Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

PA46 Malibu N264DB missing in the English Channel

Ted wrote:

It seems at least the CAA in answering the prosecution seem to completely ignore the 61.75. ,

Because it doesn’t matter. When it comes to legal actions, licensing rules are quite binary – you are either qualified for a flight or you are not. Completely irrelevant how many licenses from how many countries you have that do not qualify you for the specific flight…

Germany

Malibuflyer wrote:

Because it doesn’t matter.

It would matter if the pilot was legal to fly with the 61.75 license, but not with an EASA license.

The 61.75 is not simply a validation of a non-FAA license. It is a license in its own right and the privileges it gives the holder can be more extensive that that of the non-FAA license it is based on.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Malibuflyer wrote:

Because it doesn’t matter.

I think you misunderstood my point. It might have been possible for the pilot to be fully qualified under his 61.75 from a FAA point of view (In this case it is doubtful because he was definitely not instrument rated under the FAA system).

The prosecution has not called any FAA experts and the CAA have completely ignored the 61.75 referring to it as a “validation”. If this flight was from the Bahamas to Florida in the same aircraft and was being heard in the USA the testimony of the FAA on licensing would be different. It is not clear from the news article what the defence has to say, but they may be looking at this from a different angle anyway because this is more about what the operator knew or should have known…

I think this underscores the point made earlier that if you intend to use your 61.75 outside the USA you should be comfortable with how your own national CAA views it.

Last Edited by Ted at 26 Oct 11:02
Ted
United Kingdom

Malibuflyer wrote:

When it comes to legal actions, licensing rules are quite binary

In case of dual FAA & EASA it’s not very binary, it depends on country airspace & flight conditions and these can change during a single flight, it also depends on Chief counsels views of any legal arbitrage…

You can takeoff IFR on EASA without IR on your FAA, fly N-reg across the border NVFR on your FAA, fly IFR on your EASA and land at night on EASA without having night pax currency on FAA

You can try a fancy combination of that with EASA/FAA instructor ratings and EASA/FAA student in LHS in Jersey airspace when it’s managed by Brest

The only way to keep it under control is to have dual qualifications with everything current & valid in all countries & flight conditions

Last Edited by Ibra at 26 Oct 11:12
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

land at night on EASA without having night pax currency on FAA

Only in the country which issued your EASA license, as far as I understand it.

EGTF, LFTF

I would put money on that this guy’s defence lawyer, Mr Spence, does know the difference, even if the CAA doesn’t (quite possible; my previous contact with CAA Licensing showed them to be basically clueless).

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

denopa wrote:

Only in the country which issued your EASA license, as far as I understand it.

Yes I agree only applies to countries of licenses, I usually need FAA61.75 to fly N-reg VFR on a tiny bit between {UK+12nm water} & {France+12nm water}, I have CAA & DGAC papers to cover the two ends

Last Edited by Ibra at 26 Oct 12:31
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Ibra wrote:

You can takeoff IFR on EASA without IR on your FAA, fly N-reg across the border NVFR on your FAA, fly IFR on your EASA and land at night on EASA without having night pax currency on FAA

Where do you take this insight from? Which law tells you that the regulation you apply to a flight can change during the flight?

And in your example: Why would there be the need? Your entire flight can be done on your EASA license. I don’t think there is a realistic situation where you could legally perform a flight with the change of two licenses from different regulations at some point in the flight, but not with one of them alone.

In the example discussed here, the pilot did a commercial flight without a commercial license – no need to confuscate simple facts by bringing up EASA vs. FAA regulation arbitrage ideas.

Last Edited by Malibuflyer at 26 Oct 13:27
Germany

Malibuflyer wrote:

Your entire flight can be done on your EASA license

No you always need an FAA to fly N-reg “internationally” and like it or not you have to fly on it in “international waters”…

Malibuflyer wrote:

In the example discussed here, the pilot did a commercial flight without a commercial license – no need to confuscate simple facts by bringing up EASA vs. FAA regulation arbitrage ideas.

It’s way more bonker than you think, which “commercial license” he needs for the flight? FAA CPL & EASA CPL & CAA CPL? which “commercial operator” he needs? CFR 135, 125, 121? or EASA AOC?

I agree he does not have any, so the problem is easy

Assuming the pilot has FAA CPL and the N-reg aircraft is operated under FAA Part125 by “a sports club”, can he operate that flight without EASA AOC?

https://www.easa.europa.eu/faq/21597

https://www.airplanning.com/post/the-skinny-on-part-125-operations

Last Edited by Ibra at 26 Oct 13:55
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Which law tells you that the regulation you apply to a flight can change during the flight?

Of course you can do exactly that. It is common. One doesn’t need a law saying you can do something. Everything not prohibited is permitted – in any civilised country.

For example, a plain PPL can take off in France in VFR conditions, and land in IFR conditions in the UK if he has the IMCR (subject to the 1500m min RVR, if an RVR is being officially reported) so long as he was VFR up to the UK airspace boundary.

Or if flying an N-reg but holding some FAA papers, but holding a UK IR, he can land in the UK after official sunset with passengers even if not night-passenger-current on the FAA papers (because a Euro IR exempts him from being night passenger current – inexplicably!). But he could not do such a night op in say Germany, because his IR was UK issued (see FAR 61.3 etc).

On any given flight, cross borders, you can have intersecting and non-intersecting license privileges in operation.

One particularly topical one is: if the UK does not derogate under the EASA FCL N-reg attack in Dec 2021, UK based N-reg pilots holding an FAA IR but no UK IR will be able to fly VFR to the UK airspace boundary and then pick up IFR from France or Belgium and fly IFR all over Europe (because no longer based in or operating out of the “Community”). If you live near the south coast, and have no need to fly to do long UK flights e.g. to Scotland, it’s a no-brainer to let the UK/EASA IR lapse.

One needs to be very careful when trying to unravel different parts of a flight.

Mr Henderson has AIUI admitted what is casually called “illegal charter”, for which you normally get a stiff fine. I would not want to be in his position though on the subsequent civil actions, on which the sharks are circling, waiting for the criminal process to conclude…

No you always need an FAA to fly N-reg “internationally”

No; you could fly an N-reg from say Germany to France if you held a German issued license and a French issued license. Ref 61.3 again.

Such a pilot could not fly Germany to France while venturing into UK airspace, however!

BTW, EASA is nothing to do with this, even though it probably makes it tricky to possess both such licenses concurrently; it would have been easy pre-EASA, and probably was done routinely by some.

Of course, such a German-French flight also requires English language proficiency – a hugely controversial area

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top