New European Rules Target U.S. Pilots, Aircraft

[G3]

AOPA says a new regime of rules proposed by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) "has potentially devastating implications for the U.S. general aviation manufacturers and for the U.S. flight training industry." EASA intends to adopt a wide-ranging series of amendments to rules that appear to particularly affect those holding U.S. pilot certificates and aircraft registered in the U.S. but resident in Europe. "It would render FAA pilot certificates and instrument ratings issued to pilots living and operating in Europe (including U.S. citizens based in and flying in Europe) effectively worthless, requiring them to essentially start over and retrain and recertify," AOPA spokesman Chris Dancy told AVweb. "It would also eliminate any advantage to owning and operating an N-number-registered aircraft in Europe."



There are an estimated 10,000 pilots in Europe flying under U.S. certificates. Many of them got their training in the U.S. and a lot of flight schools cater specifically to European students. U.S. manufacturers will be hit from two directions. The rules will make U.S.-built aircraft "more difficult and expensive to own and operate," and therefore less attractive in Europe, a key market for most U.S. manufacturers, Dancy said. "And on that side of the Atlantic, it could mean a glut of N-number-registered aircraft being dumped on the market, further depressing used aircraft sales." AOPA has contacted members of Congress, the FAA and Department of Transportation to make sure they're aware of the issue. It's also supporting European aviation groups in their attempts to stop the action.

How long do you think it will be before Canada is included in limitations like this by EASA?
This smacks of incredible protectionism; should we as Canadians re-think our agreements with EU carriers and their ability to have their flight crew fly Canadian Aircraft in Canada?

[Panama Jack]

While I do not applaud the EASA efforts, I am surprised it hasn't happened earlier.

In the case of Canada, it is not possible for Canadian residents to own N-registered aircraft and fly on US pilot certificates in Canada. I believe the principal target here is going after Corporate equipment and Europeans who have been avoiding paying taxes. The Canadian tax man has been well ahead of the game on this one.

At the present time and to the best of my knowledge, Canada is more limiting regarding the operation of C-registered aircraft by foreigners abroad, unlike the FAA.

I expect registrations in places like the Isle of Man and San Marino to increase somewhat.

[rigpiggy]

I believe that in Canada you can only operate a foreign registered aircraft for 90 days in a year before registering/importing it to canada. I may be incorrect

[G3]

Panama Jack;

When did become no longer possible for a Canadian residing in Canada not to be able to own an "N" numbered aircraft and fly it with an FAA License? I have been working as an expat for over 15 years but back in the 90's this most certainly was possible. All you needed was a US registration address for the aircraft. Law offices in Delaware used to be popular.
Is this a CCRA thing?

G3

[Panama Jack]

G3,

I am afraid I am familiar with the exact details, however, I do believe that it is a Canada Customs and Revenue Agency issue. Consider that you don't see N-registered corporate aircraft based in Canada (which are occasionally seen in Europe) nor N-registered private aircraft available for rent in flying clubs, as you can occasionally see in Europe also.

Sorry, don't have more detailed information, but even though I may be disappointed with the news you posted, I am not entirely surprised either.

[Moose47]

It used to be 6 months then you had to take the aircraft back to the U.S. for a short period of time before flying it back into Canada. I had a friend that did that with a Mooney back in the mid 70's.

[modi13]

A particular parachute school at YPK has/had a King Air registered in the US that spent almost all of its time in Canada (until it went down after take off). I'm not sure if this has any bearing on the discussion, since it's commercial, while the above comments regard private ownership, but as far as I'm aware it's possible to get permission from TC to operate an American aircraft in Canada.

[zed]

Just because I'm on my lunch break... I'll let you decipher the ins-outs of the legislation.

DIVISION V - OPERATION OF FOREIGN AIRCRAFT
Period of Time Present in Canada

(amended 2003/12/01; previous version)

202.42(1) Subject to section 203.03, no person shall operate in Canada an aircraft that is registered in a foreign state that has been present in Canada for a total of 90 days or more in the immediately preceding twelve-month period unless
(amended 2003/12/01; previous version)

(a) the foreign state is a contracting state;

(b) the operator of the aircraft is

(i) the foreign state,

(ii) an individual who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident but is a citizen or subject of the foreign state, or

(iii) an entity that is incorporated or otherwise formed under the laws of the foreign state; and

(c) if the operator of the aircraft is an entity described in subparagraph (b)(iii), the aircraft is operated in Canada
(amended 2003/12/01; previous version)

(i) in accordance with an air operator certificate, or
(amended 2003/12/01; no previous version)

(ii) in any operation other than an operation that would require a private operator certificate if the aircraft were registered in Canada.
(amended 2003/12/01; no previous version)

(2) For the purposes of calculating the 90-day period,
(amended 2003/12/01; previous version)

(a) if the aircraft is present in Canada for any part of a calendar day, that part shall be counted as one day, and
(amended 2003/12/01; previous version)

(b) an aircraft is deemed to be present in Canada as soon as it enters Canadian airspace.
(amended 2003/12/01; previous version)

[Hawkerflyer]

I believe that in Canada you can only operate a foreign registered aircraft for 90 days in a year before registering/importing it to canada. I may be incorrect

As long as the aircraft is duty paid, run by a US company with a US base of operations it can be done. We have been doing it for 10 years. The aircraft lives in Canada with a N tail. Of course, we had to get our US tickets first.

[Louis]

A particular parachute school at YPK has/had a King Air registered in the US that spent almost all of its time in Canada (until it went down after take off). I'm not sure if this has any bearing on the discussion, since it's commercial, while the above comments regard private ownership, but as far as I'm aware it's possible to get permission from TC to operate an American aircraft in Canada.

The parachute stuff falls under "specialized aerial services" (or something similar-sounding) covered by NAFTA. Just like aerial survey, photography and fire-fighting to name a few.

I can think of a few drop zones that rent N-registered airplanes for the summer, which then go south for the winter months.

[frozen solid]

Every country has certain academic requirements and training criteria that they expect their citizenry to meet before qualifying for a pilot's license in that country. It's probably irritating to the regulator when they find people circumventing these requirements by swanning off to some other country with lower academic requirements and less comprehensive training criteria, and then coming back and expecting to have the same right to fly around in that country's airspace as the people who legitimately subject themselves to the higher standards of that country.

When they first instituted graduated licensing for drivers in Ontario, it would have been nice for my little brother if he could have gone to B.C., earned his driver's license there, got his mitts on a pair of B.C. plates, and then come back to Ontario. He could have carried girls around in his car while his buddies were still driving around with their parents, and he could have taken advantage of the lower B.C. insurance. Alas, this is not allowed either.

I wonder if it would be allowed if, perversely, an American pilot wished to acquire a European pilot's license, and keep and fly his European-registered aeroplane in the States. I suspect not.

[bmc]

As a Canadian living in Europe, a fast way for me to stay flying would be pop down to the USA, the next time I'm back, and get an American license. Come back here and fly the five or so US registered airplanes that are available for rent.

With this new ruling, I would have to do some sort of conversion to JAR.

Where this could be a snag is with locals that bought homebuilts and warbirds in the USA and kept their registrations.

[SunWuKong]

Every country has certain academic requirements and training criteria that they expect their citizenry to meet before qualifying for a pilot's license in that country. It's probably irritating to the regulator when they find people circumventing these requirements by swanning off to some other country with lower academic requirements and less comprehensive training criteria, and then coming back and expecting to have the same right to fly around in that country's airspace as the people who legitimately subject themselves to the higher standards of that country.

When they first instituted graduated licensing for drivers in Ontario, it would have been nice for my little brother if he could have gone to B.C., earned his driver's license there, got his mitts on a pair of B.C. plates, and then come back to Ontario. He could have carried girls around in his car while his buddies were still driving around with their parents, and he could have taken advantage of the lower B.C. insurance. Alas, this is not allowed either.

I wonder if it would be allowed if, perversely, an American pilot wished to acquire a European pilot's license, and keep and fly his European-registered aeroplane in the States. I suspect not.

Clear, honnest, logical explanation/understanding of the situation right to the point that I love to read on Avcanada.