Polite discussion about EASA, the CAA, the ANO and the delights of aviation regulation.
Forum rules: Please keep it polite!
While I believe mentoring in any aircraft doesn't legally require any licence or medical at all (the pilot is P1 at all times), what are the licence/rating requirements for an EASA qualified instructor to instruct in an N-reg aircraft? I've searched the forum (and googled elsewhere) without finding definitive answers.

a) In the UK, outside a formal DTO/ATO or FAA approved course, e.g. for EASA SEP revalidations etc.
b) In the UK, as part of a formal course (e.g. ab-initio EASA PPL, EASA IR)
c) Elsewhere in Europe

I recall that the Department of Transport removed the requirement for N-Reg aircraft to be individually approved for instruction a few years ago, so don't believe this is required.

I believe the UK Air Navigation Order does permit flying (and thus presumably instruction) on aircraft of any nationality/registration within the UK, so I'm guessing that all that is required in the UK would be an EASA FI rating. Outside the UK, would this require an FAA FI or would an FAA "piggyback"PPL suffice? I could see a potential requirement for simultaneous/parallel qualifications but that severely limits the number of available instructors and the much higher costs of obtaining those ratings would have to be passed on to students.
My belief is that to instruct you would need to gain a permit. See ANO 2016 Article 252, 2.14.1 and 2.14.2 which although titled Flight Tests also refer to training in the sub text.

See also http://www.caa.co.uk/foreigncarrierpermits and then follow the link to aerial work.

For a few hours instructing I decided it frankly wasn’t worth the bother and I’d end up working for nothing. My days of doing that are gone.
DavidC wrote:b) In the UK, as part of a formal course (e.g. ab-initio EASA PPL, EASA IR)

EASA may be a bit different but for ab-initio N-reg seems to be a no go given solo requirements, according to the FAA CFR 61.89 (interpret how you want but Student Pilot Certificates do not appear to be valid outside US airspace). Even if one could in theory do this, each solo would need to be signed off in the N-reg by an FAA CFI (who would also need to be an EASA instructor if one is going for the EASA PPL rather than the FAA).

Also difficult to get a DTO/ATO to allow an N-reg on their books for ab-initio - I haven't found a single one thus far. Additionally students would need to get an FAA medical.

I think it is possible to get it done for sure, but requires a lot of persistence/headaches or, well... money solves most things :)
It used to be that the DfT would issue ANO 2009 Article 225 permissions free of charge. Around 2012, I think, the CAA took over this administrative process, and began to charge around £65 for each permission. In addition, the CAA permissions being issued were valid until the aircraft insurance or C of A were due for renewal which meant, in a number of cases, the permission needed to be reissued either prior to or during training at additional cost to the owner/trainee.

During the ANO Review (see CAP 1414 and CAP 1335), this was one of the issues which was raised by a number of stakeholders. An opportunity was also taken to remove the existing Aerial Work definition and align where possible with EASA definitions to avoid confusion.

ANO 2009 Article 225 used to refer to aerial work, which included a flight on which you paid the flight instructor or examiner. In ANO 2016 the framework was aligned with EASA and now talks of a "commercial operation", which would not include such a flight; flight instructing and examining in EASA regulations fall within non-commercial operations. ANO 2016 Article 252 now states:

Restriction on commercial operations in aircraft registered elsewhere than in an EEA state
252.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), an aircraft registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom must not fly over the United Kingdom for the purpose of commercial operations unless—
(a)the CAA has granted permission to do so to the operator or charterer of the aircraft; and
(b)any conditions, to which such permission may be subject, are satisfied.

Meaning of “commercial operation”
7. For the purposes of this Order, “commercial operation” means any operation of an aircraft other than for public transport—
(a)which is available to the public; or
(b)which, when not made available to the public, is performed under a contract between an operator and a customer, where the latter has no control over the operator, in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration.

Therefore, remunerated training and testing of an owner or part-owner in an aircraft registered elsewhere than in an EEA state (such as an N-reg) does not fall within the restrictions contained in ANO 2016 Article 252, and no longer requires a specific permission from the DfT or CAA.

ANO 2016 Article 148/149 still states that the licensing requirements of the state of registration must be met. In the case of instructing and examining in a N-registered aircraft, a UK CAA-issued flight crew licence and instructor/examiner certificate are rendered valid in UK airspace by FAA regulation 14 CFR 61.3 and ANO Article 148/149.

So, in short, yes it can be done without further reference to the regulations providing the instructor/examiner pilot has a UK licence, it's dual training or testing within the privileges of their UK licence, rating, or certificate, conducted in UK airspace, and it's with the owner or part-owner. The instructor/examiner should seek some ground training on FAA regulations beforehand since they will be operating in accordance with both FAA and EASA regulations for the training/test/check.

Note also that an EASA instructor may not conduct the FAA Flight Review required for compliance with 14 CFR 61.56 which is required for FAA certificates including those issued in accordance with 14 CFR 61.75 (sometimes called a piggyback licence) - for that, the pilot will need ground and flight training with a FAA CFI.

ATB Cookie

Jon Cooke
EASA and FAA instructor
derekf, AndyR liked this
Thanks Cookie, that was a very clear, well documented and straightforward answer.

It’s cleared up a lot of confusion and misunderstanding.

It sounds like the relaxation in regulations was both appropriate and helpful, so thanks also to those who pushed that through at the time.