"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
"Sec. 91.703 Operations of civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the
United States.

(a) Each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside
of the United States shall--
...
(2) When within a foreign country, comply with the regulations
relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force;
(3) Except for Secs. 91.307(b), 91.309, 91.323, and 91.711, comply
with this part so far as it is not inconsistent with applicable
regulations of the foreign country where the aircraft is operated or
annex 2 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation; ..."

So what's the test for something being "inconsistent with applicable
regulations"? Many regulations work as prohibitions: if Part 91
prohibits something and the regulations of the foreign country remain
silent on the issue (for example, the choice of instrument letdown), would
the N-reg aircraft still have to comply with Part 91?

Actually, *any* regulatory requirement on a pilot works as a prohibition
(that is, the pilot is prohibited from violating the requirement). So if
foreign regs were construed as "inconsistent" with a requirement simply by
virtue of their being silent (and thus not imposing the requirement
themselves), then 91.703a3 would be entirely superfluous--it would only
require compliance with US requirements that the foreign regs *also* impose,
and thus would merely reiterate 91.703a2. Since 91.703a3 presumably was not
intended to be superfluous, the only plausible interpretation is that when
the foreign regs are silent on a US requirement, the requirement is in force
for US aircraft.

--Gary