Correct BEagle- that's why I said:

Have a look at EASA Basic Regs and ANO Article 61A (Part-FCL licence and EASA aircraft registered outside the UK) and 61/62 (Part-FCL licence and non-EASA aircraft registered outside the UK)

Hopefully the smoke is starting to clear...

So, to answer the original question:

Yes, you can fly an N-reg on a NPPL (ANO Schedule 7).
Yes, you can fly an N-reg on a LAPL (ANO Article 61/62).

BEagle, hopefully you can arrange to have the NPPL website amended. Not sure who you'd ask though :p

ifitaint...

Nope, as I'm well aware of the original NPPL policy decision, it will be the (correct) CAP804 statement which I will advise the CAA is in contradiction to the ANO; the NPPL website also conforms with the agreed policy.

Hence it will be the ANO, not the NPPL website, which is likely to be corrected.

BEagle

i suspect you won't make friends with that attitude.........

'Making friends' is not the issue.

The NPPL P&SC agreed the policy; however, it appears that NPPL privileges are apparently being exercised by some on aircraft which do not fall within the policy agreement.

That is the issue. Sorry if you find it inconvenient.

I really don't see the problem with someone flying a non UK registered aircraft using a NPPL licence within their licence privileges. Thinking of the recent "Red Tape Challenge", what would be the safety justification for amending the ANO to prevent them?

ifitaint...

The NPPL P&SC. Another quango-like committee making rules in dark smoke-filled rooms.......

BEagle. The whole issue of people flying N reg in the EU on 61.75s was never considered as the purpose of 61.75 but that's where we are.
Just because people have taken advantage of the 61.75 licence doesn't mean the FAA jump in and change the rule.

You jump on this with such eagerness because you are now aware that people are taking advantage in a way you did not intend.

You are not make rules, you are just being vindictive.

I don't blame the NPPL P&SC, nor do I blame the ANO or the CAA. The NPPL was introduced knowing full well that it did not meet ICAO requirements. This means the Chicago convention did not apply, and that the combination of NPPL and G-reg would not be automatically acceptable for flight into foreign countries. The NPPL P&SC did not have to specify that the combination was not valid for foreign flight, because it was implicitly not valid under the Chicago convention. They may have put this in a policy document of some sort, but that's probably intended more as a clarification than as a basis for a legal text.

Then a few things happened. Some countries (Ireland, France and maybe a few others) agreed with the UK to mutually accept each others sub-ICAO licences (NPPL, LAPL, RPL, Brevet de base, whatever the name) for flight into each others airspace. Great. But again, the rules that apply to the situation where you fly a G-reg/NPPL into foreign airspace are not just in the ANO, but also in the equivalent foreign law set, and/or in the terms of the mutual agreement. (My gut feeling is that the mutual agreement will very closely follow the Chicago convention, but that's just a gut feeling.)

And then the FAA entered that little line into FAR 61.3. Which is where the confusion really starts. You can fly an N-reg within the UK with a UK-issued licence and valid medical. It doesn't say which licence, or which restrictions apply. In fact, the way I read it I can do ATPL-type stuff in an N-reg within the UK, with my UK-issued PPL. If we need further clarification on this, it's the FAA which should provide it, not the CAA.

And while we're talking to the FAA, can we also ask them to change the phrase "issued" to "issued or rendered valid"? That would preempt the whole "is EU/EASA a country", "All EASA licences are created equal, but some licences are more equal than others" discussion.

How very rude. Actually it consists of AOPA, BGA, BMAA, CAA, GAPAN and LAA representatives who agreed all policy based on clear benefits to their members.

But feel free to carry on believing what you will......:rolleyes:

I think there's actually very little or no confusion from the FAA perspective. They mean exactly what they say - they accept any valid license that was issued in the country of operation. ICAO does not make US Federal Law and has nothing to do with the license required by the FAA regulation.

One of the numerous advantages of the FAA regulations is that they are intentionally basic and unlike the total CF of European regulation, the FARs achieve reasonable success in being unambiguous.

When I asked the DGAC if the LAPL was acceptable to fly a G reg in France, their reply referred me to Article 11 of Regulation (EC) 216/2008:

The obvious message was: "Why are you asking such a silly question?"

You're right of course. The LAPL is an EASA licence and obviously valid throughout the EU. I should not have included it in my list of country-specific sub-ICAO licences.

I had a chat with a very helpful IAA chum yesterday about this. His view is that FAR 61.3 does NOT apply to sub-ICAO licences, so Irish LAPL holders would NOT lawfully be able to exercise their licence privileges on N-reg aircraft.

Whereas, when asked, the UK CAA just said "Dunno...." :hmm:

Isn't that the better answer? If you want an opinion on 14 CFR 61, why not ask the FAA Chief Counsel rather than an IAA chum??

That's what I would expect the UK regulator to do.... It's their job to clarify such things, not mine.

Nope. It is the job of the FAA to clarify this, not the European regulators.

In general, creating rules that prohibit someone from flying an aircraft that they would be perfectly entitled to fly if it had a different registration painted on the side strikes me as unbelievably petty and small-minded. What possible safety justification can that have?

None, as far as I can tell. It is similar to restricting operations of aircraft for which the operator is resident in the area.

Flash news from our Cologne regulators : why don't we restrict flying on the basis of religion? As of 16 September 2015, jews will no longer be permitted to fly EASA aircraft. Oh wait a minute, Eric, we've done that before and it kind of backfired. How about Muslims then ? Surely there's a safety argument proscribing muslims from flying an aircraft since 9/11 ? They could crash into tall buildings or throw antrax out of the window ! Yeah, Eric, but then you'll get all those article 6 whiners on our backs. I'd bin it for now, if I were you.

Cobalt, it is the duty of the CAA to establish whether the FAA is content for N-reg aircraft to be flown using sub-ICAO licences in UK/EU airspace.

The time to find out is NOT after some LAPL holder has an accident in an N-reg aircraft, it is BEFORE....:hmm:

Having just discussed this issue further at this week's EASA Part-FCL Implementation Forum, I elicited the following from the UK CAA:

• They don't know whether FAR 61.3 applies to sub-ICAO licences - so they've asked the FAA...
• ...who said they didn't know either, so will now seek legal advice.
• Several NAAs merely consider that N-reg aircraft may NOT be flown using sub-ICAO licences.

Until this is resolved, anyone who chances flying an N-reg aircraft on a sub-ICAO licence does so at their own not inconsiderable risk. Prudent advice is NOT to do so; a fully-compliant ICAO PPL is the minimum licence which should be used.

But hey, you barrack room lawyers who think otherwise, feel free to go ahead and risk being deemed complicit in any subsequent claim for damages should an N-reg aircraft flown by a sub-ICAO licence holder be involved in an accident.....:rolleyes:

BEagle
There are many pilots who have taken IMC rating courses, passed their IMC rating tests and continue to take their IMC rating renewals all on N reg aircraft. IMC is sub-ICAO so there is a long history of the CAA accepting sub-ICAO on N reg. I suspect this must be done with tacit FAA understanding.
You seem compelled to prove your point but I don't see why. What makes anyone using a sub-ICAO licence more of a risk on N reg than G?
There are more rewarding flights to be had than this one.

I bet the FAA will never make any statement on this issue. The US position is already clear, and ICAO or sub-ICAO is not an issue. ICAO does not write US law. Probably more importantly, FAA will not want to interpret foreign regulations - as a sovereign State doing foreign pilots a favor, the US has said all it needs to say. If foreign aviation law leaves foreigners in an ambiguous situation, as it so often does, so be it. Not FAA business.