Sure it is easy to make a determination for Mr Average but a need for a court to do it is just crap lawmaking – typical of the particular process operating in this case (probably amateur drafting, anti American sentiment among the “Brussels champagne socialists”, and FUD, in equal parts).
It’s like a tax system where only the tax judge, jury and executioner inspector is able to calculate how much you owe.
Also a way higher than average % of pilots are higher net worth individuals who do not have a clear residency – especially if they decide to contest a case.
The sort of passport one holds affects only
Residency and citizenship are two different things.
Citizenship is what passport(s) you hold. Country of residence (domicile) is where you live, work, where your children go to school, where you pay your taxes, where you own real-estate… Country of residency may also affect what law applies to your succession.
For 99,99% of us who have lived in the same country for more than a few years, determining what our country of residence is, is a no-brainer. At the other end of the scale you have the jet-setters, those who own multiple properties across the world, spend a few months in LA, a few months in St Barth, a few months in France… do not have a real job 
, do not have kids in school etc, it may be more difficult. This is illustrated by the legal battle concerning the inheritance of the late French singer Johnny Hallyday
The “residence” thing has never been defined by the EU
That may well be the case. I have found no such definition.
Despite that, Peter will not be able to dispute the fact that he is a UK resident, having lived in the UK continuously most of his life, no more than I will be able to dispute the fact that I am a French resident having now lived in France for 15 years.
If you live in a EU country for 5 years, you can apply for permanent residency. If you live in a EU country for 6 months and one day, you become a tax resident. For a EU citizen to spend more than 3 months in another EU country, he/she must register or apply for residency and document self-employment or employment.
So although the definition of country of residency is fuzzy, for most of us a court of justice will have no problem establishing our country of residency,
the “attack on N-regs”
There is no “attack on N-reg”. Operators based in the EU must abide by EASA Air Operations. Pilots that reside in the EU (an EASA member state) will need a EASA Part-FCL license from April 2019 (unless that is postponed or abandoned which will not only impact Paet-FCL, but also the Basic Regulation) even for flying N-reg.
Aviathor wrote:
The main reason why one needs to read the AIP is that there may be local regulations in areas not covered by the EASA regulations. One example is IFR approaches to unattended airfields in France which MUST complete at circling minima, and you are expected to do a full visual circuit prior to landing.
Frankly, I’m not certain that France has the right to impose even that restriction.
TB_flyer wrote:
my point is that it is not sufficient to know EASA regulation and the AIP…
TB_flyer wrote:
you also have to be aware of the fact that (sometimes) EASA and national regulations, published via the AIPs, are contradictory, and therefore it is the pilot’s task to decide how to deal with this situation
No, and no. You do not need to be aware of that, and you do not need to decide how to deal with it. Europe has decided for you.
The main reason why one needs to read the AIP is that there may be local regulations in areas not covered by the EASA regulations. One example is IFR approaches to unattended airfields in France which MUST complete at circling minima, and you are expected to do a full visual circuit prior to landing.
Aviathor wrote:
As a EU resident/pilot/operator visiting Germany all I need to know are the EASA regulations and German AIP.
the AIP is a compilation of (national) regulations, therefore reciting national law – in Germany, as said before, these laws are i.e. the FSAV, LuftVO, LuftVZO, LuftBO and so on.
But that is not my point – my point is that it is not sufficient to know EASA regulation and the AIP… you also have to be aware of the fact that (sometimes) EASA and national regulations, published via the AIPs, are contradictory, and therefore it is the pilot’s task to decide how to deal with this situation, when i.e. ramp-checked in a foreign country – shall one insist on EASA regulation or comply to national law.
In this situation, I’d opt for the former option, being prepared by providing the EASA regulation to the competent authoritie in native language.
As a EU resident/pilot/operator visiting Germany all I need to know are the EASA regulations and German AIP.
As a third country resident/pilot/operator visiting Germany (with a third country registered aircraft) all I need to know is ICAO and German AIP.
I don’t understand the reasoning behind the difference.
The sort of passport one holds affects only
The “residence” thing has never been defined by the EU, notwithstanding them referencing it in e.g. the “attack on N-regs” e.g. here. I have never heard of any policeman attempting to interpret it on the ground.
TB_flyer wrote:
Aviathor wrote:
I know nothing about the German regulations and how they define applicability
you must admit, those two statements within the same post is somehow… courageous
I do not see why.
As a EU resident/pilot/operator visiting Germany all I need to know are the EASA regulations and German AIP.
As a third country resident/pilot/operator visiting Germany (with a third country registered aircraft) all I need to know is ICAO and German AIP.
Apart from that I think that you misunderstood that quote. You should read it gain, in context.
Oh, and by the way: EASA Air Operations also apply to EU-based operators of N-reg aircraft.
Welcome back to EuroGA, Aviathor
Chflyer:
The classic example of this in my opinion is the well known case of French customs fining a Swiss registered aircraft operator who carried a couple French citizens from Mulhouse to Geneva (18xx or early 1900’s cabotage law).
This came up on a number of other occassions in GA and eventually France confirmed that they will not be hitting people on cabotage on private flights. Pretty obviously that would have been a disaster for the bizjet (read: RICH and POWERFUL) community where you might quite naturally be flying a visiting foreign (no EU residence papers) customer from A to B within France.
The great Charles Strasser got onto the case and this letter has been around the public domain for a few years (and I have not heard any relevant reports of it happening since) and I carry a copy in the plane:
TB_flyer wrote:
you must admit, those two statements within the same post is somehow… courageous
Why? German regulations are of little or no interest for people flying EASA aircraft.
