FAA Training in the UK: the legalities

[porridge]

Here it is hot off the Press and straight from the horse’s mouth, explained in the manner of FAQ’s;
From the student/clients perspective:

Q: I have a N-reg aircraft and I need to do my BFR and IPC in it what must I do to ensure legality of the check flight or train for a FAA pilot certificate?
A: You have to fax the Dept of Trade on 0207 944 2194, asking for permission stating the period during which you wish to have paid instruction on the aircraft. It must be your aircraft (or the pilot must be flying on behalf of the owner).You have to supply copies of: C of A, C of R, Current Insurance Certificate, latest annual maintenance record, Copy of the trust paperwork showing that you are the beneficial owner of the aircraft. You must also provide the details of the instructor/s who will be providing the training.

Q: Can I do my BFR/IPC in a G-reg aircraft?
A; Yes, as long as the instructor holds a JAA CPL & Instructors rating as well as the FAA certicates.

Q: Can I renew my JAA/CAA ratings, or receive training for these in my own aircraft?
A: Yes, but you must apply on each occasion to the D of T as previously stated.

Q: I have complied with the D of T requirements, but the instructor has only FAA licenses and Instructors certificates, if the D of T has given me permission to use him am I legal?
A: No – the D of T and the CAA are two different entities. The CAA can invoke ANO Article 21, which prohibits “any training in any aircraft” by anyone who does not hold the relevant JAA licenses.

Q: I know my instructor has the correct FAA certificates, but I have not ascertained if he/she holds JAA compliant licences could I be prosecuted if I am unaware of this and I am still flying in my N-reg aircraft?
A: ICAO and the Chicago convention states that anyone operating an aircraft of another registry in another state will default to the regulations of that state. Thus you may liable to prosecution. It is therefore up to that state if they wish to prosecute you.

Q: I have a G-reg aircraft; may I receive training in this aircraft for a FAA certificate?
A: Yes, but the instructor you use must have a JAA Instructor rating, to be paid he/she must have a Commercial License, and to make the training compliant have a FAA CFI rating. (Note for some certificates, a non-FAA rated instructor can do part of the training – e.g.: a JAA instructor or even a safety pilot can do 25 hours of FAA IR).

Q: I have a friend who wants to use my N-reg aircraft for obtaining his FAA certificate; can I hire it to him?
A: No, he must be a co-owner and again apply on his own behalf to the D of T to train on the aircraft in the same manner you have done and specify the instructor’s details.

Q: Can I do my FAA check ride in the UK?
A: Yes, you are PIC on test so you can do it in either a G-reg or N-.aircraft. However, the FAA examiner could insist on do the test in a N-reg aircraft. (Note there are reciprocal arrangements in place for mutual testing in the UK/USA).

Q: My training provider insists that they are fully compliant with the law to do my training should I confirm this with the CAA and the D of T or take his word?
A: No, you should in every case make sure what you are doing complies with the law of the state where your training is taking place.

If anyone needs any further verification please PM and I will provide you with the contact details for the Legal Department of the CAA.

[stuartforrest]

I want to take my CAA night rating on my N Reg plane with a CAA instrcutor. Can I do this.

I am not sure the questions above answer this.

Also what has the DOT got to do with pilot training. I have never heard this one before. Can someone explain.

[porridge]

Hi Stuartforrest
Yes you can do your CAA night rating on your aircraft with a CAA instructor, but you still need to get permission from the D of T. For background there is a detailed article in the last issue of UK AOPA's General Aviation magazine entitled "Training case opens a can of worms for N-reg operators". I suggest you get a copy - a relevant highlighted point is: "Few can have sought the permission of the Secretary of State for these (training) flights which makem illegal and by extension invalidates their insurance". Also the instructor had to pay £2500 to the CAA in court costs after pleading guilty.

[bookworm]

Q: I have complied with the D of T requirements, but the instructor has only FAA licenses and Instructors certificates, if the D of T has given me permission to use him am I legal?
A: No – the D of T and the CAA are two different entities. The CAA can invoke ANO Article 21, which prohibits “any training in any aircraft” by anyone who does not hold the relevant JAA licenses.

Not sure I understand this. Art 21 seems to have no such prohibition. Para 3 simply says:

(3) Subject as aforesaid, a person shall not act as a member of the flight crew required by or under this Order to be carried in an aircraft registered in a country other than the United Kingdom unless:

(a) in the case of an aircraft flying for the purpose of public transport or aerial work, he is the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or the State of the operator; or
...

If the instructor has an FAA CPL and CFI, what precisely is being violated?

[porridge]

UK ANO2000 Article 21 also goes on to state:
"(4) (a) that the holder of a license issued by any ICAO Contracting State - including a JAA State that has not yet been recommended for mutual recognition - cannot:
1. act as a member of the flight crew of any aircraft flying for the purpose of public transport or aerial work or on any flight in respect of which he receives remuneration for his services as a member of the flight crew; or
2. in the case of a pilots license, to act as pilot of any aircraft a flying in controlled airspace in any circumstances requiring compliance with the instrument flight rules or to give any instruction in flying."
I think the intrpretation as far I gathered from the CAA rests on the work any. I may be wrong and the CAA may later put a different interpretation on it, however it hasn't been done yet as far as I know.

[bookworm]

I agree that's probably what they're looking at. But it's wrong, because you paraphrase 4(a). Here's 3 again:

(3) Subject as aforesaid, a person shall not act as a member of the flight crew required by or under this Order to be carried in an aircraft registered in a country other than the United Kingdom unless:

(a) in the case of an aircraft flying for the purpose of public transport or aerial work, he is the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or the State of the operator;

And here's 4(a)

(4) (a) For the purposes of this Part of this Order subject to sub-paragraph (b), a licence granted either under the law of a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom but which is not a JAA licence or a licence granted under the law of a relevant overseas territory, purporting in either case to authorise the holder thereof to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft, not being a licence purporting to authorise him to act as a student pilot only, shall, unless the CAA in the particular case gives a direction to the contrary, be deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this Order but does not entitle the holder:

(i) to act as a member of the flight crew of any aircraft flying for the purpose of public transport or aerial work or on any flight in respect of which he receives remuneration for his services as a member of the flight crew; or

(ii) in the case of a pilot’s licence, to act as pilot of any aircraft flying in controlled airspace in circumstances requiring compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules or to give any instruction in flying.

If we interpret "but does not entitle the holder" as applying not just to licences rendered valid under the ANO but also licences granted by a foreign authority and used according to 3(a), then it's not just instruction in flying that would be illegal without a JAA licence but also IFR in controlled airspace. That would ground every foreign airline and would be a breach of the Chicago Convention. Thus sub-paras (i) and (ii) must apply only to the use of foreign licences on G-reg aircraft.

So perhaps you could disclose your source please, porridge?

[porridge]

Bookworm - please check your PM's for a comprehensive reply to your request.
Regards, P

[chopperpilot47]

Porridges postings seem to run contrary to everything I have read in the past. I see that a PM has been sent regarding the source of this advice. I think this is important and that the advice should be promulgated. Perhaps you would share the information?

Regards,

Chopperpilot47

[porridge]

Hi Chopperpilot47
I've PM'ed you on this.
Porridge

[IO540]

porridge

I still haven't received your PM, but in the meantime can you provide a reference for (or more details of)

Q: Can I do my FAA check ride in the UK? Q: Can I do my FAA check ride in the UK?
A: Yes, you are PIC on test so you can do it in either a G-reg or N-.aircraft. However, the FAA examiner could insist on do the test in a N-reg aircraft. (Note there are reciprocal arrangements in place for mutual testing in the UK/USA).

[porridge]

Hi I0540 - check your PM,s. Regards, P

[stuartforrest]

If I make a request can you PM me too as you have done to everyone else. After all it was me who asked a question. :)

[porridge]

Hi Stuartforrest, sorry for the delay but I now have PM'ed you in detail. Regards, P

[IO540]

Your PMs Porridge are no more than a contact name at the CAA :O

It is now pretty clear that what really upset the powers to be was the commentary/article in the AOPA magazine on the prosecution of D Kenyon.

IMHO two things have led to the present manic situation:

1) While most people knew that aerial work in a non-G-reg has always required Secy of State permission, this was never enforced, and the overt behaviour of certain high profile commercial ops made people think it won't ever be

2) The fact that the DfT routinely hands out the permission for training to aircraft owners and small groups has, quite astonishingly, been a well kept secret. This has led to many more people breaking the law - all the more sadly because most of them would have been owner-pilots who would have got the DfT permission anyway.

[Cessna 210 Heavy]

I may have the wrong end of the stick here and I am sorry if I do.

I have been told, now by more than one person, that in order to fly an N reg Aircraft in the UK you must be an owner of that aircraft, not hiring it just flying it. I am not interested in getting training on the aircraft or hiring it out. However, I may let a very select group of friends use the aircraft that have a sign off for the type aeroplane from an FAA instructor and these people and only these people, who will be fully insured will I allow to fly my aircraft P1.

I understand that there has been a change in the regulations from the CAA side of things but the FAA??? Also does this only affect the Commercial side of things???

Thanks C210

[Cathar]

The following advice has just appeared on the DfT website (http://http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_035972.hcsp)

Foreign registered aircraft may only to be used for flying training in the UK if the flying instructor does not receive valuable consideration for his services or permission has been obtained from the Secretary of States under article 115 of the Air Navigation Order 2000. Flying training includes any flights with instructors which are necessary to maintain the validity of a licence. Aircraft registered in a UK Dependant Territory are not considered to be foreign aircraft for the purposes of article 115.

Permission for flying training will normally be given only to the owners of the aircraft concerned or to any pilot employed by the owner to fly the aircraft on their behalf. If the aircraft is owned by a Trust permission may be given to the trustor. If the trustor is a group or company permission may be given to members of that group or Directors if the number of members or Directors is no more than four. Permission will normally be given for a fixed period up to a maximum of 12 months in duration. Permission will not be granted beyond the validity of the certificate of insurance or the certificate of airworthiness.

It should be noted that the Department is currently reviewing the legislation affecting the use of foreign registered aircraft in the UK. It is possible that the legislation may be amended to prevent foreign registered aircraft which are not involved in commercial air transportation from being permanently based in the UK.

Applications for Permission Under Article 115
Applications for permission to undertake flying training should be made to:

International Aviation and Safety Division
Department for Transport
Zone 1/25
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DR

Tel: 0207 944 5847/5806
Fax: 0207 944 2194

Applications should be made at least 30 days before the flying training is due to take place and should include the following

A copy of the Certificate of Airworthiness. If the CofA is not time limited please also supply any additional documentation necessary to prove that it is currently valid (e.g. the latest annual maintenance entry in the aircraft log book).
A copy of the Certificate of Registration. If the registered owner is a Trustee, a copy of the trust documents.
A copy of the Certificate of Insurance.
A copy of the Radio Station Licence if the aircraft is equipped with radio transmitting equipment.
Details of the person(s) being trained and the type of training being undertaken.
Details of how long the aircraft will be in the UK, where it is based and where it will be maintained
Confirmation that, to the best of the applicant's knowledge, the person(s) to be trained meets the medical standards for pilots established in Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention.
Confirmation that, to the best of the applicant's knowledge, all flight crew licences relevant to the flights covered by the permit meet the standards established in Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention.
Confirmation that, to the best of the applicants knowledge, the operation of the aircraft will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Part II of Annex 6 to the Chicago Convention.
Confirmation that the pilot is aware of all requirements of the Air Navigation Order 2000(as amended) and associated Regulations which will apply to intended flights.
Applications can be submitted on the application form below:

[TOT]

OK, so I am not going to charge for my services, so I will carry on WITHOUT permission.,

[md 600 driver]

tot
i wont ever pay you then
go to it man

this info relates to forign aircraft what about a jar/jaa aircraft say from france germany ect
i thought jar /jaa was suposed to stop this
steve

[IO540]

That DfT letter is mostly consistent with what they've been telling people on the phone, which I suppose is good news....

I do wonder however why they insist on Directors rather than just shareholders.

In a lot of ltd company syndicates, there is just one Director and he looks after the company, the books, etc. the other members are mere shareholders. That's the whole point of a ltd company as opposed to a partnership: exceptional situations aside, a shareholder doesn't have liability for the actions of other shareholders.

Perhaps they want to prevent some "creative" flying school selling 1 share to each of 4 students?

That's the problem with aviation. There's always some smart a**e trying to push things, and usually it is on the training front. When I spoke to the CAA, they blamed this clampdown on "abuse", and also on certain magazine articles.

The vast majority of N-reg private pilots are just happy to quietly go about their own business. Most FAA IRs are experienced high-hour pilots so safety isn't an argument.

But since when did flight training businesses have a real interest in flying? ;)

[bookworm]

Just wanted to follow up on a post early in this thread.

Porridge wrote:
Q: I have complied with the D of T requirements, but the instructor has only FAA licenses and Instructors certificates, if the D of T has given me permission to use him am I legal?
A: No – the D of T and the CAA are two different entities. The CAA can invoke ANO Article 21, which prohibits “any training in any aircraft” by anyone who does not hold the relevant JAA licenses.


which I questioned.

The relevant regulation is actually Article 29, which makes specific requirements for giving instruction in flying for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating (regardless of the state of issue of the licence). Thus the answer is, I believe, correct, even though the citation is not.

[BEagle]

"It should be noted that the Department is currently reviewing the legislation affecting the use of foreign registered aircraft in the UK. It is possible that the legislation may be amended to prevent foreign registered aircraft which are not involved in commercial air transportation from being permanently based in the UK."

A most interesting statement - it would seem to indicate that N-reg non-CAT aircraft will perhaps have to be transferred to UK registrations. Would such a proposal require a Reguatory Impact Assessment?

[DFC]

Would such a proposal require a Reguatory Impact Assessment?

I doubt it.

They will most likely say that the rules would have no impact on UK aircraft.

There is no requirement to complete a RIA for requirements that affect only aircraft that are not part of the UK fleet.........the only requirement would be to remain within ICAO convention and not causing problems for the other country.

Since the USA requires G registered aircraft based there for more than 6 months to be transfered to the N register, the UK would simply be applying a reciprocal requirement.

regards,

DFC

[bookworm]

There is no requirement to complete a RIA for requirements that affect only aircraft that are not part of the UK fleet.........

Where do you get that from then?

RIAs should be carried out for all policy changes, whether European or domestic, which could affect the public or private sectors, charities, the voluntary sector or small businesses.

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/ria/index.asp

[DFC]

RIAs should be carried out for all policy changes, whether European or domestic, which could affect the public or private sectors, charities, the voluntary sector or small businesses.

Public Sector - There is no public sector organisation in the UK or Europe responsible for US aircraft. The FAA is a US based organisation.

Private Sector - There are no UK or European private sector owners of US registered aircraft. US regulations require US aircraft to be owned by US citizens or US organisations who are owned by US citizens. The fact that many UK people use off shore trusts to get round US laws is a matter for them and the US legislature not for the UK Government.

Charities - Charities will not be affected - see requirements of Charity Flights AIC

The Voluntary Sector - Will not be affected by any change. - Show me a voluntary instructor these days!

Small Business - No UK or European small business are actual owners of US registered aircraft - see private sector.

There would be one effect of such a move - UK regulators would once again have regulatory control of all aircraft based long term (over 6 months) in the UK.......and most members of the public would see this as right and proper.

Thus while it may not seem fair or nice especially to people who have N reg aircraft - they can I believe change the rules without an RIA.

After all they simply have to cite - the US requires G reg aircraft to be transfered to the N register after 6 months based in the USA - the UK is simply making a level playing field.

No doubt there is part of the ICAO Convention that would back up such a move.

Regards,

DFC

[slim_slag]

There are no UK or European private sector owners of US registered aircraft.

How about dual citizens? Plenty of holes in the rest of your rebuttals. "which could affect" is quite broad, could include the UK citizen who has a job washing an N-reg plane.

So is there a list of UK instructors with both JAA/CAA and FAA ratings?

[bookworm]

Private Sector - There are no UK or European private sector owners of US registered aircraft. US regulations require US aircraft to be owned by US citizens or US organisations who are owned by US citizens. The fact that many UK people use off shore trusts to get round US laws is a matter for them and the US legislature not for the UK Government.

Oh good grief! There are a large number of UK firms whose business depend on the operation and/or maintenance of N-reg aircraft. Any regulation clearly has an impact on them.

[DFC]

In the case of the Guy who washes N reg aircraft - would the changing of the registration from N to G change the washing requirements?

Organisations who exclusively deal with N reg aircraft safely eg maintenance organisations must have the technical skills and knowledge to maintain the same aircraft to the required safety standards..........or are you saying that N reg aircraft are maintained to a lesser standard or that the maintenance engineers are less qualified?

I think that the only companies who will loose out are those that set up off-shore trusts etc...........many of which are based outside the UK in the Channel Islands.

Personally I don't think that pilots who operate on FAA licenses would have any difficulty meeting JAA standards.........if they can't then it would only bolster an argument that the current situation is dangerous.

Similarily, maintenance engineers would be able to demonstrate competence and knowledge to an acceptable level........again unless they are assisting the argument that the current situation is dangerous.

Thus as I see the situation, N reg operators are unfortunately caught in a corner.......say that they can and do easily meet European safety requirement and the authorities can simply say where is the problem?..........if on the other hand they say that they will have problems meeting European requirements and the authorities have the evidence they want to push through the changes on safety grounds.

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't situation.

Regards,

DFC

[slim_slag]

DFC

In the case of the Guy who washes N reg aircraft - would the changing of the registration from N to G change the washing requirements?

Might do, washing is reasonably discretionary. If costs go up due to additional G-reg regulatory requirements the owner of the plane may decide to wash it himself. That's if he doesn't say 'sod this' and fly the plane back to the US and sell it. A RIA would supposedly look at all the questions neither you or I know the answers to. So you accept UK citizens can legally own an N-reg now?

So where do we find a list of CAA/JAA instructors with FAA ratings so I can get my upcoming BFR done over here? Otherwise I will just get it done next time I am in the States, will probably be cheaper, and some UK instructor will not get some cash. Another loss of money to UK aviation from these changes?

[2Donkeys]

This argument is heading off down rather odd lines.

The simple truth is, people by-and-large opted for the N-reg because the FAA system allowed them to obtain a cost-effective and simple Instrument Rating. This rating could only be exercised to the full in an N-reg.

If reciprocity is what we are after with the US, then JAA should accept the FAA IR at face value for the purposes of granting IFR privileges on a JAA licence. If this was too much to bear, the additional restriction could be imposed that such an IFR qualification could not be used for commercial ops.

Taking this simple step would take all of the desirabilty out of being on the N overnight, and the N-reg fleet would come back into the fold without a fight.

But, I fear that this move would be opposed not only by JAA, but also by our own flight training establishment and AOPA. After all, it would destroy a chunk of the domestic flight training market.

2D

[BEagle]

Well, why not use any DfT requirement to transfer N-reg to G-reg in 6 months as the bludgeon with which to clout the CAA/JAA/EASA into making the IR easier to achieve?

Personally I think that the IR should be easier to achieve - and a CPL perhaps made more demanding so. The CAA, quite wrongly, seems to use the IR Skill Test as the last filter for a pilot wanting to work for the airlines to demonstrate his/her suitability. Am I missing something here? Surely an IR should be proof of ability to fly on instruments to the required standard - and the CPL Skill Test should prove fitness to operate in a commercial environment.

Then introduce a FI Rating which includes the right to give remunerated instruction up to the licence level which the pilot holds - and we could have PPL, then PPL/IMC, then PPL/FI, then PPL/IR and finally CPL/IR........

[DFC]

Well said BEagle.

Perhaps a RIA would be used to demonstrate how expensive having a G as opposed to an N reg on an aircraft is and where those expenses occur. Obvously, the owners of N reg aircraft pay the same for compulsuary insurance, AVgas, oil, replacement parts etc and thus the result of such an investigation would be very telling for the CAA and the DfT..........another reason why they will avoid having one if at all possible!!

What about operators using EASA registered aircraft eg D or F. They can be based here for as long as the owner likes. Can they be used for training? If not does that not go against the free movement of people and services within the EU?

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

The anti-N-reg argument cannot be made on the grounds of safety, because the data from the USA shows there isn't a safety issue with the FAA IR regime and the FAA maintenance regime.

The FAA maintenance regime doesn't differ much from the CAA Private CofA, anyway.

The real problem the Europeans have is that they have created empires by gold plating everything, done so in the name of safety, but nobody in charge has spotted the fact that they have no data supporting the gold plating.

Now, they are in a hole because they would like to recover some of the licensing revenue which they are not getting from N-reg operators, but they can't do much about it because if they do, all sorts of people are going to raise the question as to WHY. And there is no defence to it because there is no data supporting the safety argument.

Is isn't enough to say "we Europeans have stricter standards than the Americans, therefore the American standards are inadequate" !!!! My 9 year old would spot that one.

UK based N-reg planes do not contravene the FARs, they don't contravene the ANO, they are therefore legal and no argument can be made against N on the basis of legality (because they ARE legal). Any move against them will be seen for what it must be, which is a revenue raising measure.

No argument can be made for lack of regulatory oversight, either, because there is no data supporting a claimed reduction in safety.

The best thing is to leave the status quo.

Incidentally, does anyone have a reference for the FAA requirement to go N after 6 months, if sitting on the tarmac in the USA?

Finally, ANO article 115 applies to all non-G-reg planes, so one cannot run e.g. a flying school using D- or F-reg planes. The DfT permission, which is currently granted only for the owner getting training and subject to various other conditions, is required for N- F- D- and every other reg other than G.

[2close]

Can I widen this slightly.

A FAA CFI wishes to carry out a PPL BFR for a private owner in the UK on a G-Reg.

No remuneration is going to take place; in fact the FAA CFI intends to pay for half of the flight costs.

He is therefore technically not working, merely using the privileges of his FAA CFI, in the same way that a UK PPL FI (non CPL) would teach for no reward.

Moral and/or ethical considerations aside, is this legal?

2close