Is there a framework for inter-country rules enforcement?

Question

I have a US pilot's license and if I do anything foolish or infringe an important rule while flying in the US, the FAA can take action such as order more training, suspend my license for a while, or take it away forever. I heard a heated pilot/ATC exchange between a New York region controller and the pilot of a European airline in which the pilot would not follow vectors. (I have my own opinion about who was in the wrong.)

If the FAA wanted to 'punish' the European pilot or decided he was too dangerous to be allowed to fly over US, what would be the process and what is the most severe punishment the pilot could receive? I presume there is an overarching framework the US and the EU have signed on to.

Answer 1

A can of worms.

General Accounting Office report

Just a small excerpt from a 1994 General Accounting Office report (RCED-94-87):

Although foreign enforcement of aviation safety regulations is a sensitive issue, deficiencies in the enforcement referral process demonstrate that FAA and foreign governments cannot and do not always address referred safety problems. Although governments acted on some FAA-referred enforcement cases, they did not act on others. In extreme cases, some governments did not have the personnel, regulations, or procedures to implement an enforcement program. Foreign governments' and FAA's inability to act can mainly be attributed to the length of time FAA took to process cases, which FAA attributed to staffing shortages and other priority work. Furthermore, FAA did not follow up on foreign referrals and, consequently, could not identify which governments were not acting or why. Delays in processing violations and following up have resulted in cases being closed without being investigated, giving the impression that FAA is not serious about enforcement.

Safety issues are "referred". Here's why:

Sovereignty v Responsibility

To keep it simple, let's focus on ICAO member states; here's one interpretation of ICAO's various interstate treaties:

While Article 1 recognizes the sovereignty of States, ICAO Annexes indicate that the State of Registry (Operator) has overall responsibility for safety oversight

and

Under the Convention and its Annexes, States have a responsibility to refer to the State of Registry or the State of the Operator any concerns they would have in the case of regulatory infraction

Which, like the GOA report says, the FAA may have to send it up the ladder to the Department of State onwards to the other end.

---

On the other hand, for example, if a foreign pilot is suspected of being intoxicated, say a US pilot in Scotland, this will be referred to the local authorities for testing and possible detention, and Law Stack Exchange are better equipped answering what happens next (stops being a matter of air law).

Answer 2

The general framework for international civil aviation is the Chicago Convention, made of the Convention and its annexes. Under the Convention, scheduled flights over a foreign territory requires a permission which can be given under related terms and conditions (art. 4).

In the US, foreign airlines operates in compliance with US laws (FAR part 129) and an individual agreement (OpSpecs) with the US administration.

This agreement can be used to enforce compliance, as stated at §12.3.1:

12.3.1 Suspension or Revocation of Operations Specifications (OpSpecs). The compliance and enforcement program provides a wide range of options for addressing noncompliance. In addition to referring apparent violations to foreign governments for appropriate handling, options include administrative action in the form of a warning notice or letter of correction, the suspension or revocation of OpSpecs, civil penalties, injunctions, and referrals for criminal prosecution.

This may take the form of referring apparent violations to foreign governments. As @ymb1 mentions in his answer, this is not very effective.

But there are other possibilities from fining the airline to suspending the authorization to do business on the US territory (suspension or revocation of OpSpecs).

For example, operating at San Diego (KSAN) is allowed in OpSpecs only after PIC get a special qualification for Rising terrain close to runway. Lufthansa, a major airline, operated off their OpSpecs, they were fined for non-compliance when PIC where caught regularly landing at San Diego:

FAA Proposes $6.4 million Civil Penalty Against Deutsche Lufthansa Airlines

Such action against an airline of any country is possible because:

• The Convention reaffirms the sovereignty of a State for its own airspace (art. 1), and
• The action is not discriminatory, it applies equally to airlines from any country (art. 44g).