Peter wrote:
it’s a no-brainer to let the UK/EASA IR lapse
Not sure I agree with that. The cost of maintaining it is low (and if the annual flight is done with a good instructor, it’s a learning opportunity which is always a good thing) but the cost of acquiring it again can be quite steep.
Personally I agree with you – as you may have guessed 
But having spoken to a load of other pilots I reckon loads will drop off the IR food chain and just keep the PPL for the UK. Even more so if they never had a Euro IR but always (as most will have) had the UK PPL. And they can fly all the way to the airspace boundary on the NPPL+PMD … oh wait these are allegedly no longer usable in an N-reg
Peter wrote:
Such a pilot could not fly Germany to France while venturing into UK airspace, however!
I was referring to “12nm in international waters” which seems to define the scope of 61.3 rather than FIR
But you are right France/Germany is in theory doable on 61.3 although not sure who has two EASA licenses these days? maybe on Annex1/2 with DGAC BB & LBA XX sub-ICAO papers?
I was referring to “12nm in international waters”
Is there a known case of the 12 mile territorial limit being relevant to a prosecution? If it was relevant, I could bust airspace 12 miles (statute miles or nm?) offshore and get away with it.
which seems to define the scope of 61.3 rather than FIR
Where is this specified?
who has two EASA licenses these days?
61.3 makes no reference to EASA. In fact the FAA CC has explicitly ruled that the JAA or EASA mutual validation system is of no relevance to 61.3. Refs posted above.
The two licenses could be any licenses valid in the two countries. They don’t have to be ICAO Annex 1 compliant; for example I have it in writing from the FAA (ref above) that the IMCR is valid in an N-reg.
I didn’t know Henderson was a former RAF officer. Jeez.
The system has clearly failed to work as intended – the CAA would never take action against an ex RAF officer 
After all, this mad policy has continued for a number of years only because of exactly that, despite endangering GA (and CAT!) by causing widespread turning off of transponders.
It’s an interesting verdict. Yes, obviously, this was an operation on which “the wheels completely came off”, but going after a non-pilot for endangerment must have been a slightly risky procedure, especially as the carbon monoxide (and thus maintenance / airworthiness) angles have not apparently been invoked.
Peter wrote:
especially as the carbon monoxide (and thus maintenance / airworthiness) angles have not apparently been invoked.
It would be hard to do without salvaging the aircraft! :)
£ 15m business deals and then this:
Fay Keely, who owned the plane, had told Henderson not to allow Mr Ibbotson to pilot the plane again after being contacted by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) about two airspace infringements he had committed.
Despite this, Henderson allowed Mr Ibbotson to continue flying, and his message to the pilot read: “We both have an opportunity to make money out of the business model but not if we upset clients or draw the attention of the CAA.”
Should have added „…if we kill clients…“.
Peter wrote:
It’s an interesting verdict. Yes, obviously, this was an operation on which “the wheels completely came off”
Wasn’t the Shoreham crash Hunter pilot also ex-RAF? Almost anyone who flies a fast jet is, after all.
That was much the same in that it exposed an ‘organisation’, or rather a loose collective of individuals, ignoring rules that were inconvenient. As with N264DB the pilot had ‘form’ I believe.
