SteveC wrote:If you are indeed a permanent Norwegian resident then I believe under EASA you are required to change the state of licence issue for your JAA/EASA licence to Norway along with your medical records. You will then be subject to whatever rules they choose to apply.
If you are however trying to work the angle that as you are not an EU resident due to permanant residency in Norway and as such you can continue to fly using your FAA licence outside of Norway then I would suggest that you contact the noggie CAA and the CAA of each country you intend to fly in for clarification.
Steve, sorry but I disagree. There is nothing in EASA FCL that says you have to change your state of licence issue to your state of residency. Quite the opposite, you are entitled to pick any EU state you want. The UK CAA have published a bit of a smokescreen about holding medical records (IMHO), perhaps to mitigate the impulse some may have to just pick the most hassle and fee-free NAA for their licensing custom....
I think it's obvious that if you are not resident in the EU, then you can fly in the EU in an N-reg with an FAA licence. It would be ridiculous to contact every CAA of every country you fly to, any more than a US airline would need to do this check. I don't think Norwegian law could prevent that even if they wanted to, but, of course, they could prevent it within Norway.
GrahamB wrote::scratch: Someone please remind me what all this is trying to achieve, ...
I like to think of it as a multiple choice question.
"The USA is undoubtedly the world's most successful aviation country, and its aviation regulatory regime is the envy of GA pilots around the world. Is the main contributory factor to this:
A) The choice of the letter 'N' for its registration prefix B) Its refusal to adopt the IMC rating or C) The decision by Hoover in 1926 to regulate aviation federally. ?"
peterh337 wrote:An UK based FAA ATP / CPL / PPL flying an N-reg privately won't need EASA papers till 2014.
I do hope that is case for such flights in EU as well as in the UK!
Any knowledgeable supporters/dissenters/reference on this point, i.e. UK CAA lifetime PPL with FAA 61.75 flying N-reg in UK and Europe not needing EASA papers until 2014. much appreciated.
JonEBgood
Flying is the second greatest thrill known to man.
GrahamB wrote::scratch: Someone please remind me what all this is trying to achieve, ...
I like to think of it as a multiple choice question.
"The USA is undoubtedly the world's most successful aviation country, and its aviation regulatory regime is the envy of GA pilots around the world. Is the main contributory factor to this:
A) The choice of the letter 'N' for its registration prefix B) Its refusal to adopt the IMC rating or C) The decision by Hoover in 1926 to regulate aviation federally. ?"
UK CAA lifetime PPL with FAA 61.75 flying N-reg in UK and Europe not needing EASA papers until 2014. much appreciated.
On my amateur reading, you should be OK, even if anybody actually cares about any of this badly drafted politically motivated bollox, which is hugely unlikely.
But you don't mention an IR, so the worst you will need to do is get an EASA PPL, which won't be exactly hard...
I do hate it when somebody says to me that actually such and such is not difficult so why not shut up and do it, but I don't think the EASA PPL or even the LAPL is hard to get. 2 or so exams and a skills test and you are done. It's nothing like the IR, which takes a fair bit of time and money. And you already have a UK PPL...
The big gotcha is of course the Class 2 medical which a % of FAA PPL holders in Europe can't get, especially if they have not explored various interesting avenues as they came up over the years... Even though I let my JAA PPL lapse for some years, I always kept my CAA medical going.
Yes they (Switzerland Etc) may well have. But, and this is the confusing bit, on one hand we have EASA states, and on the other we have EU countries. Both are not the same, yet the EASA documentation refers to "EU". So someone in EASA doesn't know that Norway et al are not in the EU (I suspect) and someone who writes legal documents needs to go back to school and do a bit more geography. Why didn't they just say "resident of an EASA member state"? Or are they trying to protect someone?!
I think the way this works is that EU directives are directly binding on EU states, which have to incorporate them into their national law, and if they don't then Brussels will get Ms Merkel to take back her 3 submarines from Greece and blockade the offending EU state.
Whereas Norway or Switzerland or Croatia don't have to incorporate EU directives into their national law. They can choose to, or choose not to, and Brussels cannot do anything to force them. But if they do it, the result is the same as if they were an EU state.
Last edited by peterh337 on Thu May 17, 2012 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
AlanB wrote:Both are not the same, yet the EASA documentation refers to "EU".
It doesn't. It refers to "Member States" and the "Community".
Why didn't they just say "resident of an EASA member state"?
I suspect, because rather than inventing new language it's easier to keep the terms "Member States" and the "Community" and allow them to be defined somewhere else.
Flyingfemme wrote:So to be totally safe I need to be sacking some pilots?
How you going to choose?
The ones with the EU addresses won't be ferry pilots any more............
It's a shame but I have limited time, even less interest and a pool of foreign pilots to choose from.
You'll be solving the wrong problem... the requirement for EASA licences in addition to whatever the state of registry requires is based on the OPERATOR location. Where the pilot lives is of no consequence whatsoever.
If you ferry an aircraft to Europe, who is actually the operator of the aircraft? If the ownership has transferred before the ferry flight, it will be the new owner, on who's behalf you are flying, so ANY ferry pilot would have to have EASA papers in addition to the state-of-registry papers. If the ownership only transfers on arrival in Europe, it will be fine [but that would be unusual, wouldn't it?]
Nope. Owners and operators can be totally different. It's only the case of a single, private owner pilot that is simple.
We are a commercial ferry operation and become the operator of any aircraft in our care and control. We moved ourselves out of the EU last year because this was coming. If the CAA is saying that the residence of the crew will also be taken into account then they are depriving EU pilots of work. Most pro ferry pilots use an FAA licence because most aircraft are moved on the N register - it is universally understood and all countries can work from that as a base. Keeping ratings current for everything you may need to fly is not financially viable in that situation and time is generally of the essence. A decent ferry pilot is expected to fly anything (and everything) up to 12,500 lbs.
Flyingfemme wrote:Nope. Owners and operators can be totally different.
Obviously. In its normal working life, an aircraft might be owned by a finance company, which leases it to a wet-lease operator who maintains and crew it, who then wet-leases to an airline, which flies it under a code-share arrangement with yet another airline...
While not necessarly straightforward since rules differ from conuntry to country, it tends to be clear who the operator is - in the UK it is the company holding the AOC under which it is flown (in this case the wet-lease operator).
We are a commercial ferry operation and become the operator of any aircraft in our care and control.
Interesting - I did not know that. Personally, if I bought an aircraft, did maintain and use it in the US (as owner/operator), then moved to Europe to continue to use it there as owner/operator, and asked a company to ferry it for me, I would still consider myself the aircraft operator because I am making all key arrangements for it.
Would that be different if I bought it in the US and immediately had it ferried to Europe?
Is this different if it is bought by an AOC holder?
We moved ourselves out of the EU last year because this was coming.
Good move! Did you move everything physically, or did you find a useful coroprate arrangement?
If the CAA is saying that the residence of the crew will also be taken into account then they are depriving EU pilots of work.
Fortunately that was a red herring (earlier draft, since superceded)
Cobalt wrote:While not necessarly straightforward since rules differ from conuntry to country, it tends to be clear who the operator is - in the UK it is the company holding the AOC under which it is flown (in this case the wet-lease operator).
Charter operators are actually a small subset of the whole thing. Owners and operators can be private individuals, corporations, governments, dealers. AOC really has nothing to do with it. The owner/operator/crew situation has many permutations and EASA don't seem to consider that.
Cobalt also wrote:Interesting - I did not know that. Personally, if I bought an aircraft, did maintain and use it in the US (as owner/operator), then moved to Europe to continue to use it there as owner/operator, and asked a company to ferry it for me, I would still consider myself the aircraft operator because I am making all key arrangements for it.
Really? Are you planning the route, making the weather decisions, paying the bills? Our customers use us precisely because we do the complete job. Private owners generally consider the relocation of their pride and joy to be the trip of a lifetime and willingly hand over the responsibility to us. ICAO recognise us as an "operator" with the grant of an identifier and callsign.
Then Cobalt wrote:Would that be different if I bought it in the US and immediately had it ferried to Europe?
Is this different if it is bought by an AOC holder?
New owners tend to be the bulk of ferry customers. Relocating a new toy across unfamiliar routes in sensible timescales is not a job for somebody without experience. That's not to say it can't be done but most people don't have the bottle, the cash or the time to do it safely. Many AOC holders have been our customers. An aircraft is typically not accepted onto an AOC until it arrives with the new owner and has been through the re-registration and local hoops. Many smaller AOC holders have no clue about crossing continents and oceans; their authorised areas can be quite small and they prefer our way of doing business.
Finally Cobalt wrote:Good move! Did you move everything physically, or did you find a useful coroprate arrangement?
No messing. Lock, stock and barrel. I'm now an island dweller and find it very pleasant. Life is complicated enough without trying to second-guess a bunch of overfed pollies and we were not willing to give up something we spent twenty hard years building.
Flyingfemme wrote:Keeping ratings current for everything you may need to fly is not financially viable in that situation and time is generally of the essence. A decent ferry pilot is expected to fly anything (and everything) up to 12,500 lbs.
There's a subversive sub-text there which suggests that type ratings for small turboprops and PA46s are silly.
Enjoy your Island life (is there an envy smiley anywhere here?)
Ok, so without a clear definition of an operator anywhere, it is only clear who the operator is when the aircraft is explicitly flown on an AOC.
Many AOC holders have been our customers. An aircraft is typically not accepted onto an AOC until it arrives with the new owner and has been through the re-registration and local hoops.
This makes perfect sense. So before it is on their AOC, someone has to be the operator, but not necessarily the purchaser, and it clearly cannot be the seller if sale was completed. Understood.
This leaves the interesting question how to determine the operator if not on an AOC.
From what you write above, the boundary appears to be quite fluid. Assuming I am a private owner / operator (as an individual).
Day to day, I fly myself --> I am the operator
I ask somebody to fly the aircraft to the maintenance base --> I would still consider myself to be the operator, even if that individual does all the flight planning, pays the landing fee, refuels the aircraft on its way from, say, Biggin to Goodwood and back.
If I asked you to fly it across the Atlantic, you would do more (insurance, ferry tank installation if necessary, etc.). Before your posts above, I would still have considered myself the operator... but if you actually make all decisions (crew selection, exactly how to get it to Europe, who insures it, who fits the ferry tanks) it could also be you.
I suspect it all depends... and also on the state of registry. For example, an aicraft registered in Germany has a registered operator (in their equivalent of G-INFO), which is defined as the individual/company that determines what the aicraft does overall (where it flies to, and when, but not necessarily on a flight-to-flight basis) and has the ultimate interest in the flight happening (commercial benefit, or satisfaction of personal whim). Any change of operator has to be notified. No such thing for the G or N register.
FLYER Exhibitions
Login / Register