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:
A rough translation would be:

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

I had a quick look at the BR and found interestingly in the preamble

which has very clearly been accomplished :ugh: 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)

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.

Apart from the fact that the Aircrew Regulation is not an EU Directive (the clue is in the name), why is such a thing so hard to imagine? France, for example, has been ignoring parts of EU law for years.

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?

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.

Yes, in the sense it's automatically implemented when it becomes EU law. The Aircrew Regulation is already law binding in the UK, for example. If the ANO hasn't been amended to implement it, that doesn't matter, in the UK the EU law takes precedence over it.

No, the "issue" will be that people generally don't break laws. This rule is highly enforceable. For every special case we conjecture on the forum of some bloke born in Mongolia who spends 5.9mths of the year living on the international date line and 6.1mths flying in the EU blah blah blah, the reality is that the people impacted are, on the whole, EU resident EU passport holding owners of FRA. So you land somewhere and are ramp checked. You are flying an N-reg, so you must have your passport with you. It's a UK one. OK, you can claim you are resident outside the EU. Do you have a single document to prove that? Your FAA certificate shows your UK address, this is of no help. OK, so they make you sign a document that you claim residency outside of the UK with small text that it is a criminal offence to knowingly make a false declaration. Who exactly is going to do that? No-one I know. And even if someone does make a false claim of this sort, and gets a letter asking them to forward evidence of their residency, what are they going to do? So you forge some documents. Perhaps the investigating agency will forward these on. If you are resident in the US, you are liable to US tax. Good luck to anyone explaining to the IRS that you were only falsely claiming US residency for the purposes of evading EU aircrew regulation.

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.

Evidently my brain works differently to yours, because nobody else thinks it is at all 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.

Nobody that's FAA thinks its enforcable but the rest of us do.

"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.

MJ, you still don't get it.

Who is the OPERATOR?

The PILOT doesn't come into this.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.:cool:

Again spot on MJ. the chances are that most people who have been flying N Reg in the UK during the last few months will have been approached by an "official" to discover who the pilot is, that is to build up an intelligence list as to WHO is operating the aircraft. We have all seen recent DFT / CAA / UKBA / CE checks at various airfields in recent months. I can not imagine that the UK agencies are comfortable with the anonimity offered to UK owners of N reg aircraft through US based trusts.

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.

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 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.

Well as Silvaire points out it is a farcical as a lot of the nonsense I read on here, and if it was such a large 'loophole' as you put it I am sure the FAA would have taken steps to close it by now.

The FAA is completely happy with the use of trusts - a quote from a FAA chief counsel's office lawyer's presentation I went to a while ago.

Loads of planes are on trusts, for a variety of reasons. Many wealthy individuals and big-name corporates don't want to show they own a jet, for example, for security and PR reasons.

Why would the FAA care about European operators of N reg? Its a european problem not thiers.

Which is exactly the reason why most of us don't think anything will come of this meeting, is it this month or next?

EASA - Safety Assessment Of Foreign Aircraft (EC SAFA Programme)

Is already out there.

And how do you form case law without enforcing the law?

Maxred.

Why would the FAA want to close a loophole that allows continued ownership of an American aircraft (and thus revenue for the Americans) from a non US citizen?

Most people in Europe who own a N reg aircraft and operate it in Europe do so because it allows them access to a less expensive system of personal licences and maintenance. If theTrust ownership loop hole was removed that would become impossible for most.

Most people in Europe who own a N reg aircraft and operate it in Europe do so because it allows them access to a less expensive system of personal licences and maintenance. If theTrust ownership loop hole was removed that would become impossible for most.

The insidious fried envy of the UK. Brilliant.

I cant have so you cant have, the politics of the great unwashed.

Also GAP

I can not imagine that the UK agencies are comfortable with the anonimity offered to UK owners of N reg aircraft through US based trusts.

Classic - that statement is again just inaccurate. Do you honestly think that the UK agencies, either care, or in fact do not know, who is operating under their jurisdiction? 2 minutes on the internet is all that is required.

Indeed, in particular in the meaning of "nobody else".

There is some lack of clarity in the definition of "Operator" and the definition of "resident". I agree. But this doesn't mean that suddenly the entire regulation is void. The most easily dismissed is the residency issue. For 95% of FRA pilots I would imagine there is no lack of clarity as to whether they are resident in the EU or not. For those in the 5%, I imagine there are methods to resolve this uncertainty. An obvious one would be to present the case to an NAA and get their agreement, and if you don't like their verdict, you can litigate - ie. in much the same way that residency questions are resolved for tax purposes.

On the operator question, this forum and the N-reg regulation isn't, amazingly enough, the first time this question has been raised. It certainly has been a matter of all sorts of case law in the USA, for Part 91, Part 91 Supart K (Fractional) and Part 135. The circumstances in which a person is deemed to have operational control of an aircraft are reasonably clear and I don't see how some trust arrangement could ever be used for a European beneficiary or shared beneficiary to ever claim he did not have operational control, except through some elaborate and self-evidently false construct. If one ever found a US trustee willing to be party to something so dumb (given the liabilities it carries) I would imagine they were essentially crooks. You can imagine what sort of person would offer such services and then you have to ask whether you trust them as owners of your $500k Cirrus or whatever. But don't take my word for it - ask a reputable trustee outside the EU if they would be willing to claim to have operational control of your aircraft and execute both the legal paperwork and day-day 'communications' needed to substantiate that. You have been writing about this possible "solution" for years now. I bet you that you won't actually find anyone sensible willing to do it. Go on, ask around.


I am not proposing anyone "go native" or "bend over". I also look for solutions, but I evaluate them too, otherwise they are not solutions but delusions. Your engineering is faulty if you think "enforceability" is a solution to anything in respect of FRA.

This is not to say there aren't genuinely grey areas. Someone who lives half their time in the US vs EU etc. Of course, one would hope a sensible solution could be found that is fair to such a person. But for the majority of FRA operators for whom EU residency isn't a grey area, and who have no genuine connection to a genuine non-EU operator (eg. a company or private owner for whom they fly) the greyness is not meaningful IMHO.

And how is that different from the anonymity offered UK owners of UK reg aircraft through anonymous corporate vehicles and trusts? This "trust loophole" fallacy is always repeated in an FRA forum. Let us be perfectly clear. I can be a lunatic bent on world domination. I can set up a whole chain of anonymous offshore vehicles. At one end of my chain an entity can buy me an EU (note any EU) register aircraft and base it in the UK. How regulating bloke X with an N-reg Cirrus at Blackbushe out of flying helps serve any public purpose or interest is beyond me.

Here we go again !
 

If you are flying N reg in Europe everyone knows that you are perfectly legal to fly with an FAA licence. Until EARSA rewrite the FAR's to include that you need a European licence too (which won't happen) , then just keep on flying as you have been for many many years. The whole rubbish about Operator residence, colour of Pilot's underwear etc is completely and utterly farcical, and shows the people who have written such drivel up for what they really are. Show me a safety case involving an N reg aircraft which hinges on Operator or Pilot residence ? There are a huge number of Airlines flying into and out of Europe every day, safely and if not safer that their European counterparts. Are we really expected to believe that just because a European Operator chooses to fly under the N reg that this is a safety issue just because of the residence of the Operator ? Of course not, this is total and utter rubbish and is discrimination by the lowest of the low.

This smacks of the same type of idiot rule about the 7 year IR validity of flying outside of Europe. Quite clearly many hundreds of very experienced senior Pilots are unhappy about that one too. So much so it's led to a petition being started on another Pprune forum against the CAA with hundreds of signatures so far.

I won't waste my time arguing the points with those of you that are

A. Trying to find a new vendetta after what probably is the longest soap opera posting on Pprune so far which has sadly yielded zero results. For that I feel sorry for you.

B. Give up, roll over and get shafted for thousands of euros just to fly the same aircraft with a European IR that has stupid validity periods which is currently discriminating against many thousands of senior Captains.

I'll just wait and see and if necessary there will be a discrimination case started in the future.

421C

The facts are that this is all poorly worked out and failing something sorted on a Bi lateral I have no doubts whatsoever on a solid legal challenge in the EU courts.

pace

Its not a vendetta.

Its just trying to get through to you that you have your head up your arse if you think its not going to happen or that it won't affect you.

IT HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH SAFETY.

The discrimination case will be amusing from the outside. Highly expensive and lasting years and years if you are on the inside.

Again spot on MJ. the chances are that most people who have been flying N Reg in the UK during the last few months will have been approached by an "official" to discover who the pilot is, that is to build up an intelligence list as to WHO is operating the aircraft.

I was going to leave this alone however......

I honestly think that you have been watching too many movies. It must be a W1 moment.

GAP, the chances are slightly>zero

More likely he lives in the South of england where the checks are being done.

Glasgow they just have a special force of baggage haddlers to put the head in on anyone that looks dodgy.

No need to insult me MJ
 

It didn't take long before the bald haggis started bashing. Sad really, what a pathetic posting from you MJ.

Yes that Smeato moment, when even if you are on fire, some eejit will still stick the boot in

Interesting to see the mindset though of all you lot who are against N reg in Europe. MJ, and all of you others love taking it in the a*s from a bunch of non elected, non pilots in Brussels writing laws , discriminatory and illegal ramblings of some thousands of pages better served up as recycled bog roll. The Stalinesque nature of life in Europe now, people afraid to speak up, to disagree, what was it you says MJ, jail ? Funniest thing I ever heard, you really are a piece of work.

Interesting to see those of you putting your faith in an Orwellian dictatorial mindset such as the Brussels gravy train which may well be derailed firstly with the impending collapse of the Euro and then country after country jumping ship.

Let's see what happens to all of this drivel then.

No if I said you were too thick to do the exams that would be an insult.

I actually think once you do get your finger out you will wonder why you made such a fuss.

Maybe if you didn't presume that we all have an agenda to ruin your life you would realise that whenever we disagree with you we arn't insulting you.

And these exams, where are they in the FAR's exactly ??? You need to take your finger out.

Also, look at the IR theory exams that some hundreds of Pilots all have issue with too. Look at the petition against the CAA, hundreds of signatures from mostly European expats flying for Emirates or similar, thousands of hours and being told they have to do their IR theory exams again, what a load of rubbish.

Frankly, Europe and EARSA are a sinking ship, get this through you head and perhaps we can all move on to a common form of licencing with ICAO's help.

You better hope it doesn't sink because you will have to get every single country in EASA to change its ANO again afterwards, so how many court cases is that going to be?

I know nothing about the FAR's. Why would I?

I currently don't need to extract my finger to do some exams to work in a particualar area of operations. Have done in the past and complied with the local laws for both issue of local licenses and validations.

Maxred - wow, you certainly are prickly if anyone has an opinion different to yours. Do you own and fly an N reg aircraft yourself?

Just for the sake of clarity, I will clarify a statement of mine earlier:

The Loophole is that the ONLY way to own an N Reg aircraft if you are not a US Citizen is by having it registered to either an American citizen as the owner OR to an American based trust.

Of course if details of the actual owner (the trustor) was availible to the authorities it would remove a lot of the issues over N-Reg being based and operated in the UK.

Now this could also be addressed easily by allowing ownership of N Reg aircraft by a non US entity and making the details of ownership availible through a similar system as G-INFO.

In the UK you would still want to hold any group operated aircraft in a 'limited liability structure' rather than in the individual's names as the owners are jointly and severally liable for all injuries and damages on the ground.

In addition, I believe the trust documents identifying the trustor are filed with the FAA, so this information is not opaque at the regulatory level

Besides trusts, you can also have the aircraft owned by an American corporation with (I think) 75% of the voting shares held by US Citizens, The President being US Citizen and 2/3 of Directors/Managing Officers US Citizens. I believe it is then possible for a non-US citizen to have a mortgage interest over the aircraft (for security of the capital) and to fly it. I know this is much more inconvenient than the trust structure, but it is nonetheless still viable for some people.