Austrian CAA: FAA licenses remain valid for N-reg in Europe

[achimha]

German pilot magazine Pilot und Flugzeug published an article (http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/artikel/2012-06-14/US-Lizenzen_in_Europa) citing an official response by the Austrian CAA to a pilot asking about the future of N-reg flying in Europe with Part FCL.

Austro Control (the equivalent of a CAA) states:

Auf Ihre Frage hin teilen wir Ihnen mit, dass gemäß den Bestimmungen des Abkommens über die Internationale Zivilluftfahrt (Regelungen der ICAO) ein Pilot weltweit (grenzüberschreitend) am Luftverkehr teilnehmen darf, solange der Staat, in welchem das Luftfahrzeug registriert wurde, auch die Pilotenlizenz ausgestellt hat. Registerstaat des Luftfahrzeuges und Lizenzausstellerstaat müssen also ident sein. Selbstverständlich gilt dies nur, wenn sowohl die Lizenz als auch das Luftfahrzeug allen Vorschriften der ICAO entsprechen.

Mit einer von den USA ausgestellten Pilotenlizenz können Sie also ein in den USA registriertes LFZ in Europa fliegen. Daran ändert sich auch nach Inkrafttreten der neuen Bestimmungen der VO (EU) 1178/2011 nichts.

A rough translation would be:

In response to your inquiry, we hereby inform you that according to the regulations of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a pilot is allowed to participate in international aviation on a worldwide basis, as far as the State, in which the aircraft is registered also issued the pilot license. State of registry of the aircraft and state of issuance of the license have to be identical. Of course this only applies, if both the license and the aircraft conform to all requirements of ICAO.

With a pilot license issued by the USA, you are allowed to fly an aircraft in Europe which is registered in the USA. This will not change after the new regulations of Directive (EU) 1178/2011 come into effect.

This appears to be radically different from what we have heard so far. Let's hope the CAA guy didn't make a mistake here.

[peterh337]

Many thanks for posting this here. Previously it appeared in a forum on which external reposting is prohibited :)

This is good news - even if stating what has been obvious for years.

The problem is that while EASA/EU self evidently cannot prevent overflight and "casual" visitation by any ICAO certified aircraft flown solely on pilot papers issued by the State of Registry of the aircraft (without descending into "African" style of airspace and landing control) the EU can force member states to apply additional EU airspace / EU soil controls as it wishes, because its directives are EU law. The EU could mandate pink underpants to be worn.

So I don't see the Austrian position as terribly helpful in clarifying the uselessly vague EASA FCL "EASA duplicate-pilot-papers required if operator EU based" reg. They are stating the obvious when it comes to overflight and casual visits. Only 3rd World AK47-governed states (most of the ICAO members, numerically ;) ) mess with those, providing a nice income opportunity for a load of "overflight agents". If the said pilot can get a statement which explicitly includes long term parking / aircraft flown/owned/operated by Austrian residents/citizens/etc/etc that would be something very different...

Depending on your view of the competence of the Austrian CAA respondent (I cannot understand the language so can't judge, and all CAAs have their share of muppets occassionally officially commenting on stuff they don't understand) this may well be a nail in the coffin of the EASA FCL anti-N-reg provisions IF the writer knew what he was talking about...

[mad_jock]

Yes you can still fly them.

But if you are a resident of a EU state you also have to have a EU license as well as a FAA one.

And for a 100 hour plus PPL who only wants to fly VFR it is a relatively simple process to get a license. Although more expensive than going the oppersite way.

The problem that occurs is when you start looking at the process if you want to fly using an instrument rating.

[achimha]

My guess is the CAA guy just got it wrong. The inquiry was from an Austrian FTO and the responding CAA person is responsible for FTOs. The request specifically asked whether FAA registered locals can continue to fly their N-regs under only FAA licenses.

As Peter said, we're dealing with a EU directive that is valid law in all member countries so it would be hard to imagine Austria and others ignoring parts of it.

[mm_flynn]

I had a quick look at the BR and found interestingly in the preamble

(6) The scope of Community action should be clearly defined so that persons, organisations and products subject to this Regulation and its implementing rules can be identified without ambiguity. Such scope should be clearly defined by referring to a list of aircraft which are exempted from the application of this Regulation.which has very clearly been accomplished :ugh: with the use of 'Operator' and 'Established' (neither of which as we know are defined)

In addition, (and some what amusingly, at least to me) the last point of Article 4 (which imposes the 3rd country requirements) says,

6. This Regulation shall not affect the rights of third countries as specified in international conventions, in particular the Chicago Convention.
Obviously other than the right for third countries to have their aircraft, operated by their pilots (as we tend to think is specified in ICAO), without requiring pilots licences issued by the various countries/supranational organisations in which they may operate.

The assumption by those much more knowledgeable than I is, EASA and the EU decision makers must have taken legal advice that paragraph 6 does not obviate the requirements of the second half of Article 4 1c. On the other hand, the UK does like to write laws that state one thing in the first paragraph and then 3 paragraphs later put an override in that nullifies the first statement! Maybe the same drafters have 'helped' EASA.

Who knows, all food for the very important lobbying and legal professions to ensure a sustainable source of fees.

(Must be in a particularly sarcastic mood today)

[peterh337]

I think we have done this one to death for the Nth time :)

For a laugh, we could have a poll on how many think EASA got legal advice on the anti N-reg proposals.

To me, it looks like they didn't. It would not be suprising, given that EASA sneaked this in quickly, partly by conning the Transport Committee with a false promise of a BASA with the USA. So the stuff made the books without anybody looking at it closely.

That would be virtually impossible to do in the UK system.

OTOH one aviation barrister advises me that a lot of European law is like that - poorly drafted. That is the "cockup v. conspiracy" position i.e. a cockup.

Then, I don't understand the point of an EU Directive which is vague and useless, and which every national court will interpret potentially differently, and perhaps most countries will never enforce it. Assuming there was an intelligent intention behind this bit of EASA FCL, it could only be to create FUD, to continue to keep a lid on the N-reg scene without anybody actually doing anything much...

Some insider stuff from EASA suggests this was a private project of several high placed individuals, and the "FUD theory" would then make sense.

[BillieBob]

....we're dealing with a EU directive that is valid law in all member countries so it would be hard to imagine Austria and others ignoring parts of it.Apart from the fact that the Aircrew Regulation is not an EU Directive (the clue is in the name), why is such a thing so hard to imagine? France, for example, has been ignoring parts of EU law for years.

[peterh337]

The EASA wording does not hang its coat on pilot or operator citizenship (a.k.a. nationality).

They use
[Aircraft] registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community; [...] shall comply with this Regulation.


[my bold]

If you, a private pilot, are the owner, then you are probably the "operator" so that bit is probably simple (until you get a defence lawyer involved ;) ).

But yeah.... will your 6 months' stay on EU soil be enough to force you to get the duplicate EASA pilot papers? Nobody knows.

the Aircrew Regulation is not an EU Directive

Does that mean that no EU country needs to implement it?

[peterh337]

Again, done to death here :) but IMHO the issue will never be enforcement (because "operator residence" etc etc etc will never be possible to establish in the context of a realistic ramp check) but insurance.

[421C]

Does that mean that no EU country needs to implement it?
Yes, in the sense it's automatically implemented when it becomes EU law. The Aircrew Regulation is already law binding in the UK, for example. If the ANO hasn't been amended to implement it, that doesn't matter, in the UK the EU law takes precedence over it.

IMHO the issue will never be enforcement (because "operator residence" etc etc etc will never be possible to establish in the context of a realistic ramp check) but insurance

No, the "issue" will be that people generally don't break laws. This rule is highly enforceable. For every special case we conjecture on the forum of some bloke born in Mongolia who spends 5.9mths of the year living on the international date line and 6.1mths flying in the EU blah blah blah, the reality is that the people impacted are, on the whole, EU resident EU passport holding owners of FRA. So you land somewhere and are ramp checked. You are flying an N-reg, so you must have your passport with you. It's a UK one. OK, you can claim you are resident outside the EU. Do you have a single document to prove that? Your FAA certificate shows your UK address, this is of no help. OK, so they make you sign a document that you claim residency outside of the UK with small text that it is a criminal offence to knowingly make a false declaration. Who exactly is going to do that? No-one I know. And even if someone does make a false claim of this sort, and gets a letter asking them to forward evidence of their residency, what are they going to do? So you forge some documents. Perhaps the investigating agency will forward these on. If you are resident in the US, you are liable to US tax. Good luck to anyone explaining to the IRS that you were only falsely claiming US residency for the purposes of evading EU aircrew regulation.

You always make this enforceability point on every thread on the N-reg. You must think it has some signficance. I don't see it.

[peterh337]

This rule is highly enforceable

Evidently my brain works differently to yours, because nobody else thinks it is at all enforceable.

The top people at every European CAA which anybody has asked haven't got a clue what the words mean, either.

Anyway, I am an engineer, and I look for solutions. This also means I don't easily bend over forwards to get shafted, especially when it is proposed by a bunch of faceless shysters in Brussels.

I bought my ~ £10,000 insurance policy earlier this year (learning absolutely nothing useful in the process) but that isn't going to make me go native.

[mad_jock]

because nobody else thinks it is at all enforceable.

Nobody that's FAA thinks its enforcable but the rest of us do.

"Can I see your passport please"

"OK a EU one, where are you resident?"

"not in Europe"

"Can you prove that please"

And you will either be.

"If you look you will see I have a UAE (or take your pick of country outside the EU) residents work permit"

"thank you Sir safe flight"

Or

"err um, I am resident in the IOM"

"where do you pay tax?"

"well the UK" or for that matter any other country in the EU.

"right could you please come with us to the station you have the right... etc"

If you are dual nationality with a outside EU passport you may get away with it but I suspect you will eventually come unstuck when they start looking at visa's, then when you produce the EU passport they will get you.

[peterh337]

MJ, you still don't get it.

Who is the OPERATOR?

The PILOT doesn't come into this.

[goldeneaglepilot]

I'm afraid that the view given by Peter is NOT shared by the vast majority of FAA pilots who reside in the UK, for those who hold just an FAA licence it is a time of uncertainty. Pace made some very good points about what is happening in respect to trying to find a workable solution for all of this.

There are many loose ends at the moment with regards the implementation of EASA.

From my point of view I feel uncomfortable with the doubt, even though I hold both FAA and JAR/UK licences. The aircraft I normally fly is N reg (based in the UK and UK VAT paid) but registered and insured through the US and I pay tax both in the UK and the US. I also have both UK and US addresses. Yet even with seemingly all bases covered I still feel unease.

[mad_jock]

And you don't get it Peter. They won't care because they will say that the person flying a private flight will be the current operator. You can hang your hat on interpreting everything so it won't work and it will be breaching various other bits of legislation such as age discrimination. Most folk can see a well planned highway to stopping the current situation.

And to get them to shift away from that you will have to have a huge court cases which could very easily last years and cost a fortune.

I presume one of the reasons why they have worded it so badly is because they can have plenty of wiggle room and which will take multiple sessions in court. And by the time its all sorted out it would have been far quicker and cheaper to just go local anyway.

And from the oxford english dictionary

operator





Pronunciation: /ˈɒpəreɪtə/


noun

1 [often with modifier] a person who operates equipment or a machine: a radio operator


a person who works at the switchboard of a telephone exchange: calls are made through the operator


2 [usually with modifier] a person or company that runs a business: a tour operator


3 [with adjective] informal a person who acts in a shrewd or manipulative way: her reputation as a cool, clever operator


4 Mathematics a symbol or function denoting an operation (e.g. ×, +).

[maxred]

Just when you thought it might get easier.:\

Let's forget for a moment FCL. If an N reg aircraft, which has to be owned by a UStrust, operating in EASA land, but for all intents is a US owned and operated aeroplane, then to me the trust is the owner/ operator. Unless otherwise stated. All insurance companies currently accept this. No issues then?

If the pilot has both a current EASA licence, and an FAA current licence, then he is legally able to fly the aeroplane?

MJ - exactly who are 'they'. Your scenario conjures up scenes of official checkers hiding behind hedges on the look out for third country reg planes, ready to pounce with a full file of 'new' EASA dic tats.

If most on here cannot fully understand, nor decipher, forthcoming, proposed rules and regs, and that includes the relevant authorities themselves, then sorry, I also just do not see it.

[mad_jock]

"They" can be anyone to be honest.

In the UK it could be Dft, CAA (which i would be extremely suprised at), C&E, Special branch (who are well know for making things up with Aviation) or even a local bobbie who has had a compliant from a local G reg pilot ( which I suspect might happen a fair bit as a method of settling old scores).

And I would disagree with its operator is in the US and I am sure "they" will as well. There argument will be that if the plane hasn't touched US soil for x numbers of years its not operated from the US.

As per the Oxford defintion you want them to use number 2 as the meaning of operator and they will want to use number 1.

You wouldn't actually need to have local inspectors you would just do a computer pull on eurocontrol for the IR boys and girls. Then meet at destination next time it flew.

Lets face it in the south of the UK they appear to have taken a register of all the N regs for the olympics bollocks so already have the bulk of the details for most GA N regs in the UK.

[maxred]

Ok, I have flown around the UK, Fance and Spain, for the past 15 years, and have never been ramp checked. In fact, in France I have found the opposite, that no one gives a toss, they go out of their way to be non plus and - Ah, prive, ce Bon, Monsieur. Done deal.

Now maybe I have been lucky, and maybe one day it will not be as described, but frankly until that day arrives, I attempt to do things right, attempt to the best of my knowledge to keep legal, and attempt to cover my backside.

Any communications I have had with the CAA, confirms my current view. I can understand unease in certain quarters, but until I am faced with the actual situation, then I will remain non plussed.:cool:

[goldeneaglepilot]

Lets face it in the south of the UK they appear to have taken a register of all the N regs for the olympics

Again spot on MJ. the chances are that most people who have been flying N Reg in the UK during the last few months will have been approached by an "official" to discover who the pilot is, that is to build up an intelligence list as to WHO is operating the aircraft. We have all seen recent DFT / CAA / UKBA / CE checks at various airfields in recent months. I can not imagine that the UK agencies are comfortable with the anonimity offered to UK owners of N reg aircraft through US based trusts.

I think that the argument that a US based trust can be argued to be the operator of an aircraft is totally farcical, The trust is a token entity to facilitate a loophole in international aviation law. No more, no less.

[peterh337]

Caution is appropriate; I would not suggest recklessness. If I was reckless I would not have got the JAA IR which took up a significant chunk of 2011 to work through. That paper is not even valid to fly my own plane!

I just don't see this ever working within the framework of how aviation currently operates around Europe. And I've been to a fair few airports...

The best organised ramp checks I know of are ones where the inspector has a standard checklist (obviously prepared by somebody for him) which shows specimen licenses, and he checks for words like INSTRUMENT PILOT if the inbound flight was IFR. Same for medicals, etc. This is all easy stuff, however.

There is no evidence that behind these (very rare) inspections is a whole army of back office workers checking pilot papers with the CAAs of the various countries. A pilot is entitled to be trusted and the presumption is that his papers are not forged. Same with most of the world and its other professions.

The EASA reg elevates the verification to a whole new level of complexity, where no enforcement at all will be possible until some case law is formed, and then the biggest enforcers will be

1) GA pilots' anal willingness to comply with every imaginable current or future regulation (vis. people blowing £30k on an avionics refit to comply with PRNAV)

2) Attitudes of insurance companies

and 2) will be the biggest one, if/when this ever becomes clearer.

[maxred]

I think that the argument that a US based trust can be argued to be the operator of an aircraft is totally farcical, The trust is a token entity to facilitate a loophole in international aviation law. No more, no less.

Well as Silvaire points out it is a farcical as a lot of the nonsense I read on here, and if it was such a large 'loophole' as you put it I am sure the FAA would have taken steps to close it by now.

[peterh337]

The FAA is completely happy with the use of trusts - a quote from a FAA chief counsel's office lawyer's presentation I went to a while ago.

Loads of planes are on trusts, for a variety of reasons. Many wealthy individuals and big-name corporates don't want to show they own a jet, for example, for security and PR reasons.

[mad_jock]

Why would the FAA care about European operators of N reg? Its a european problem not thiers.

Which is exactly the reason why most of us don't think anything will come of this meeting, is it this month or next?

EASA - Safety Assessment Of Foreign Aircraft (EC SAFA Programme) (http://easa.europa.eu/approvals-and-standardisation/safety-assessment-of-foreign-aircraft-SAFA.php)

Is already out there.

where no enforcement at all will be possible until some case law is formed

And how do you form case law without enforcing the law?

[goldeneaglepilot]

Maxred.

Why would the FAA want to close a loophole that allows continued ownership of an American aircraft (and thus revenue for the Americans) from a non US citizen?

Most people in Europe who own a N reg aircraft and operate it in Europe do so because it allows them access to a less expensive system of personal licences and maintenance. If theTrust ownership loop hole was removed that would become impossible for most.

[maxred]

Most people in Europe who own a N reg aircraft and operate it in Europe do so because it allows them access to a less expensive system of personal licences and maintenance. If theTrust ownership loop hole was removed that would become impossible for most.

The insidious fried envy of the UK. Brilliant.

I cant have so you cant have, the politics of the great unwashed.

Also GAP

I can not imagine that the UK agencies are comfortable with the anonimity offered to UK owners of N reg aircraft through US based trusts.

Classic - that statement is again just inaccurate. Do you honestly think that the UK agencies, either care, or in fact do not know, who is operating under their jurisdiction? 2 minutes on the internet is all that is required.

[421C]

Evidently my brain works differently to yours, because nobody else thinks it is at all enforceable. Indeed, in particular in the meaning of "nobody else".

The top people at every European CAA which anybody has asked haven't got a clue what the words mean, either.There is some lack of clarity in the definition of "Operator" and the definition of "resident". I agree. But this doesn't mean that suddenly the entire regulation is void. The most easily dismissed is the residency issue. For 95% of FRA pilots I would imagine there is no lack of clarity as to whether they are resident in the EU or not. For those in the 5%, I imagine there are methods to resolve this uncertainty. An obvious one would be to present the case to an NAA and get their agreement, and if you don't like their verdict, you can litigate - ie. in much the same way that residency questions are resolved for tax purposes.

On the operator question, this forum and the N-reg regulation isn't, amazingly enough, the first time this question has been raised. It certainly has been a matter of all sorts of case law in the USA, for Part 91, Part 91 Supart K (Fractional) and Part 135. The circumstances in which a person is deemed to have operational control of an aircraft are reasonably clear and I don't see how some trust arrangement could ever be used for a European beneficiary or shared beneficiary to ever claim he did not have operational control, except through some elaborate and self-evidently false construct. If one ever found a US trustee willing to be party to something so dumb (given the liabilities it carries) I would imagine they were essentially crooks. You can imagine what sort of person would offer such services and then you have to ask whether you trust them as owners of your $500k Cirrus or whatever. But don't take my word for it - ask a reputable trustee outside the EU if they would be willing to claim to have operational control of your aircraft and execute both the legal paperwork and day-day 'communications' needed to substantiate that. You have been writing about this possible "solution" for years now. I bet you that you won't actually find anyone sensible willing to do it. Go on, ask around.


Anyway, I am an engineer, and I look for solutions. This also means I don't easily bend over forwards to get shafted, especially when it is proposed by a bunch of faceless shysters in Brussels.

I bought my ~ £10,000 insurance policy
earlier this year (learning absolutely nothing useful in the process) but that
isn't going to make me go native.
I am not proposing anyone "go native" or "bend over". I also look for solutions, but I evaluate them too, otherwise they are not solutions but delusions. Your engineering is faulty if you think "enforceability" is a solution to anything in respect of FRA.

This is not to say there aren't genuinely grey areas. Someone who lives half their time in the US vs EU etc. Of course, one would hope a sensible solution could be found that is fair to such a person. But for the majority of FRA operators for whom EU residency isn't a grey area, and who have no genuine connection to a genuine non-EU operator (eg. a company or private owner for whom they fly) the greyness is not meaningful IMHO.

[421C]

I can not imagine that the UK agencies are comfortable with the anonimity
offered to UK owners of N reg aircraft through US based trusts. And how is that different from the anonymity offered UK owners of UK reg aircraft through anonymous corporate vehicles and trusts? This "trust loophole" fallacy is always repeated in an FRA forum. Let us be perfectly clear. I can be a lunatic bent on world domination. I can set up a whole chain of anonymous offshore vehicles. At one end of my chain an entity can buy me an EU (note any EU) register aircraft and base it in the UK. How regulating bloke X with an N-reg Cirrus at Blackbushe out of flying helps serve any public purpose or interest is beyond me.

[Thomascl605]

If you are flying N reg in Europe everyone knows that you are perfectly legal to fly with an FAA licence. Until EARSA rewrite the FAR's to include that you need a European licence too (which won't happen) , then just keep on flying as you have been for many many years. The whole rubbish about Operator residence, colour of Pilot's underwear etc is completely and utterly farcical, and shows the people who have written such drivel up for what they really are. Show me a safety case involving an N reg aircraft which hinges on Operator or Pilot residence ? There are a huge number of Airlines flying into and out of Europe every day, safely and if not safer that their European counterparts. Are we really expected to believe that just because a European Operator chooses to fly under the N reg that this is a safety issue just because of the residence of the Operator ? Of course not, this is total and utter rubbish and is discrimination by the lowest of the low.

This smacks of the same type of idiot rule about the 7 year IR validity of flying outside of Europe. Quite clearly many hundreds of very experienced senior Pilots are unhappy about that one too. So much so it's led to a petition being started on another Pprune forum against the CAA with hundreds of signatures so far.

I won't waste my time arguing the points with those of you that are

A. Trying to find a new vendetta after what probably is the longest soap opera posting on Pprune so far which has sadly yielded zero results. For that I feel sorry for you.

B. Give up, roll over and get shafted for thousands of euros just to fly the same aircraft with a European IR that has stupid validity periods which is currently discriminating against many thousands of senior Captains.

I'll just wait and see and if necessary there will be a discrimination case started in the future.

[Pace]

421C

The facts are that this is all poorly worked out and failing something sorted on a Bi lateral I have no doubts whatsoever on a solid legal challenge in the EU courts.

pace

[mad_jock]

Its not a vendetta.

Its just trying to get through to you that you have your head up your arse if you think its not going to happen or that it won't affect you.

IT HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH SAFETY.

The discrimination case will be amusing from the outside. Highly expensive and lasting years and years if you are on the inside.

[maxred]

Again spot on MJ. the chances are that most people who have been flying N Reg in the UK during the last few months will have been approached by an "official" to discover who the pilot is, that is to build up an intelligence list as to WHO is operating the aircraft.

I was going to leave this alone however......

I honestly think that you have been watching too many movies. It must be a W1 moment.

GAP, the chances are slightly>zero

[mad_jock]

More likely he lives in the South of england where the checks are being done.

Glasgow they just have a special force of baggage haddlers to put the head in on anyone that looks dodgy.

[Thomascl605]

It didn't take long before the bald haggis started bashing. Sad really, what a pathetic posting from you MJ.

[maxred]

Yes that Smeato moment, when even if you are on fire, some eejit will still stick the boot in

[Thomascl605]

Interesting to see the mindset though of all you lot who are against N reg in Europe. MJ, and all of you others love taking it in the a*s from a bunch of non elected, non pilots in Brussels writing laws , discriminatory and illegal ramblings of some thousands of pages better served up as recycled bog roll. The Stalinesque nature of life in Europe now, people afraid to speak up, to disagree, what was it you says MJ, jail ? Funniest thing I ever heard, you really are a piece of work.

Interesting to see those of you putting your faith in an Orwellian dictatorial mindset such as the Brussels gravy train which may well be derailed firstly with the impending collapse of the Euro and then country after country jumping ship.

Let's see what happens to all of this drivel then.

[mad_jock]

No if I said you were too thick to do the exams that would be an insult.

I actually think once you do get your finger out you will wonder why you made such a fuss.

Maybe if you didn't presume that we all have an agenda to ruin your life you would realise that whenever we disagree with you we arn't insulting you.

[Thomascl605]

And these exams, where are they in the FAR's exactly ??? You need to take your finger out.

Also, look at the IR theory exams that some hundreds of Pilots all have issue with too. Look at the petition against the CAA, hundreds of signatures from mostly European expats flying for Emirates or similar, thousands of hours and being told they have to do their IR theory exams again, what a load of rubbish.

Frankly, Europe and EARSA are a sinking ship, get this through you head and perhaps we can all move on to a common form of licencing with ICAO's help.

[mad_jock]

You better hope it doesn't sink because you will have to get every single country in EASA to change its ANO again afterwards, so how many court cases is that going to be?

I know nothing about the FAR's. Why would I?

I currently don't need to extract my finger to do some exams to work in a particualar area of operations. Have done in the past and complied with the local laws for both issue of local licenses and validations.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Maxred - wow, you certainly are prickly if anyone has an opinion different to yours. Do you own and fly an N reg aircraft yourself?

Just for the sake of clarity, I will clarify a statement of mine earlier:

If theTrust ownership loop hole was removed that would become impossible for most.

The Loophole is that the ONLY way to own an N Reg aircraft if you are not a US Citizen is by having it registered to either an American citizen as the owner OR to an American based trust.

Of course if details of the actual owner (the trustor) was availible to the authorities it would remove a lot of the issues over N-Reg being based and operated in the UK.

Now this could also be addressed easily by allowing ownership of N Reg aircraft by a non US entity and making the details of ownership availible through a similar system as G-INFO.

[mm_flynn]

Maxred - wow, you certainly are prickly if anyone has an opinion different to yours. Do you own and fly an N reg aircraft yourself?

Just for the sake of clarity, I will clarify a statement of mine earlier:



The Loophole is that the ONLY way to own an N Reg aircraft if you are not a US Citizen is by having it registered to either an American citizen as the owner OR to an American based trust.

Of course if details of the actual owner (the trustor) was availible to the authorities it would remove a lot of the issues over N-Reg being based and operated in the UK.

Now this could also be addressed easily by allowing ownership of N Reg aircraft by a non US entity and making the details of ownership availible through a similar system as G-INFO.
In the UK you would still want to hold any group operated aircraft in a 'limited liability structure' rather than in the individual's names as the owners are jointly and severally liable for all injuries and damages on the ground.

In addition, I believe the trust documents identifying the trustor are filed with the FAA, so this information is not opaque at the regulatory level

Besides trusts, you can also have the aircraft owned by an American corporation with (I think) 75% of the voting shares held by US Citizens, The President being US Citizen and 2/3 of Directors/Managing Officers US Citizens. I believe it is then possible for a non-US citizen to have a mortgage interest over the aircraft (for security of the capital) and to fly it. I know this is much more inconvenient than the trust structure, but it is nonetheless still viable for some people.

[goldeneaglepilot]

The detail for Non Citizen trustors for N Reg aircraft is currently being examined by the FAA. There was a public meeting with respect to this on June 6th and the submission period for submissions following that meeting is 6th July.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-14/pdf/2012-6146.pdf

At present details of the Trustor are not recorded by the FAA, nor details of the operator of the aircraft - hence the public meeting. It also explains the interest in who is operating N-Reg aircraft based in the UK prior to a significant event such as the Olympics.


On February 9, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration (the FAA) published its Proposed Policy Clarification (the PPC) regarding the use of non-citizen trusts (NCTs) to effect registration of an aircraft on the FAA registry.1 The PPC is a draft, prepared and published by the FAA for public comment, which includes its justifications for seeking to impose changes to the NCT registration process, and explanations and descriptions of those proposed changes, including a sample trust agreement revised to reflect the same.2 The PPC was issued after being reviewed and approved by officials of the FAA and DOT, as well as the Transportation Secretary.
The PPC includes the FAA’s general recognition of NCTs, which is a positive development. However, the PPC imposes new, and not insignificant, conditions on the use of NCTs including the allocation to the trustees of primary responsibility for certain matters as the “owner” of the aircraft. This Bulletin briefly describes the FAA’s purpose for publishing this PPC, the matters addressed in the PPC, and its likely implications.
FAA’s Compliance Concerns

The PPC repeated the concerns raised by the FAA in previous reviews of NCTs.3 Many of those concerns are not exclusive to the use of NCTs, despite the recent scrutiny. However, the use of NCTs is of particular concern because NCT-registered aircraft are frequently based, operated and maintained outside of the US and, per the FAA, impeding its national and international responsibilities to monitor, enforce and ensure compliance with the airworthiness and operational standards required of FAA-registered aircraft.4
Proposed NCT Requirements

The PPC NCT-related requirements are intended to address the FAA’s compliance concerns by requiring NCT trustees to facilitate periodic or urgent efforts by the FAA to find or verify information with respect to the “identity and whereabouts of the actual operators of aircraft and the location and nature of operation.” For that purpose, the PPC proposes revisions in the form trust agreement requiring that NCT trustees furnish the following to the FAA upon its demand:


Within 2 business days:

the identity of the person normally operating, or managing the operations of, the aircraft;
where that person currently resides or has its principal place of business;
the location of maintenance and other aircraft records; and
where the aircraft is normally based and operated.
Within 5 business days:

information about the operator, crew, and aircraft operations on specific dates;
maintenance and other aircraft records; and
the current airworthiness status of the aircraft.
The PPC further provides that the trustees may be required to produce the foregoing information more quickly “in the event of an emergency.”
In addition to the reporting obligations, the FAA has clarified its position regarding documents to be filed with trust agreements, and proposed new requirements related to trustee removal or resignation. In particular, the FAA notes that parties to NCTs often enter into, but do not file with the FAA, an operating agreement, pursuant to which the non-citizen beneficiary or trustor is given significant operational control over the aircraft. The FAA has proposed that these operating agreements must be submitted to the ACC with the trust agreements, but has not specified whether these agreements would be filed in the FAA ancillary files, or recorded with the FAA registry.
The trust agreement attached as an exhibit to the PPC includes suggested revisions by the FAA intended to further limit non-citizens from influencing the trustee’s control over certain aircraft matters, as well as clarifying certain perceived ambiguities in current “market” trust agreement forms. With respect to trustee resignation and removal, the FAA has proposed additional terms to be included in trust agreements. The FAA found that current NCT trust agreements give the non-citizen trustors too much discretion in removing trustees. Consequently, the FAA has proposed new terms that will limit the non-citizen trustors’ ability to remove trustees in the absence of “cause” as well as clarify the grounds that will constitute “cause” for removal. Pursuant to the PPC, trustees will be allowed to resign if the trustor is uncooperative. Parties to transactions involving NCT-registered aircraft, especially financing parties, are likely to further address the impact of any such trustee resignation or removal in the transaction documents.

[maxred]

Maxred - wow, you certainly are prickly if anyone has an opinion different to yours. Do you own and fly an N reg aircraft yourself?


YES. And another on G reg:ok:

[peterh337]

In addition, I believe the trust documents identifying the trustor are filed with the FAA, so this information is not opaque at the regulatory level

That is correct; the FAA doesn't like trusts which hide the identity of the beneficial owner (the trustor). This was stated at the lawyer's meeting I went to.

GEP's writeup of the FAA position is also consistent with their position back then. They don't like anonymous trusts, and they don't like trusts where the trustor can boot out the trustee easily (e.g. a pre-signed Bill of Sale).

Nothing new here, at all.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Its an accurate reflection of the CURRENT position with respect to trusts - "nothing new" except the public meeting took place only a few days ago and its still within the submission period - how "new" do you want?

The fact is that the FAA are very aware of the legal ownership of aircraft held in trust (the trustee) but often have very little detail of the trustor and even less details of where the aircraft is, who's looking after it and even more important who the "real operator" is.

[peterh337]

They know all those things to the same extent to which they know about them in the USA.

The FAA system is one where trust is vested in suitably qualified individuals e.g. an A&P/IA or a Part 145 Repair Station to do the release to service.

They have very active offices abroad who inspect the FAA scene out there. Much more pro-active than the local CAAs especially the UK one.

Trust ownership is probably impossible to stop - even if they wanted to. At a very basic level, they cannot prevent me selling my N-reg plane to a US citizen (living anywhere), for any amount (say $1), and he loans it back to me. Is the FAA going to ban lending your plane to somebody? :ugh:

I don't know who you are trying to scare, GEP.

I see some seriously dark clouds on the horizon. For example that bogus project called PRNAV, which has the potential of wiping out a huge chunk of the IFR community bigger than anything EASA might have done, due to the sheer cost of ripping out and replacing loads of perfectly good avionics, for no technical reason whatsoever. Just to get the "right paperwork".

But I am not worried about the FAA screwing the N-reg community because it is all over the world, and is a useful component of US foreign influence which costs the USA peanuts.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Peter -

This is an issue which directly affects both of us, you perhaps more than me, we both operate N reg aircraft that are UK based. On a selfish note I am perhaps in a better position than you with respect to the issue of N Reg ownership and UK operation. At least I could directly register ownership with the FAA should I choose rather than a US based trust - could you?

I am not trying to scare anyone, its simply taking a look with open eyes at the whole picture rather than getting focused on small parts of the detail and missing the overall message that is being sent out by the FAA and various other authorities. Its better than us sticking our fingers in our ears and heads in the sand and then getting upset when change is forced upon us.

We can all quote small parts of the detail and get the result to match our own ideas but is that realistic? I would hope that you received notice of the public meeting - I did.

[Thomascl605]

MJ, stop custard chucking at the N reg community.

[Thomascl605]

It's really sad to see a lost cause wringing out their baggage as per MJ. I guess you would grant Prima Nocta wouldn't you MJ if Brussels said so....so sad !

As for the rest of you chasing the legality etc of N reg and LLC's etc, you really are a sad little bunch. My best friend with thousands of jet hours runs an LLC, safely and in the sound knowledge that some witch hunt and sad pathetic little ferry / ops company won't ruin them. That's the problem, you all have never flown a jet (including MJ ) have you ?

[goldeneaglepilot]

Several of the Citation series and I fly a Jetprop now, will that count?

[peterh337]

For all the scare stuff about N-reg trusts...

The FAA is happy with individual trusts, of the kind that e.g. SAC (http://www.southernaircraft.co.uk/) offer. What they don't like is some US bloke owning a load of planes in his own name, and what they don't like are trusts which conceal the trustor's (the beneficial owner's, in UK-speak) identity from the FAA.

Many high-end owners use trusts to conceal the owner's identity (and this includes many Americans, who could just own an N-reg in their own name) for various reasons and I guess the FAA is going to chip away around the edges to limit this.

[Thomascl605]

Spot on Peter, the owners have money to throw at any potential issue. Surprisingly they are extremely clued up to all of this b*llocoks. Some half baked, dim witted, vendetta guy with a few hours on a Crustation won't change the fact that no one I repeat no one gives a flying f*ck about the ramblings of some Chav hell bent on his next vendetta of N Reg. (You have failed with chavvy Ferry Guy, get over it ! )

[goldeneaglepilot]

I have never seen ANY FAA official endorsment of a particular trust. Therefore one should not be seen better than another (naughty Peter - getting towards advertising for free (for a company you prefer) on PPrune)

The FAA at the 6th June Meeting did make public a draft trust agreement that they would feel happy with.

The issue the FAA seem to have with trustor's not being quickly identifiable extends to all US Trusts. Even though SAC trades from a UK address it is still an American Trust and is not above the FAA perception of issues, a quick check on the FAA website will show individual trustors are not quickly identifiable.

FAA Registry - Aircraft - Name Inquiry (http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Name_Results.aspx?Nametxt=SOUTHERN+AIRCRAFT+CONSULTANCY&sort_option=1&PageNo=1)

[Thomascl605]

And who really believes a word you say after you getting d*cked about your lack of knowledge for olympic slots - thicko !

[goldeneaglepilot]

Wow, what a nice chap you are. Just been having a read of your other posts. I'm on my knees now bowing to to the great aviation God... You do have such a way with words, if someone has a different opinion to you.

Perhaps you should read back through a few of the previous posts and realise that following the uncertainty and doubt created by the DfT's own people they clarified things. Perhaps you would be prepared to pass your opinion on the VFR slot allocation at Southend, and the other airports that will probably announce it during the next two weeks? Or was I drinking too much cider? Perhaps if you send me your email address then next time I'm told something I can run it past you for your advice and counsel.

Yep, I'm thick, in fact probably the village idiot, but do I care - NO. At least I can hold my head high with out the brand of obnoxious.

Toodle pip old chap, off now to munch on another turnip!!

[piperboy84]

Is this FAA rule about being a citizen to register a N reg something new? The reason I ask is although I now own and fly an N reg in the UK on a FAA PPL and hold US citizenship when I bought my first plane 20 years ago while residing in the US I was neither a citizen or green card holder at the time, I simply handed the dealer the money and sent in the my registration details, I don’t recall any questions regarding citizenship. With my most recent plane I bought it in the US flew it there for a short while then had it containerized and shipped it here to the UK. again with no questions as to my citizenship from the FAA or shippers, when I went to register it to my new UK address it was a one page form and unless I missed something it never asked my citizenship either. So in a hypothetical situation of a non US citizen owning a N reg in the UK what is to stop him/her simply filling out his details on an updated aircraft registration form and sending it onto the FAA?

[mad_jock]

Thomas we don't have a vendetta.

There are folk that obviously who do though who have obviously put alot of thought and effort into changing the current status quo.

We are just putting the point forward that your view that it won't happen, we don't agree with. And that legal challanges will be more than likely fruitless. And even if they do succeed the next round of legislation they will have another shot at restricting it again.

I am quite sure the owners are clued up about it. And being the sort of people they are, they will be doing a constant cost analysis. As soon as the cost of fighting it exceeds the cost of complying they will change their plans.

Yes there is some scope for basing outside. Jersey/IOM parking will be full and then the other countries just outside will have more aircraft based there. But then again once the positioning costs start ramping up and the aircraft isn't ready just down the road thier views may change.

What hardware we all fly doesn't come into it.

[mm_flynn]

Is this FAA rule about being a citizen to register a N reg something new? ....

So in a hypothetical situation of a non US citizen owning a N reg in the UK what is to stop him/her simply filling out his details on an updated aircraft registration form and sending it onto the FAA?
No the rule is not new, I believe it is quite long standing.

In your case, the dealer seems to have messed up. You must have either been a US Citizen, a resident alien (i.e. lawfully admitted for permanent residence), or a foreign corporation and certify that 60% (IIRC) of the flight hours are within the US, to have legally registered the aircraft. I believe (but have not checked) that in the fine print on the form it does say this.

It is a good thing you didn't crash as the aircraft was very likely unregistered during the whole of its operation.

I am not clear if you currently own an N-Reg over here, but if you are not a US citizen and you own it (as in have title) then it is not registered and not airworthy and in all likelyhood not insured. Finally, the only clear example, of which I am aware, of an insurer not paying out after a crash invovled Graham Hill's un-registered N-Reg Aztec (although the details of the rational for non-payment remain a bit obscure).

[peterh337]

The AAIB report says nothing useful about it but Graham Hill's plane appears to have at some stage become de-registered from the US register but never placed onto a new one.

In effect, his plane didn't exist.

Since he was hardly short of money it was presumably a c0ckup by somebody who he trusted to get the papers right.

One way to achieve this nasty situation is to apply to the FAA for an Export CofA, as one would if transferring the plane to a different register, but for whatever reason not proceed with the transfer. The FAA will then (usually if not always, AFAIK) de-register the plane, without necessarily any correspondence. This could happen in a situation where you are selling the N-reg plane to a foreign seller who wants his local register on it, but he pulls out at the last minute.

Such a situation can arise with any aircraft registry which operates non-expiring CofAs (e.g. FAA, EASA, etc.) whose validity hangs purely on a Release to Service by an authorised person/company.

In GH's case, the company doing the subsequent maintenance would have had no reason to become aware of the de-registration. It would have been only had he applied for a field approval for some mod that the FAA may have refused the inbound 337....

It is believed that GH's insurer didn't pay out because the lack of registration made the CofA invalid, so the flight was illegal before it got off the ground. There may have been other reasons also but this one would have been enough.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Pursuant to 49 USC § 44101, an aircraft cannot be operated unless it is registered. Regardless of how one intends to operate an aircraft, there are stringent limitations on foreign ownership of U.S. registered aircraft.


49 USC § 44102 states that an aircraft may be registered only when it is owned by a citizen of the United States, an individual citizen of a foreign country lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (“Resident Alien”) or a corporation not a citizen of the United States when the corporation is organized and doing business under the laws of the United States or a State, and the aircraft is based and primarily used in the United States.

FAR 47.2 defines “U.S. Citizen” as:

(1) An individual who is a citizen of the United States or one of its possessions;

(2) A partnership of which each member is such an individual;

(3) A corporation or association created or organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, of which the president and two-thirds or more of the board of directors and other managing officers thereof are such individuals and in which at least 75 percent of the voting interest is owned or controlled by persons who are citizens of the United States or of one of its possessions.

[WestWind1950]

here's an info sheet I just found on the FAA homepage:

http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/media/AFS-750-94.pdf

[mm_flynn]

Just checked a sample AD 8050-1 (Aircraft registration document). It pretty clearly asks one to Certify (immediately below the 'you will be fined or imprisoned if you make a false statement' bit) that one is either a US Citizen, Resident Alien, or Non-Citizen corporation (and the aircraft is properly based in the US).

[Ellemeet]

I'm afraid that the view given by Peter is NOT shared by the vast majority of FAA pilots who reside in the UK, for those who hold just an FAA licence it is a time of uncertainty. Pace made some very good points about what is happening in respect to trying to find a workable solution for all of this.

There are many loose ends at the moment with regards the implementation of EASA.

From my point of view I feel uncomfortable with the doubt, even though I hold both FAA and JAR/UK licences. The aircraft I normally fly is N reg (based in the UK and UK VAT paid) but registered and insured through the US and I pay tax both in the UK and the US. I also have both UK and US addresses. Yet even with seemingly all bases covered I still feel unease.



you have absolutely no reason to feel that way.

you are double licensed so you are just fine. it is only about licensing.. there is nothing to prevent a n-reg ac take of into the eu skies.

...

in the us the operator is the one who makes (decides to make) the plane do a flight.

this is not the pilot, and not necessarily the owner (for example a lease company does not decide .. the organisation/person that leases the plane).

[Ellemeet]

Maxred - wow, you certainly are prickly if anyone has an opinion different to yours. Do you own and fly an N reg aircraft yourself?

Just for the sake of clarity, I will clarify a statement of mine earlier:

Quote:
If theTrust ownership loop hole was removed that would become impossible for most.
The Loophole is that the ONLY way to own an N Reg aircraft if you are not a US Citizen is by having it registered to either an American citizen as the owner OR to an American based trust.

Of course if details of the actual owner (the trustor) was availible to the authorities it would remove a lot of the issues over N-Reg being based and operated in the UK.

Now this could also be addressed easily by allowing ownership of N Reg aircraft by a non US entity and making the details of ownership availible through a similar system as G-INFO.





part fcl has 0.0 to do with ownership and trusts..

[goldeneaglepilot]

part fcl has 0.0 to do with ownership and trusts..

Yes - your right, and it was ownership and trusts being discussed...

[mm_flynn]

...
The FAA at the 6th June Meeting did make public a draft trust agreement that they would feel happy with.

The issue the FAA seem to have with trustor's not being quickly identifiable extends to all US Trusts. ...

Being particularly sad, I had a read of the FAA Comments (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-09/html/2012-2930.htm) and it is quite interesting. There seems to be a strong support for the Trust Ownership structure and no desire to treat Trust Owners different than other types of owners. However, the FAA are clearly concerned to clarify that the Trust Owner needs to be a more active owner and keep track of who is operating the aircraft, where important records are based and clearly direct the Operator (i.e. the one who decides if the airplane flys are not) to enforce/enact emergency airworthiness directives, cease and desist orders, and to provide all information as to the nature of the operation and identities of pilots in the event of enforcement action (i.e. act like an owner). The FAA is also clearly concerned about 'side letters' that change the nataure of the trust relationship (which is filed with the registration).

Overall, I think it is positive. An affirmation from the FAA of the support of the principles of Non-Citizen Trust Ownership supported by a tidying up of the administrative details. It may be a PITA for some Trustees, in that they will probably have to change some agreements to impose additional restrictions and file (potentially redrafted) operating agreements, but overall it does seem quite reasonable for the FAA to be able to enforce its obligations equally on all of the ownership structures.

In reading, it also further confuses me in the 'Operator' discussion. Between EASA, the local country and USA it appears there are range of different entities who could simultaneous be operator for any given flight based on the differing perspectives offered (the pilot, the entity that keeps maintenance records and authorises flights, An entity registered as an operator, the Trustor Owner, the entity HMRC have in mind with their “Operator (not Pilot)” question on the GAR, etc.)

[maxred]

I agree entirely, and over a strong cup of cocoa, I read through it also. It IS positive, and entirely reasonable.

The hysteria whipped up by some on this forum, and I again comment with the appearence of an ''agenda'', is precisely that - misplaced hysteria.

When all this began, the threads I mean, the same protaginists were on the 'safety' route, i.e. N reg operators skirted at the edge of the envelope, operations and maintenance, and flying, were all done with a dodgy set of ownesrhips, licences, inferior gained FAA IR's, etc etc.......

Focus has now altered to the Trust Status, The Ownership Status, as all being dodgy, or underhand in some way. EARSA will sort them al out, seems to be the constant cry. The main issue for these guys is that in reality there is not much for the FAA ''TO SORT OUT"
Sorry, utter nonsense:8

[goldeneaglepilot]

So at present the FAA can quickly access the details such the pilots, operators trustors and details of where the aircraft has been used?

Come on Maxred, its a difficult one. You previously said you had an N-Reg aircraft in the UK - I would be extremely surprised if the operator could be contacted by the FAA easily. My understanding is that the trustee is actually breaking American law at present if they disclose the Trustors details without a Court order to disclose or the express consent of the trustee.

[peterh337]

That link was well found, mm_flynn :ok:

When all this began, the threads I mean, the same protaginists were on the 'safety' route, i.e. N reg operators skirted at the edge of the envelope, operations and maintenance, and flying, were all done with a dodgy set of ownesrhips, licences, inferior gained FAA IR's, etc etc.......That's a normal attitude, displayed by some who have been flying AOC ops and came across some cowboys, some of whom happened to be N-reg. The G-reg cowboys didn't draw attention; 10 points for sussing out why not ;)

It doesn't matter where one goes, one meets people who trot out that old line.

Between EASA, the local country and USA it appears there are range of different entities who could simultaneous be operator for any given flight based on the differing perspectives offered (the pilot, the entity that keeps maintenance records and authorises flights, An entity registered as an operator, the Trustor Owner, the entity HMRC have in mind with their “Operator (not Pilot)” question on the GAR, etc.) No, I didn't think EASA thought about the "operator" clause very much, either :) It has increasing hallmarks of an internal private project driven by a few individuals.

And I am damn sure that a lot of people involved who did wonder about this useless clause kept their mouths shut because it would conveniently render the legislation unworkable. Had I been on that committee that's exactly what I would have done.

[mad_jock]

I think they did put some effort in and its just not come up yet what the cunning plan is on that one.

I have a sneaky feeling it will be defined in some other transport regulation in the depths of some legislation on road haulage.

[maxred]

Come on Maxred, its a difficult one. You previously said you had an N-Reg aircraft in the UK - I would be extremely surprised if the operator could be contacted by the FAA easily. My understanding is that the trustee is actually breaking American law at present if they disclose the Trustors details without a Court order to disclose or the express consent of the trustee.

Well as fate would have it, our UK postal service, via a UK postman, delivered today, a Safety Communique, from my US manufacturer, via my US trust, a letter. Hardly James Bond is it?:\

[mm_flynn]

I think they did put some effort in and its just not come up yet what the cunning plan is on that one.

I have a sneaky feeling it will be defined in some other transport regulation in the depths of some legislation on road haulage.


Good one. :ugh: Road Haulage actually has a very clear definition of Operator. One needs an Operator's Licence to be an Operator. So, that isn't very likely to be the place the 'cunning planners' have buried their masterstroke.

[mm_flynn]

My understanding is that the trustee is actually breaking American law at present if they disclose the Trustors details without a Court order to disclose or the express consent of the trustee.Where did that come from????
I can imagine a Trust Structure which forbids the Trustee from disclosing the Trustor's details, but I certainly wouldn't expect that to be normal. In addition, I would expect the FAA to have objected to that in the Trust documents field with the registration. Nor would I expect there to be a general 'American Law' preventing the disclosure of trustor details in response to a lawful request from the US Government.

I suspect people who want to hid who they are to use several layers of indirection (e.g. a Trust holds the aircraft on behalf of a foreign holding company who then allows another party to operate the aircraft)

[mad_jock]

As a matter of interest whats the definition.

You only need a operators license to carry goods or burden connected with any trade or buisness when the plate weight is more than 3.5tons. Including renting in.

For example you can run a 7.5ton horse box without one. But you are still the operator of that vehicle.

And Article 257 of the ANO defines operator. But then doesn't define managment but does have a clause for 14 days hire.

Mind you there is nothing stopping them slipping in the definition which they want on the sly at some point in the future. As they don't need to redo everything to clarify a defintion, which could be what the plan is.

[maxred]

I suspect people who want to hid who they are to use several layers of indirection (e.g. a Trust holds the aircraft on behalf of a foreign holding company who then allows another party to operate the aircraft)

What like Tory party politicians, Directors of UK Footse 100 companies, and Bankers?

Figures.....:rolleyes:

[mad_jock]

Max there is a button two along from the right from the youtube button that when you highlight some text then press it makes it a quote it looks like a speech bubble

[maxred]

Thanks, I have often wondered how you guys got that effect!

Well I have now learnt something really usefull from this thread. Ta

[goldeneaglepilot]

Maxred - well done to your trustee!! Others are often not as good or prompt.

Mm: The reason that the FAA held the public meeting was simple - there was legal right to not make disclosure of trustors details.They are trying to ammend that on various grounds.

[maxred]

GEP- refer to MJ post no. 80

[goldeneaglepilot]

Thanks Maxred - I am presuming you are refering to the use of the quote tool?

Perhaps I should have used that to quote your earlier post in the context of my reply

Well as fate would have it, our UK postal service, via a UK postman, delivered today, a Safety Communique, from my US manufacturer, via my US trust, a letter. Hardly James Bond is it?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wibble.gif

My response:
Maxred - well done to your trustee!! Others are often not as good or prompt.

[maxred]

There. We're all learning something....

[maxred]

I failed to make it work first time! Must try harder. Cheers

[mad_jock]

Either copy and paste the text you want to quote

Then left click and highlight it all, then click the bubble.

Or click the bubble and paste inbetween QUOTE]****[/QUOTE

where the **** is, but don't delete the starting and ending [] like I have

[mm_flynn]

Mm: The reason that the FAA held the public meeting was simple - there was legal right to not make disclosure of trustors details.They are trying to ammend that on various grounds.Which of course is very different from a legal obligation not to disclose

My understanding is that the trustee is actually breaking American law at present if they disclose the Trustors details without a Court order to disclose or the express consent of the trustee.

Demonstrating I to can use the quote button ;)

[mad_jock]

Don't worry the weegie will get it eventually, a deep fried mars bar supper will sort things.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Yep, personally I copy the text I want to the clip board using right click on my mouse, click on the quote button so the box appears where I want it then press ctrl / v at the same time and it pastes what you want in the quotes.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Ah, MJ you're giving away the staple diet secret of pilots!!

[mad_jock]

I have never had one in my life.

It looks like a turd in batter.

Now haggis in batter, supper with curry sauce from Pizza Corrolla near Buchan tube station is a different matter.

[maxred]

That will be the Anti Pasti then!

[Pace]

MJ

Curry Sauce??? That is not Scottish but indiano ;) You are prostituting the famous Scottish haggis with Curry sauce it becomes a Shaggish :E or a Haggis that has been over done!

Pace

[mad_jock]

Don't care, its on my visit Glasgow list, along with the buffet in the Koh-I- Noor North Street. Unfortunately they closed down Murphys pakora bar years ago.