Slingsby Fireflies - N reg?

[Aim Far]

Any ideas on how easy it would be to N-reg one of those Fireflies Lombard are selling?

The US military used them so presumably the FAA have some experience of them which should help. On the other hand, the US military also scrapped them due to some issues with crashing - how much would that influence things?

[Genghis the Engineer]

In most countries - and the US is no exception - military and civil certification are totally different processes, so I doubt that the FAA will have had any involvement with those particular aircraft. If there are any N-registered T67s that should be easy enough to find out, although I admit that I've not heard of any.

However, the type clearly has a British type-certificate, which should carry considerable weight. If I were you I'd drop a note to the FAA small aeroplane directorate at Kansas city (901 Locust Street, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106, fax (816) 329-4090; sorry, I don't have an Email or phone likely to be useful to you) and ask the straight question about FAA Certification on the back of the UK CAA Type Certificate for the type.

On the other hand, if you want to operate them in the UK, stick with G-reg. UK CAA are going to make life very difficult for anybody trying to operate a UK built and certified aircraft, normally based in the UK, under a flag of convenience.

G

[Aim Far]

Genghis

I just checked the FAA website and they list the airforce ones as "type certificated" but all registered to the US airforce, no civilian owners. I will drop them a line and ask the question.

UK CAA are going to make life very difficult for anybody trying to operate a UK built and certified aircraft, normally based in the UK, under a flag of convenience.

I was thinking of going N-reg as I have an FAA IR and these aircraft seem to have a good avionics fit as well as being able to fly upside down. It doesn't seem that unusual to keep an N-reg aircraft in the UK owned by a trust - is there something in the pipeline that is going to make this more difficult?

[Aerohack]

The T67M260 was FAA certified in 1993 under a standard FAR Part 23 type certificate. FAA certification was a prequisite for whatever type was selected for the USAF's Enhanced Flight Screener(EFS) requirement. Whether that type certificate is still valid in the wake of the USAF's problems with the aircraft I do not know. The USAF T-3As operated under dual civil/military identities, with civilian N-numbers and military serials.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Allowing a foreign registered aeroplane to remain based in the UK is ultimately in CAA's gift, not an absolute right - they look the other way by and large. But, I doubt very much that they would take all that kindly to a UK citizen operating a UK built aircraft, in the UK, on the N-reg. They aren't fond of the existing fleet, but at-least they are largely US built types.

All they need to do is write you one letter saying that "it can have a UK CofA therefore it must or remove it from our airspace" - you might never get that letter, but I wouldn't bank on it.

Also, I think you'll find your ability to fly IR hampered by the lack of duplicated instrument vacuum and electrical power supplies. It caused an almighty fuss with the civil registered aircraft being run for UK military training.

G

[Cathar]

I have heard that the issue of permanently imported foreign registered aircraft is something that more than one or two EU states are mulling over (some others already require re-registration). No reason why the CAA should not do this and probaly some good reasons why they should.

[DB6]

Ghengis, the Fireflies are fully IFR capable as they have a vacuum-powered main AH, always have been. You are thinking of the Grob Tutor, although most if not all of them have now been modified with a backup electrical system (which still incidentally leaves the Boche 'plastic pigs' inferior in almost every way to the mighty British - hoorah! - Firefly). Strangely though our armed forces are largely trained on the inferior foreign machine. Hmmmmm.:{

[Genghis the Engineer]

A fair point well made - how could I mix up a fine British composite copy of a French wooden aeroplane with some nasty foreign thing.

Actually, I've flown the A and M260 variants of the T67 and was quite impressed with it - certainly the M260 is a thoroughly worthy replacement for the mighty Bloodknot.

I used to sit on the trainer desk at Boscombe Down (on a really good day I did some work on it too) and it was never entirely clear to me why the RAF is so jolly fond of Grob's products - although it must be said the after-sales support was excellent, surely a UK based company can be at-least as good. But knowing that historic bias, it didn't surprise me all that much when the Tutor was bought, albeit that I'd rather see UK pilots trained on UK aeroplanes too! (No I had no hand in the purchase decision, that was another department and after I'd left.)

G

[IO540]

Genghis

Allowing a foreign registered aeroplane to remain based in the UK is ultimately in CAA's gift, not an absolute right - they look the other way by and large. But, I doubt very much that they would take all that kindly to a UK citizen operating a UK built aircraft, in the UK, on the N-reg. They aren't fond of the existing fleet, but at-least they are largely US built types.

I agree entirely that allowing N-reg in the UK without a time limit is entirely at the CAA's discretion, but why do you think the country of manufacture comes into it? There are quite a few French made N-reg planes here, for example. Can you offer a view on why the CAA aren't fond of N-reg planes (other than that they are outside their regulation)

Cathar

No reason why the CAA should not do this and probaly some good reasons why they should.

Why do you think the CAA should stop this? Courtesy of JAA, N-reg is now the only practical way for a private pilot with an IR. Why should that be stopped? Is there evidence that the FAR93 maintenance regime, for example, is safer than e.g. the CAA Private Category CofA?

IMHO the only reason for the CAA to do this would be to increase their income. The French DGAC is reportedly doing this right now, though more likely for reasons to do with the recent US/French disagreement over Iraq.

[Genghis the Engineer]

To an extent it's politics, and to an extent it's liability. CAA is legally responsible for pretty much everything that goes on in UK airspace. If the aircraft is not on UK-reg, then they are clearly not in control - but if it crashes and kills somebody the chairman of the CAA will still be having to make a report to the aviation minister.

Money - yes of-course that's a player. But it's very embarrassing for the higher-ups at CAA to see large numbers of aircraft being operated in the UK under "flags of convenience" because it implies (probably correctly, but they won't admit that) that there's something profoundly wrong with the UK airworthiness system that British subjects feel a strong need to bypass it. This is even more so where the aircraft is UK-built which means that the original UK or export CofA was issued by the gnomes of Gatwick in the first place.

So I think that the reasons that CAA won't like it are, in order:-

- Liability
- Political embarrassement
- Money

G

[Cathar]

IO540

I think that you answer your own question. People are using the N reg to circumvent the standards required by the UK regulator.

Otherwise Genghis sums up the situation quite well.

[IO540]

Cathar

I agree with Genghis but I am still looking for good reasons for objections to N-reg which can be objectively supported (other than paying salaries of CAA employees). You appeared to suggest that "resident N-reg" should not be allowed.

Can you suggest which CAA standards specifically are being bypassed, with safety being reduced in the process?

[PPRuNe Radar]

From a CAA letter on foreign registered Yaks ...

''The terms under which foreign registered aircraft can enter the UK are established by law and generally reflect the UK's obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation agreed by ICAO. It is predominantly a matter for UK Government, specifically the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR), to oversee such compliance. In particular, where such aircraft are to be used for public transport or aerial work purposes, a specific permit from DTLR must be obtained. A foreign registered aircraft does not have an unqualified right to fly in the airspace of another State and the operation of these aircraft within the UK is subject to compliance with certain conditions. These conditions are that the aircraft, unless specifically exempted, must be appropriately registered in a subscribing ICAO Member State (not an internal or State register), be in possession of a Certificate of Airworthiness issued in accordance with the requirements of the relevant ICAO Annexes and based upon a known and defined civil type certification standard and any other documents or requirements prescribed by the State of Registry or other Contracting States in which flights are to be conducted.''

[Flyin'Dutch']

Whether an aircraft is certified by the FAA and therefore can go onto the N register is a matter entirely up to the FAA. That has nowt to do with the CAA/JAR/DGAC etc.

And as long as you have the appropriate licence you fly it within the privileges of that licence.

There were some rumours about that the DGAC (France) were looking at ways of stopping people keeping N registerd aircraft in France if they were non US citizens. Not heard anything further on that for a bit.

I comfort myself in the knowledge that there are some big players out there who would get very upset if their ability to operate on the N register was curtailed.

FD

[Cathar]

Whether an aircraft is certified by the FAA and therefore can go onto the N register is a matter entirely up to the FAA.

I would not disagree with this. But where those aircraft may be based is another matter. I refer to Article 5 of the Chicago Convention. This grants aircraft registered in one contracting state the right of flight into or across the territory of another contracting state. It says nothing about having to allow foreign registered aircraft to be based in your state. If you permanently import an american registered car into the UK you have to re register it in the UK. I can see no reason why aircraft should be treated differently. I would also point out under Article 32(b) of the Convention a contracting state has the right to refuse to recognise licences etc granted to its nationals by another contracting state.

------------------------------------
Article 5
Right of non-scheduled flight
Each contracting State agrees that all aircraft of the other contracting States, being aircraft not engaged in scheduled international air services shall have the right, subject to the observance of the terms of this Convention, to make flights into or in transit non-stop across its territory and to make stops for non-traffic purposes without the necessity of obtaining prior permission, and subject to the right of the State flown over to require landing. Each contracting State nevertheless reserves the right, for reasons of safety of flight, to require aircraft desiring to proceed over regions which are inaccessible or without adequate air navigation facilities to follow prescribed routes, or to obtain special permission for such flights.

Article 32
Licenses of personnel
b) Each contracting State reserves the right to refuse to recognise, for the purpose of flight above its own territory, certificates of competency and licenses granted to any of its nationals by another contracting State.

[IO540]

It would appear that resident N-reg operation, if correctly done, cannot be prevented (in the private pilot scenario).

Unless you are a US citizen, or are fortunate enough to know someone who is and who you can totally trust, the plane will be owned by a US corporation. This has a US address, not a e.g. UK address. The pilot will be renting the plane from its owning company under a dry lease.

So, the only evidence of the plane being "resident" in the UK is that it sits out on the grass, or in a hangar somewhere. But so do loads of planes. Some hangars are full of planes which don't even have a CofA and have been there for years.

It has been widely reported that the French want to see that EU VAT has been paid on an N-reg plane visiting France. I wonder what they do if it has not. What can they do? A US registered plane can fly anywhere legally.

Cathar

If you permanently import an american registered car into the UK you have to re register it in the UK. I can see no reason why aircraft should be treated differently.

Other than that it would effectively clobber the PPL/IR option... now is that a good thing?

But I come back to the ease with which the issue can be circumvented if the plane is owned by a company.

[Genghis the Engineer]

A couple of factual points, mostly to complicate the issue I'm afraid.

Yaks
The foreign registered Yak issue was brought to a head by a letter from the Russian CAA to the UK CAA saying that in their opinion the aircraft were not necessarily fit for issue of an ICAO compliant CofA. That left the CAA with absolutely no choice but to act as they did. This is highly unlikely to happen to a T67.

N-registrations
Presumably you draw attention to yourself and your N-registered aeroplane every time you file a flight plan, or make a radio call on a flight within the UK using an N-registration. That's a bit easier for CAA to check than an aeroplane in the back of a hangar.


I can't help feel that the real issue here is the lack of a sensible JAA-IR, and the fact that nobody outside the Empire accepts a UK IMC rating.

G

[IO540]

Genghis,

Presumably you draw attention to yourself and your N-registered aeroplane every time you file a flight plan, or make a radio call on a flight within the UK using an N-registration.

I agree, but does it matter? It does not mean the plane is permanently based in the UK / has been permanently imported into the UK/EU. Planes fly around, it is their normal usage. There is no need to keep them hidden.

Perhaps I am missing something obvious...

[Aim Far]

I suppose the answer on the VAT point is that its you that has to prove one way or the other whether VAT is due. So you have to show evidence of VAT paid or evidence that the plane has not been imported.

That would be easy to do if you are United Airlines and the plane is a 747 (or whatever). More difficult if the plane is a light aircraft and you have a log book with a year's worth of entries showing you flying it out of a UK airport.

As far as I know, they can impound the plane till you sort out the paperwork. The French were certainly doing that with yachts a few years ago. I expect (though I don't have a copy here) that the Chicago convention does not override a country's customs laws in this respect.

I wonder whether you can choose what EU country to pay VAT (or equivalent) in while we still have different VAT rates?

[englishal]

The reason people want to be on the N reg is becasue of the stupid, ridiculous rules and regulations laid down by the CAA and the JAA which make any sort of private flight [other than sightseeing over your house] prohibitively expensive. Did you know an FAA PPL may, for compensation or hire, act as PIC of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
(i) the flight is only incidental to the business
(ii) the aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire

This means that as a private pilot your employer or your business can reimburse your expenses for say a business meeting in Edinburgh if you decide to fly yourself.

The European rules have nothing to do with safety, just jobs for the boys. If the rules and regs allowed for more realistic flight crew licencing [class 1 medical for a CPL, JAA ATPL exams for the CPL???] then many more people would remain on the G reg.

EA:D

[topcat450]

Never having done it, I've been confused by this in the past...so:

I thought I could fly myself to a business meeting in Edinburgh on my UK PPL - and if my job was as MD of a carpet company, and I just chose to fly myself for the hell of it, the company could pay for the hire of the aircraft - the same way as they'd pay for a hire car if I was to drive?

I'm not flying for hire or reward am I as I'm not profiting in anyway from it? I'm just using a mode of transport different to most others & the rental cost goes down as a business expense same as it would if I hired a car?

Is this the case or not? Ta in advance :ok:

[IO540]

I've just typed up a detailed reply on the various options but the PPRUNE server timed out and it vanished...

In simple terms, you can do a business flight on a CAA/JAA PPL, provided that you are an employee of the business and provided that you are not contractually required to fly.

Lots of people do this.

What you cannot do is fly on a business flight if you are NOT an employee of the business, e.g. running a parcel delivery service. Then you need a CPL and an AOC and probably other stuff.

[Cathar]

But I come back to the ease with which the issue can be circumvented if the plane is owned by a company.

The Canadians do not seem to have a problem with this and they are next door to the US.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Aviation Requirments
Division V - Operation of Foreign Aircraft
Subpart 2 - Aircraft Marking and Registration

Period of Time Operated in Canada
202.42(1) Subject to section 203.03, no person shall, unless authorised under subsection (3), 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

(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) Where the operator of the aircraft is an entity described in subparagraph (b)(iii), the aircraft is operated in Canada pursuant to an air operator certificate.

[IO540]

Cathar

Sounds to me like b) iii) would allow an N-reg plane (being owned by a foreign corporation) to remain in Canada indefinitely.

Unless all of (a) (b) and (c) are required.

[Cathar]

The corporation option is qualified by (c) ie it must be an AOC holder (whose operations will be subject to bilateral agreements and other restrictions).

[Bluebeard777]

My understanding is that the FAA had concerns about the present situation. The use of ownership trusts does not seem to be in line with the spirit of the FARs regarding US registration, though it appears to be well established that it complies with the legal requirements.

[IO540]

Cathar

Yes you are right, sorry I missed that!

But let's ask ourselves why N-reg in the first place. The biggest advantage for private pilots is the FAA PPL/IR.

There are other advantages (e.g. access to FAA STCs, mods under form 337, etc) but they aren't a lot compared to a G-reg under a CAA Private CofA.

So, if the country where the plane is based allows an FAA IR holder to exercise full IFR privileges (e.g. by endorsement) there isn't a great case for N-reg. So, how does Canada treat an FAA IR flying IFR in a Canadian-reg plane?

The huge case for N-reg is certainly in Europe, where the PPL/IR route has been effectively killed off by JAA. In the UK it isn't so bad because the IMC Rating enables one to get about pretty well.