Some troll wrote:
I think that postings here seem to be inciting pilots to fly N registered aircraft with a predominately EASA licence, against the state of aircraft registry
No such thing is suggested. N-reg aircraft are operated by people appropriately certificated according FAR 61.3, including 61.3 a.1.v “(v) When operating an aircraft within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used.”
I suppose most of us operating N-reg aircraft have a license delivered under FAR 61.75 or have passed the US written and practical test. Some even have a US CPL. In my case, since I have a EASA license delivered by Norway, I cannot act as PIC on an N-reg in France under the provisions of FAR 61.3 a.1.v so I have a license delivered under 61.75 and a FAA IR
But we are way off topic, which probably means that there is nothing more to discuss.
The details may have got corrupted by Chinese whispers but I am told some bizjet pilot(s) got done in the UK for flying RHS in a MP jet with a SIC rating that was limited to US airspace.
Off topic too but may be the origin of the rumours.
61.3 and the word ISSUED is crystal clear and the FAA CC has confirmed it 2×. Details on my website under “misc privileges”.
Phobos wrote:
His FAA licence stipulated the type rating as VFR privileges only.
As an aside, the FAA have stopped offering these on the (almost certainly correct) assumption that those who get them will inevitably fly them IFR anyway.
Phobos wrote:
I think that postings here seem to be inciting pilots to fly N registered aircraft with a predominately EASA licence, against the state of aircraft registryI am beginning to se what Aviathor means.Perhaps the thread needs forwarding to the FAA investigations team, we shall see
I any case, in no discussion here have I read anything stating that you can ignore the FARs if you’re flying a N-reg and holds both FAA and EASA licenses.
The fars do not universally apply – they state explicitly where they do. This can be complicated – far 91.1 says they apply in the continental us, far91.1(b) n the us coastal waters, and 91.703 then stipulates they apply everywhere as long as they afe compatble wit the rules of the state you fly in. So you cannot ignore them. A lot of part 61 does not apply unless you hold a us licence…
C210_Flyer wrote:
The question comes back to why people want to register their planes as N. That is the problem. Fix that, and the whole N reg goes away.
To give credit where credit is due, there have been changes making the life of GA easier in EASA (ELA1, CS-STAN, etc). Let’s hope the trend continues (ELA2, Part-M Light, …).
TMO not familiar with:
tmo wrote:
EASA (ELA1, CS-STAN, etc).
ortmo wrote:
ELA2, Part-M Light, …)
But I guess it will just stress me out if you do tell me.
Selectively quoting from the EASA GA pages as it regards to planes:
ELA1 – non-complex aircraft under 1200kg MTOW
ELA2 – non-complex aircraft under 2000kg MTOW
non-complex is also defined on that page, but basically more than 19 seats OR 2 or more crew OR turbojet OR more than 1 turboprop.
For non-commercial operations of ELA1 planes (FWIW, I think that ELA1/ELA2 only apply to non-commercial usage planes anyway) there are strong provisions for owner performed maintenance, see e.g. here. as well as things like self declared maintenance programs (so local CAAs can’t gold plate), easier airworthiness reviews, etc. Also see here for further discussion.
There is hope that similar provisions will materialize for ELA2 planes, expected 2017.
CS-STAN – a list of “standard changes” like LED lights, VFR-for-situational-awareness-only GPS, VHF comms, etc – see here for details. – lots of these apply to ELA2 planes as well.
You might find this Flying in the EU – Maintaining your aircraft leaflet from EASA somewhat helpful.
Part-M Light is discussed in this EASA NPA (Notice of Proposed Amendment); basically there is hope it will ease things for GA. And yes, lots of pages there, so this older explanatory note might be more manageable.
Thanks for the clarification.
Hopefully they will put something together which is safe yet workable. The SIDs might be safe but unworkable. Come to think about it it is not safe because whenever you tear into something for no good reason chances are and has been shown that it can cause maintenance induced failures. The things that Mike bush and some others are saying. and writing about.
I believe ELA1 maintenance rules allow you to ignore e.g. the Cessna SIDs that are not part of the normal maintenance from the manual. So yes.
