N-reg can be flown outside USA with max 3 people: PIC to fly it every day, one AI/P to sign-off every year and one CFI to do BFR every two years, I doubt other places allow similar flexibility? (except T7 and 2-reg?), so the ban on EU foreign reg is mostly US reg as I am sure an RA-reg based in UK will not be easy 
I know people who have G-reg in France and now are in the process of moving them to EU-regs as they struggle with licensing & maintenance without CAA contact nearby
Peter wrote:
The funny thing, which I have written before many times, is that regulating a piece of metal sitting in a hangar is impossible. It is only when flying that the exposure starts, and it is difficult to write clear rules on that. And much of the community can fly “below the radar”, VFR, non-txp or Mode C, etc. It’s all been done before.
Exactly. I know of at least one N reg experimental aeroplane in a hanger here in France that has not moved for 2 years or more. Its really obvious due to the dust layer it has. Before this I know it hadnt been out of France for at least 2 further years.
LeSving wrote:
A country can “ban” anything it wants to.
It sounds kind of funny to talk about a “ban”. N-regs are nit banned from anywhere. They can freely fly across Europe. It’s jus common practice with any kind of vehicles – cars, boats, etc. – that if they are based in a country for a certain period of time and operated from there, that they have to be registered in that country.
LeSving wrote:
But it looks a bit odd to “ban” certain items if there are agreements between countries not to ban those items.
Which agree meant you are referring to that allows foreign airplanes (let’s say EASA-reg) to be based and operated in a foreign country (let’s say the US) for an indefinite amount of time?
Peter wrote:
is that regulating a piece of metal sitting in a hangar is impossible. It is only when flying that the exposure starts, and it is difficult to write clear rules on that.
No, it’s not. There are very clear rules – just check the rules on car. And I don’t think that it is funny that such regulation only applies to vessels that are actually operated – an airplane that just sits on the ground finally is nothing more than a piece of metal and only becomes an airplane when it is actually moving.
Peter wrote:
And much of the community can fly “below the radar”, VFR, non-txp or Mode C, etc. It’s all been done before.
Same is true for drug trafficking – still it’s regulated…
An interesting piece from the latest IAOPA Europe newsletter:
Where does the basic ragulation regulate something about operating third country (i.e. non EU) within a member state? Can’t find it …
Airborne_Again wrote:
EU Commission sees Danish ban on third-country aircraft as “ongoing infringement”
I’m positive there is no ban involved here (99% positive). AOPA seems to be very unprofessional IMO. With stuff like this one has to be precise with the language and references to legal matters. What exact laws and regulation is the Danish CAA breaking?
There is no ban in any of the Norwegian laws and regulations. The principle in Norway is we have laws and we have regulations. You can break both laws and regulations, but you can only be judged according to the law. Laws are the “real thing”, although breaking a regulation is an offence in itself. They are tied together, so if you break a regulation, you also break the law. Regulations are often made by the relevant governmental bureau, like the CAA. They could be made to make things more specific, or to generalize, simplify, more practical. All things EU in Norway is tied to the EEA agreement. This ties Norway to the EU single market with some exceptions (fish and agriculture).
What the law say is (my translation, which probably is not very precise):
Aviation in Norway can only be done with aircraft which have:
1. Norwegian nationality,
2. foreign nationality, which according to this law or regulation based on this law, can be equated with Norwegian nationality,
3. foreign nationality from a state with an agreement on the right to conduct aviation, or
4. special permission by the Norwegian CAA.
The permission mentioned in point 4 shall be given on terms which in each particular case is deemed necessary to assure the aviation is safe or other terms deemed necessary for public reasons. The permission can be withdrawn at any time
The Norwegian CAA has made regulations. It simply says that max 6 months with no approval, then 6 additional months with an approval. According to the CAA, there are today no aircraft/states for which 2 and 3 can be applied (except I guess for state and military aircraft?). None of this is related to overflight, landings etc. What LT did was to be rather generous with point 4 for a limited time (6 + 6 months).
A few years back they also allowed EASA aircraft to stay indefinitely, but with some strings attached to oversight of those aircraft by LT. This I assume they did just as a clarification of point 4 due to popular demand (by people reading only the regulations). Nothing has changed in the law.
In essence what the law say is that all aircraft can stay indefinitely, but these aircraft have to deal with LT also. The regulations by LT makes it look like 6 + 6 months is it, period, but that’s not the case. What LT did was to be generous for the first 6 + 6 months, but the law is clear. Nothing prevents having an aircraft here for ever.
Is this a ban? not in any stretch of the imagination. It is however an additional “thing” and probably also a cost that most owners would rather be without. Still, there are several N-regs in Norway, so it cannot be all that bad. The latest seen at ENVA is G-reg Perhaps that’s the new thing? (I know very little about that plane though).
LeSving wrote:
I’m positive there is no ban involved here (99% positive). AOPA seems to be very unprofessional IMO. With stuff like this one has to be precise with the language and references to legal matters. What exact laws and regulation is the Danish CAA breaking?
Why are you using Norwegian law to argue that Denmark doesn’t have a ban? That seems very unprofessional. 
In any case, Swedish legislation says: “An aircraft which is not used for air traffic subject to authorisation and which is permanently used within Swedish territory must be registered in Sweden.” That’s definitely a ban – not just on N-reg but on all EASA-reg as well. If that rule is actually enforced, I don’t know.
The Swedish Transport Agency may waive that requirement, but only in individual cases and only when there are specific reasons.
.. a ban with exceptions which are not routinely granted and / or conditions is still a ban.
.. a ban where exceptions are routinely granted to everyone who applies is bureaucratic nonsense.
It appears that local regulators and legislators still have a hard time understanding what “thou shalt make no law or regulation for aviation except for small stuff the EU does not care about, unless we allow you to” means.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Why are you using Norwegian law to argue that Denmark doesn’t have a ban?
I didn’t. Two different sub topics.
Cobalt wrote:
.. a ban with exceptions which are not routinely granted and / or conditions is still a ban.
.. a ban where exceptions are routinely granted to everyone who applies is bureaucratic nonsense.
It’s not a ban. That was my (third) topic, and point (in case people want to be overly pedantic ) What LT say is bring your aircraft, but you have to deal with us indefinitely Denmark could have some similar wording in their laws. That’s why I’m asking, for the third time now, which specific EU laws are the Danish CAA breaking? Seems to me, none.
The Swedish wording sounds like a ban on the surface of it, but is that all there is? Are there more? This could be similar to the Norwegian regulations. Reading the regulations only it say max 6 (+6) months, and that’s it. However, reading the regulations together with the law, and a very different reality emerges. For Sweden there could be EU law that modifies this as well as more Swedish laws and regulations.
Cobalt wrote:
It appears that local regulators and legislators still have a hard time understanding what “thou shalt make no law or regulation for aviation except for small stuff the EU does not care about, unless we allow you to” means.
Perhaps concerning Sweden and Denmark. Or all this is simply amateurish nonsense by people with inadequate understanding of law, EU and otherwise. I think it is the latter.
From here
On a tangent, EASA has reprimanded AESA (Spanish CAA) for not allowing foreign-reg certified aircraft to be based here. Not that EASA seems to enforce this law from the 60-ies of the last century.. I have at least never met someone who had a problem and had to re-register to Spanish reg. Including myself having operating such aircraft for over 13 years, while having been ramp-checked.
I suppose it is a tax issue. Aircraft over 1500 kg MTOM (IIRC) pay some serious taxes when imported, and forcing residents to get them on a Spanish reg makes the collection of that tax easier.
In any event, I expect AESA to budge. By now, Spain is a EU-law abiding country. And it would be quite un logical if foreign-reg Annex 1 aircraft are allowed to be here for the whole year, and certified aircraft would need to be registered in Spain to be based here.
