 08:05.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, done to death here but IMHO the issue will never be enforcement (because "operator residence" etc etc etc will never be possible to establish in the context of a realistic ramp check) but insurance.
but IMHO the issue will never be enforcement (because "operator residence" etc etc etc will never be possible to establish in the context of a realistic ramp check) but insurance.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does that mean that no EU country needs to implement it?
IMHO the issue will never be enforcement (because "operator residence" etc etc etc will never be possible to establish in the context of a realistic ramp check) but insurance
You always make this enforceability point on every thread on the N-reg. You must think it has some signficance. I don't see it.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This rule is highly enforceable
The top people at every European CAA which anybody has asked haven't got a clue what the words mean, either.
Anyway, I am an engineer, and I look for solutions. This also means I don't easily bend over forwards to get shafted, especially when it is proposed by a bunch of faceless shysters in Brussels.
I bought my ~ £10,000 insurance policy earlier this year (learning absolutely nothing useful in the process) but that isn't going to make me go native.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
because nobody else thinks it is at all enforceable.
"Can I see your passport please"
"OK a EU one, where are you resident?"
"not in Europe"
"Can you prove that please"
And you will either be.
"If you look you will see I have a UAE (or take your pick of country outside the EU) residents work permit"
"thank you Sir safe flight"
Or
"err um, I am resident in the IOM"
"where do you pay tax?"
"well the UK" or for that matter any other country in the EU.
"right could you please come with us to the station you have the right... etc"
If you are dual nationality with a outside EU passport you may get away with it but I suspect you will eventually come unstuck when they start looking at visa's, then when you produce the EU passport they will get you.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid that the view given by Peter is NOT shared by the vast majority of FAA pilots who reside in the UK, for those who hold just an FAA licence it is a time of uncertainty. Pace made some very good points about what is happening in respect to trying to find a workable solution for all of this.
There are many loose ends at the moment with regards the implementation of EASA.
From my point of view I feel uncomfortable with the doubt, even though I hold both FAA and JAR/UK licences. The aircraft I normally fly is N reg (based in the UK and UK VAT paid) but registered and insured through the US and I pay tax both in the UK and the US. I also have both UK and US addresses. Yet even with seemingly all bases covered I still feel unease.
There are many loose ends at the moment with regards the implementation of EASA.
From my point of view I feel uncomfortable with the doubt, even though I hold both FAA and JAR/UK licences. The aircraft I normally fly is N reg (based in the UK and UK VAT paid) but registered and insured through the US and I pay tax both in the UK and the US. I also have both UK and US addresses. Yet even with seemingly all bases covered I still feel unease.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And you don't get it Peter. They won't care because they will say that the person flying a private flight will be the current operator. You can hang your hat on interpreting everything so it won't work and it will be breaching various other bits of legislation such as age discrimination. Most folk can see a well planned highway to stopping the current situation.
And to get them to shift away from that you will have to have a huge court cases which could very easily last years and cost a fortune.
I presume one of the reasons why they have worded it so badly is because they can have plenty of wiggle room and which will take multiple sessions in court. And by the time its all sorted out it would have been far quicker and cheaper to just go local anyway.
And from the oxford english dictionary
And to get them to shift away from that you will have to have a huge court cases which could very easily last years and cost a fortune.
I presume one of the reasons why they have worded it so badly is because they can have plenty of wiggle room and which will take multiple sessions in court. And by the time its all sorted out it would have been far quicker and cheaper to just go local anyway.
And from the oxford english dictionary
operator
Pronunciation: /ˈɒpəreɪtə/
noun
1 [often with modifier] a person who operates equipment or a machine: a radio operator
a person who works at the switchboard of a telephone exchange: calls are made through the operator
2 [usually with modifier] a person or company that runs a business: a tour operator
3 [with adjective] informal a person who acts in a shrewd or manipulative way: her reputation as a cool, clever operator
4 Mathematics a symbol or function denoting an operation (e.g. ×, +).
Pronunciation: /ˈɒpəreɪtə/
noun
1 [often with modifier] a person who operates equipment or a machine: a radio operator
a person who works at the switchboard of a telephone exchange: calls are made through the operator
2 [usually with modifier] a person or company that runs a business: a tour operator
3 [with adjective] informal a person who acts in a shrewd or manipulative way: her reputation as a cool, clever operator
4 Mathematics a symbol or function denoting an operation (e.g. ×, +).
Last edited by mad_jock; 16th Jun 2012 at 11:19.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just when you thought it might get easier.
Let's forget for a moment FCL. If an N reg aircraft, which has to be owned by a UStrust, operating in EASA land, but for all intents is a US owned and operated aeroplane, then to me the trust is the owner/ operator. Unless otherwise stated. All insurance companies currently accept this. No issues then?
If the pilot has both a current EASA licence, and an FAA current licence, then he is legally able to fly the aeroplane?
MJ - exactly who are 'they'. Your scenario conjures up scenes of official checkers hiding behind hedges on the look out for third country reg planes, ready to pounce with a full file of 'new' EASA dic tats.
If most on here cannot fully understand, nor decipher, forthcoming, proposed rules and regs, and that includes the relevant authorities themselves, then sorry, I also just do not see it.
Let's forget for a moment FCL. If an N reg aircraft, which has to be owned by a UStrust, operating in EASA land, but for all intents is a US owned and operated aeroplane, then to me the trust is the owner/ operator. Unless otherwise stated. All insurance companies currently accept this. No issues then?
If the pilot has both a current EASA licence, and an FAA current licence, then he is legally able to fly the aeroplane?
MJ - exactly who are 'they'. Your scenario conjures up scenes of official checkers hiding behind hedges on the look out for third country reg planes, ready to pounce with a full file of 'new' EASA dic tats.
If most on here cannot fully understand, nor decipher, forthcoming, proposed rules and regs, and that includes the relevant authorities themselves, then sorry, I also just do not see it.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"They" can be anyone to be honest.
In the UK it could be Dft, CAA (which i would be extremely suprised at), C&E, Special branch (who are well know for making things up with Aviation) or even a local bobbie who has had a compliant from a local G reg pilot ( which I suspect might happen a fair bit as a method of settling old scores).
And I would disagree with its operator is in the US and I am sure "they" will as well. There argument will be that if the plane hasn't touched US soil for x numbers of years its not operated from the US.
As per the Oxford defintion you want them to use number 2 as the meaning of operator and they will want to use number 1.
You wouldn't actually need to have local inspectors you would just do a computer pull on eurocontrol for the IR boys and girls. Then meet at destination next time it flew.
Lets face it in the south of the UK they appear to have taken a register of all the N regs for the olympics bollocks so already have the bulk of the details for most GA N regs in the UK.
In the UK it could be Dft, CAA (which i would be extremely suprised at), C&E, Special branch (who are well know for making things up with Aviation) or even a local bobbie who has had a compliant from a local G reg pilot ( which I suspect might happen a fair bit as a method of settling old scores).
And I would disagree with its operator is in the US and I am sure "they" will as well. There argument will be that if the plane hasn't touched US soil for x numbers of years its not operated from the US.
As per the Oxford defintion you want them to use number 2 as the meaning of operator and they will want to use number 1.
You wouldn't actually need to have local inspectors you would just do a computer pull on eurocontrol for the IR boys and girls. Then meet at destination next time it flew.
Lets face it in the south of the UK they appear to have taken a register of all the N regs for the olympics bollocks so already have the bulk of the details for most GA N regs in the UK.
Last edited by mad_jock; 16th Jun 2012 at 11:41.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I have flown around the UK, Fance and Spain, for the past 15 years, and have never been ramp checked. In fact, in France I have found the opposite, that no one gives a toss, they go out of their way to be non plus and - Ah, prive, ce Bon, Monsieur. Done deal.
Now maybe I have been lucky, and maybe one day it will not be as described, but frankly until that day arrives, I attempt to do things right, attempt to the best of my knowledge to keep legal, and attempt to cover my backside.
Any communications I have had with the CAA, confirms my current view. I can understand unease in certain quarters, but until I am faced with the actual situation, then I will remain non plussed.
Now maybe I have been lucky, and maybe one day it will not be as described, but frankly until that day arrives, I attempt to do things right, attempt to the best of my knowledge to keep legal, and attempt to cover my backside.
Any communications I have had with the CAA, confirms my current view. I can understand unease in certain quarters, but until I am faced with the actual situation, then I will remain non plussed.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets face it in the south of the UK they appear to have taken a register of all the N regs for the olympics
I think that the argument that a US based trust can be argued to be the operator of an aircraft is totally farcical, The trust is a token entity to facilitate a loophole in international aviation law. No more, no less.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caution is appropriate; I would not suggest recklessness. If I was reckless I would not have got the JAA IR which took up a significant chunk of 2011 to work through. That paper is not even valid to fly my own plane!
I just don't see this ever working within the framework of how aviation currently operates around Europe. And I've been to a fair few airports...
The best organised ramp checks I know of are ones where the inspector has a standard checklist (obviously prepared by somebody for him) which shows specimen licenses, and he checks for words like INSTRUMENT PILOT if the inbound flight was IFR. Same for medicals, etc. This is all easy stuff, however.
There is no evidence that behind these (very rare) inspections is a whole army of back office workers checking pilot papers with the CAAs of the various countries. A pilot is entitled to be trusted and the presumption is that his papers are not forged. Same with most of the world and its other professions.
The EASA reg elevates the verification to a whole new level of complexity, where no enforcement at all will be possible until some case law is formed, and then the biggest enforcers will be
1) GA pilots' anal willingness to comply with every imaginable current or future regulation (vis. people blowing £30k on an avionics refit to comply with PRNAV)
2) Attitudes of insurance companies
and 2) will be the biggest one, if/when this ever becomes clearer.
I just don't see this ever working within the framework of how aviation currently operates around Europe. And I've been to a fair few airports...
The best organised ramp checks I know of are ones where the inspector has a standard checklist (obviously prepared by somebody for him) which shows specimen licenses, and he checks for words like INSTRUMENT PILOT if the inbound flight was IFR. Same for medicals, etc. This is all easy stuff, however.
There is no evidence that behind these (very rare) inspections is a whole army of back office workers checking pilot papers with the CAAs of the various countries. A pilot is entitled to be trusted and the presumption is that his papers are not forged. Same with most of the world and its other professions.
The EASA reg elevates the verification to a whole new level of complexity, where no enforcement at all will be possible until some case law is formed, and then the biggest enforcers will be
1) GA pilots' anal willingness to comply with every imaginable current or future regulation (vis. people blowing £30k on an avionics refit to comply with PRNAV)
2) Attitudes of insurance companies
and 2) will be the biggest one, if/when this ever becomes clearer.
