The development of a new aviation project in Uruguay raises questions about the allocation of responsibilities concerning airworthiness and operational oversight when international strategic partners are involved. National regulations, particularly Article 26 of Decree 15/024, must be interpreted in alignment with the Chicago Convention, which establishes fundamental principles regarding the supervision and control of aircraft registered in each State.

Responsibilities of the State of Registry: Articles 12, 31, and 32(a) of the Chicago Convention

Article 12 of the Chicago Convention stipulates that aircraft registered in a particular State are subject to that State’s national regulations.

Article 31 establishes that the State of Registry is responsible for ensuring the airworthiness of aircraft registered under its jurisdiction. This means that the aviation authority of each country retains supervisory responsibility over its registered aircraft, regardless of whether the aircraft is operated by a foreign entity.

Similarly, Article 32(a) requires the State of Registry to ensure that flight crew members hold the necessary licenses in accordance with its laws. While foreign licenses can be validated through specific agreements, the ultimate supervisory authority remains with the State in which the aircraft is registered.

The Article 83 bis Mechanism: Transfer of Responsibilities

Article 83 bis of the Chicago Convention introduces a crucial flexibility mechanism. When an aircraft registered in one State is operated by an entity from another country, the State of Registry may partially or entirely transfer its oversight functions and responsibilities to the State of the operator. This provision is essential in cases where a foreign operator assumes operational control of aircraft registered in a different jurisdiction, preventing regulatory overlap and ensuring efficient supervision.

From the perspective of an aviation project in Uruguay involving international strategic partners, this article becomes particularly relevant. Depending on the operational model, it may be necessary to negotiate responsibility transfer agreements with other States to optimize fleet management and regulatory compliance.

Impact of Article 26 of Decree 15/024 and Its Relation to Article 127 of the Aeronautical Code

Decree 15/024, enacted in 2024, redefines the regulatory framework for commercial aviation in Uruguay. In particular, Article 26 sets forth criteria for responsibilities related to airworthiness and operational compliance, aligning with the principles of the Chicago Convention and ICAO Annexes I and VI.

However, the application of this article raises questions about the designation of an aircraft operator as defined under Article 127 of the Uruguayan Aeronautical Code. This article states that the operator is the entity that exercises operational control over the aircraft. Within the framework of Article 26 of Decree 15/024, if a national airline temporarily operates foreign-registered aircraft with foreign crews, a gray area may emerge in determining who holds actual operational control.

When dealing with an aircraft lease agreement, particularly under the wet lease model (ACMI: Aircraft, Crew, Maintenance, and Insurance), the effective operator is the lessor, represented by the aircraft commander.

Traffic Rights and Potential Implications

Another critical issue is the potential impact of this operational structure on traffic rights. The use of foreign-registered aircraft with foreign crews may imply that operational control is, at least partially, exercised by a foreign entity. This raises concerns over whether such an arrangement could be interpreted as a form of de facto cabotage or an improper use of traffic rights granted to a national airline. Such an operation could be challenged by other States under bilateral agreements containing provisions on substantial ownership and effective control.

For this reason, the implementation of Article 26 should be carefully analyzed to avoid regulatory conflicts related to traffic rights and to ensure that the operational structure aligns with applicable bilateral and multilateral agreements.

Regulatory Challenges and Considerations for Uruguay

Given this regulatory framework, any initiative in the sector must evaluate how responsibilities will be distributed between the local operator and its international partners. Specifically, key considerations include:

Conclusion

The role of strategic partners in Uruguayan aviation is not merely a commercial decision; it also carries significant regulatory implications. The correct application of the Chicago Convention, Decree 15/024, and the Uruguayan Aeronautical Code will be key in determining the feasibility of these operational models.

Additionally, Article 26 of Decree 15/024 must be interpreted precisely to avoid ambiguities in defining the aircraft operator and to prevent potential conflicts related to traffic rights.

The success of these projects will largely depend on the clarity of responsibility allocation and the alignment of national regulations with international standards.

This article was originally published by Yelpo & Facal Abogados on February 9, 2025.

Upcoming Events