Operating N Reg Aircraft In France

[Igloowhite]

I think I recall reading or hearing somewhere a couple of years ago that the French Government was trying to stop private owners from basing and operating N Reg aircraft in France.

Does anyone know whether it is still possible to base and operate an N Reg aircraft in France?

Thanks.

[mm_flynn]

Yes you can.

That issue has been resolved by EASA, you need FAA and EASA licences/medical etc. if you want to operate outside France (just French issue EASA if only operated in France). FAA maintenance of not complex (not twin turboprop or jet or more than 5.7 tonnes - I think), FAA plus part M if complex.

All of the above applies to an EASA aircraft not operating commercially. Annex II aircraft are different.

[Igloowhite]

Many thanks.

So if I want to fly it around Europe I need French issue EASA MEP\IR and FAA\MEP IR - my UK EASA MEP\IR won't do?

[mm_flynn]

Not quite. To fly around Europe legally according to the FAA you need an FAA licence. To fly in EASA land (I assume the 'operator' is you and you are 'established in the EU') you need an EASA licence (issued any where, so your UK one is fine)

If you were going to only fly in France, then the FAA side would be happy with a French issued EASA licence, which would of course also cover the EASA side.

The EASA angle is one of the very limited occasions where a non-ICAO entity has compelled a group of ICAO signatory states to force flight crew licensing regulations onto foreign states' aircraft.

[Cathar]

The EASA angle is one of the very limited occasions where a non-ICAO entity has compelled a group of ICAO signatory states to force flight crew licensing regulations onto foreign states' aircraft.

It is not clear what you mean by a non ICAO entity. EASA is no different from the CAA in respect of it relationship with ICAO. It has been established by 27 contracting states acting together to full certain functions on their behalf, including the development of legislation giving effect to ICAO standards. The legislation establishing EASA is a Regualtion of the Council (representating the governments of the EU Member States) and the European Parliament (representing the voters of the EU Member States) adopted in accordance with a procedure set out in a Treay to which all the EU Member States are party.

Under the Regualtion EASA's key role is to develop implementing rules to support the essential requirement of the Regualtion. However, EASA does not have the power adopt the rules itself. Rather they are adopted under the EU legisaltive process. The Member States representatives vote on the proposed implementing rules in relevant committee. The rules are then subject to scrutiny by both the Council and the Parliament who may reject them if they are not compatible the intent of the EASA Regulation.

EASA was given a clear mandate in the EASA Regualtion in respect of the licensing requirements for third country aircraft operated by EU residents. Therefore this is a clear case of the contracting states telling EASA what to do. It is not a case of forcing flight crew licensing regulations onto foreign states' aircraft, rather it is the EU governments establishing a licensing system for the EU and ensuring that EU residents comply with that licensing system.

[Silvaire1]

EASA will be an ICAO recognized entity when it has a membership - which it doesn't. The Chicago convention which forms the basis of ICAO treaty recognizes sovereign states independently. What they otherwise do between themselves is their own business.

On that basis, as an ICAO member, FAA rules allow you to pilot an N-registered aircraft in a foreign nation using a license from that nation, but not the license of an otherwise politically associated neighboring nation.

The Postal History of ICAO

[flyingfemme]

There's no such thing as an FAA/MEP. They issue an MEL unless you are a floater.

[Cathar]

EASA will be an ICAO recognized entity when it has a membership - which it doesn't. The Chicago convention which forms the basis of ICAO treaty recognizes sovereign states independently.

EASA can never have membership of ICAO but then again neither can the CAA or FAA. Membership of ICAO goes to the contracting state and not to any body that they have established to meet their obligations under the Convention.

The is no sperate ICAO Treaty. The Chicago Convention is it. It does indeed recognizes sovereign states independently. However, contracting states are free to cooperate on safety oversight and there is nothing in the Convention to prevent a number of states from apointing the same body to undertake tasks on thier behalf. Indeed regional cooperation is encouraged by ICAO.

The status of EASA the body appointed by the UK to fulfill certain tasks is fully recongised and accepted by ICAO. The is made clear in the Report of the ICAO audit of the UK. The fact that a large number of other contracting states have also appointed EASA to undertake those tasks is irrelevant to ICAO.

[mm_flynn]

My original point re EASA, was that
a) It is very rare for a State to impose aircraft regulation on a foreign aircraft (i.e. for the US to define the licensing, certification, or maintenance requirements for a G-reg aircraft),
b) it is only slightly less rare to define such requirements for a resident private operator's foreign aircraft,
c) it is unique (I believe) for this requirement to be imposed by a government that is not a signatory to the Chicago convention (the EU).

EASA is not controlled by a signatory to the Chicago convention. However, you are of course correct that the various EU States have ceded their sovereignty for regulating many aspects of aviation to a super-state which does define the law for EASA and then the subordinate states are obligated by prior agreement to cascade this into local law. Further it is clear the European signatory States did this as an agreed process (i.e. they were not 'forced', although there is an element of creeping incrementalism in how the European vestigial States are achieving this status).

My point was not that this is right or wrong, but merely that this set of relatively unusual decisions is why it depends on exact circumstances what State(s) need to have licensed you to fly a non-EASA reg aircraft and also your general inclination to follow the various laws.

Some examples

1. [*]
2. [*]

[Cathar]

With regard to you first example, it is not a question of that from a local CAA or EASA might be OK with just an EASA licence, rather that under EU law only requires the pilots of EU operated aircraft to have an EASA licence. The Convention only covers international aviation and gives no rights to aircraft registered in one contracting State to be based in another Contracting State or to make internal flights within the State. The licensing requirement is a condition which permits EU residents to base third country aircraft in the EU and undertake internal flights.

So far as your second example is concerned I think that you have misunderstood the scope of the licensing requirements. So far as third country aircraft opereated by EU residents are concerned, an EASA licence is only required if the flight begins, ends or takes place wholly within the EU. Once outside of the terriotry of EU member States the EU licensing requirements have no legal force and pilots with need to comply with requirements or the state of registry.

With regard to your third example, the legislation is quite clear and there is no requirement to have an EASA licnence in the circumstances you describe as no part of the flight would take place within the EU.

[Mike Echo]

Curiosity or dumb question

The original question did get me thinking about how EASA are promulgating this requirement apart from word of mouth to the Pilots who will be affected. I agree it is written in the EASA regulations and has been for a couple of years but if you are not a regular Pprune reader has there been anything highlighting this in the aviation press that I may have missed? FAA licence holders would not be on any circulation list available to EASA. NBAA did bring out a statement but not everybody is a member.

I made our crew aware of this a long time ago but otherwise they would only have learnt of this by chance meetings.

Cheers
Mike Echo

[proudprivate]

With regard to your third example, the legislation is quite clear and there is no requirement to have an EASA licnence in the circumstances you describe as no part of the flight would take place within the EU.

The legislation is of course anything but clear. Part FCL allegedly applies to operations of aircraft. Neither the basic regulation nor part FCL restrict the geographical scope of the operation. Even Article 4.1(d) of the Basic Regulation, which is excluded from the scope of part FCL, refers to operations inside and outside the community. And that in spite of having studied at reasonably good university in the south of France and earning a jolly tax free 10k a month in Cologne. ;-)

I would call the 3rd example not applicable because the FBO where you rent the plane would have the ultimate say over where the airplane is going and where not. As a result, the US based FBO would be the operator and part FCL wouldn't apply as stipulated in article 1 of part FCL.

It is clear from the language in part FCL that "operator" is very distinct from "pilot". For that reason, a London based Delta pilot does not require any sort of EASA certification when flying a company aircraft.

The statement

Once outside of the terriotry of EU member States the EU licensing requirements have no legal force and pilots with need to comply with requirements or the state of registry.

is bolleaux.

Mike Echo : Ignorance of the Law is never a valid defence. That being said, there are two major issues with the enforcement of this particular item of Part FCL
1) The establishment of the operator is a non-trivial legal matter.
2) There has been some legal preparation done by a number of (mostly private) operators who would vigorously fight enforcement on the basis of a number of issues, one of them being discrimination. It would be career risking for a local CAA official to start a witch hunt without rock solid political backing from their transport minister.

et ceterum censeo easam delendam.

[mm_flynn]

PP,

In the third example I specifically chose a 'private' aircraft so there was no FBO (who clearly is the operator of a rental aircraft) and the further clarified the point by having 'me' the 'European' own the aircraft.

Cathar's contention seems to be that

... used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations...

in 1 c of the basic Regulation means an operator with specific oversight from EASA (I.e. an AOC) and that for 'private' operators who are bound by the general EASA rules, the FCL rules are limited to flights into, out of, and within 'EASA' airspace.

Not being a lawyer, it seems reasonable Cather's points is correct, but equally my first reading, that any operator (including non AOC operators) operating in the EU was subject to EASA oversight, and as such must comply with the full sentence in 1c seems reasonable.

[Cathar]

The original question did get me thinking about how EASA are promulgating this requirement apart from word of mouth to the Pilots who will be affected.

My understanding is that it has been largely left to the competent authorities in each Member State to promulgate the requirements. Certainly the UK CAA has published quite a lot of information on the subject. I also understand that the Cayman, Bermudan and Manx authorities are aware of the issue and advised the owners of aircraft on their registers. The FAA also appears to be well aware of the issue and I would be surprised if they had not promulgated the information in some way.

Neither the basic regulation nor part FCL restrict the geographical scope of the operation.

The applicability of the basic Regulation is set out in Article 4. The paragraph relevant in this case is paragraph 1(c). This states that the Regualtion applies to aircraft "registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations [ie an EU AOC holder] or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community" Compare this to paragraph 1(b) which states that the Regualtion applies to aircraft "registered in a Member State, unless their regulatory safety oversight has been delegated to a third country and they are not used by a Community operator". So the Regulation applies to EU registered aircraft and aircraft registered in a third country which are operated by an EU AOC holder where ever the aircraft are operated. However, privately operated third country registered aircraft operated by EU residents are only caught when used into, within or out of the Community. There is nothing in the applicability provisions that extend to scope to the private operation of third country aircraft outside of the EU.

Part FCL allegedly applies to operations of aircraft.

The Aircrew Regulation (1178/2011) does not mention operators. The requirements are set out in terms of pilots. However, the applicability of the requirements is by reference to Aticle 4.1(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation so the operator of the aircraft is very relevant in the case of aircraft registered in a third country.

It would be career risking for a local CAA official to start a witch hunt without rock solid political backing from their transport minister.

The Member States voted (unanimously I am told) in favour of both the EASA Regulation and the Aircrew Regualtion. Member States are also under a legal obligation to enforce EU legislation. I therefore do not see why it should be career risking for CAA officials to enforce the law. Indeed they will place themselves in a very difficult position if the ignore evidence of illegal activity. If in subsequent legal action the courts find that the law is leaglly defective I do not see why this should have any adverse consequences for the authority taking the legal action. Rather it will be a problem for the EU Commission which is responsible for the legislation.

[proudprivate]

in 1 c of the basic Regulation means...

I assume you are referring to article 4.1.(c) of the BR, as there is no article 1 (c). Now that article is only applicable to an operator established or residing in the Community or an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations.

Your first reading is therefore incorrect because
(a) EASA - as pointed out before - is not a Member State
and
(b) No Member State ensures oversight of operations of an N-registered plane in France.

Furthermore, knowing Cathar, it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that any point he makes is correct.

Also, the fact that your beginning your sentence with "I'm no lawyer but..." seems to vindicate my point that this regulation is anything but clear. Most Cologne-generated prose isn't.

Finally, if you are the owner / operator of the N-reg plane (which can be the case if you are a US citizen - there wouldn't be a trust involved then) and you are resident in the EU, then your pilot (even if he is Brazilian) must have EASA papers according to part FCL and the BS, as flying out of the Community falls under article 4.1.c. If you are the owner of a US company (or a Brazilian company, or a Liechtenstein company) that operates the N-reg plane, then 4.1.d would apply and hence part FCL would not be applicable.

I therefore do not see why it should be career risking for CAA officials to enforce the law. Indeed they will place themselves in a very difficult position if the ignore evidence of illegal activity.

Well for starters, it is not clear what would constitute "evidence" of illegal activity. And you can rest assured that any arbitrary enforcement would not remain without political consequences, especially in a country like France, where the majority of GA is N-registered.

Civil servants can only get away with so much when they are not in the spotlight of public scrutiny. That is why they avoid a proper debate at all costs.

You seem to ignore how this legislation came about. Most transport ministers were blisfully unaware of what was going on. There was unanimity in the second EASA committee only, where a lot of member states' representations were absent. And the vote in the Transport Committee of the EP, which Baldwin forced through in double quick time on that 1st of September, without proper debate, was anything but unanimous. Oh, and the "translation" of the legislation took about 6 months, so that it was ensured that it was sent to the MEPs during the holiday period.

I think you people are quickly running out of credit with the EU citizens. But obviously you don't give a toss about that.

[Silvaire1]

EASA can never have membership of ICAO but then again neither can the CAA or FAA. Membership of ICAO goes to the contracting state and not to any body that they have established to meet their obligations under the Convention.

The FAA is part of the US Department of Transportation of the US Federal Government. Presumably national CAAs in Europe are likewise part of the national governments of States that are ICAO members. As such they negotiated and made international agreements between themselves through ICAO, and they continue to do so. EASA is not at the table.

One hopes that the EU Government is not entirely sophomoric.

[Igloowhite]

Well, I lost track of this about 600 posts back.

All I'm worried about is, operating (potentially) across Europe, IFR in an N reg twin, with an FAA PPL (but no FAA IR or MEP), and EASA (UK issued) CPL\IR\MEP, based in France, am I legal?

[DLT1939]

All I'm worried about is, operating (potentially) across Europe, IFR in an N reg twin, with an FAA PPL (but no FAA IR or MEP), and EASA (UK issued) CPL\IR\MEP, based in France, am I legal?

I don't believe you are without an FAA IR/MEP as the FAA does not recognise EASA as a "country" for the purposes of FAR 61.3(a)(1). Had you retained your UK/JAA licence you would have been legal in the UK, but not elsewhere in Europe.

As I understand it, the CAA is advising UK licence holders to delay conversion to EASA licences until there is more clarity on FAR 61.3.

§ 61.3 Requirement for certificates,
ratings, and authorizations.

(a) Pilot certificate. No person may serve
as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States,
unless that person—

(1) Has a pilot certificate or special purpose
pilot authorization issued under this part in that person's physical possession
or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that
pilot certificate or authorization. However, when the aircraft is operated
within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be
used;

[Cathar]

Presumably national CAAs in Europe are likewise part of the national governments of States

The UK CAA is not part of the UK government. It is a stautory corporation with statutory functions with regard to the regulation of civil aviation. The status of EASA is very similar except that it is established under EU legislation and is undertaking the tasks on behalf of 28 states rather than 1. Obviously the situation varies between EU Member States but I believe that one or two others follow the UK model.

So far as regualtion in the UK is concerned, in EASA's areas of [legal]competence, its status under the Chicago Convention differes little from that of the CAA.

[englishal]

I don't believe you are without an FAA IR/MEP as the FAA does not recognise EASA as a "country" for the purposes of FAR 61.3(a)(1). Had you retained your UK/JAA licence you would have been legal in the UK, but not elsewhere in Europe.

Correct, this would be an illegal flight as you are breaking FAA rules not EASA rules.

For this flight to be legal, you would need FAA ME rating, and if in IMC an IR issued by the FAA. The only time this flight would be legal is if flying in the airspace which issued the EASA license and ratings, then you would not need an FAA certificate.

As mentioned, the FAA chief council did a ruling on whether the JAA (at the time) constituted one "country" with respect to the FARs. The Chief Council's ruling was that it did not.