A friend recently asked:
“Do I need a US licence to fly an N reg Maule from day one?”
to which I gave the conventional answer:
“No. You can fly any reg on your UK Part-FCL licence in UK airspace.
You need an FAA pilot certificate (licence) to fly an N reg outside UK airspace.”
But now I wonder…
Arguably, any purported requirement for an EASA PPL holder to hold an FAA certificate so as to cross FIR boundaries within the EU is an extra-territorial (and prohibited) restriction on free movement and an infringement of Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (peaceful enjoyment of possessions).
There is a (free) procedure to have the Commission rule on such matters, which I am somewhat minded to use. What do you think?
PJ
The requirement is due to the US regs not the European. You can fly a US registered aircraft in a country with a certificate from that country. The EU is not a country.
Why should the FAA care less about the right of free movement across EU borders?? They could just as easily say an FAA licence is always required to fly a US registered aircraft…that would solve that little issue…
Jason and Anthony,
You have hit the nail on the head: the EU is not a country. It is a Union, whose law takes precedence over all national and extra-territorial regulations within its border.
The FARs are clear enough. However, my question is not what those FARs purport to require, but rather the manner in which those foreign regulations may be interpreted and implemented in accordance with EU law.
To give a (sadly not quite incredible) analogy, if a future US government were to amend the FARs so as to impose discriminatory rules for muslim pilots flying N-reg airplanes, it would clearly be illegal to implement those rules within the EU.
PJ
Only that there is no implementation on the side of the EU. It is based on ICAO treaties between the US and individual countries. If there was a human rights violation then one could go before the European Court of Human Rights (which is not related to the EU), but I doubt that would be warranted in this case.
To give a (sadly not quite incredible) analogy, if a future US government were to amend the FARs so as to impose discriminatory rules for muslim pilots flying N-reg airplanes, it would clearly be illegal to implement those rules within the EU.
There are two points of view on this sort of thing
I am in the first camp, not least because it has been tested countless times, and the whole world’s aviation runs on it pretty well, whereas nobody has managed to bust FAR 61.3 (see my link) using EU regs.
Only that there is no implementation on the side of the EU. It is based on ICAO treaties between the US and individual countries.
EASA tried to get an ICAO seat and was told that they could have it only if all the member countries resigned their seats 
Which of course didn’t travel very far…
Precisely. Implementation is a matter for member states of the Union – subject to Union law.
But any question relating to flight crew licensing would be within the scope of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, i.e. under jurisdiction of the Luxembourg ECJ, not the Strasbourg ECHR.
Not saying it is so, just wondering whether the conventional wisdom in Peter’s article is ripe for re-examination, perhaps in view of recent EU rules relating to third country operators.
To me, no matter what logic you apply to the situation in the EU, I would say the FAA and the US Federal government couldn’t care less. FAR 61.3(a) states, inter alia: “No person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person:…..(1)(v) When operating an aircraft within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used.” If you choose to ignore this regulation and fly outside the country in which you hold a foreign licence then you are breaking US Federal Law….If that doesn’t worry your mate then let him go ahead…
That is precisely what did concern my friend and, as I wrote in my OP, that is why I gave him the stock answer which we all believe to be safe.
But the question won’t go away: is our “safe” interpretation of FAR 61.3 consistent with Union law?
I do think it would be wrong to characterise the US government as not caring about the law.
Incidentally, does anyone know of a case in which the FAA has tried to take enforcement action against a foreign pilot over the heads of his local CAA?
