TC_LTN
As you can see it hasn't killed the thread, and there is no need for such comments. The problem is that these "I have heard from a well placed source that..." rumours have been doing the rounds all the time I have been looking at this (3 years), here on pprune and elsewhere, and reportedly for much longer before that, while nobody whatsoever has ever backed them up. When these people are questioned further, they often vanish without elaborating - easy in an anonymous forum.
It is funny to observe that when discussing this face to face with people in the business, as I have done at every opportunity, I have never heard any such rumour.
Genghis the Engineer
Anybody (who tells everybody at his base that he gets his plane serviced somewhere far away) can fly with no CofA, no servicing, no logbooks, no pilot's license (or a forged PPL). Fine if there is no incident. Just like you can drive a car with no road tax and no insurance and no license and no MOT; if you only ever park it in a garage, there is almost zero chance of getting caught. Similarly with importing a plane without paying import VAT. This example therefore doesn't prove anything, and certainly would not be a reason to ban N-reg because one can pull the same stunt with a G-reg. The biggest risk in this activity has to be insurance (lack of), and I know for a fact that the assessor checks the lot: logbooks, licenses, any currency / type rating requirements. But insurance isn't mandatory...
stiknruda
The YAK business, as I understand it, was caused by suspect paperwork being issued by the Russian authorities to unsuspecting owners. A re-occurence of this would not be prevented by banning foreign-reg aircraft resident here, because a plane in any condition whatsoever (safe or unsafe) can fly over to the UK from anywhere and hang about here as long as it wants, especially on a farm strip where nobody might care.
Banning N-reg would be a disaster for the mostly-serious PPLs who have invested lots of time and money into the FAA PPL/IR route. These are generally skilled pilots with lots of currency and I would bet the planes, being mostly privately/business-owned, are well above the UK average GA aircraft condition. Therefore there cannot be a safety case for doing such a thing.
It could be a revenue raising measure, of course, but the motivation for raising more money has always been there.
I am sure the CAA read everything here and always have done. They know exactly why most people go N-reg:
- the FAA IR
- planes which cannot be G-reg e.g. the Cirrus and the new TBM700 variant
- planes which have non-CAA-approved addons fitted (e.g. aftermarket turbos, different types of wingtip lights, but I can't think of any example which has a safety issue)
- planes flown by people who already have FAA licenses and don't see why they should waste money getting CAA licenses
- the FAA PPL / Class 3 medical will enable some people to fly when they can't get the CAA Class 2 medical, but evidence from the USA shows there is no detectable safety issue with that
Are there other reasons? There is an easier maintenance regime but it's comparable to the G-reg Private CofA.
The CAA must have always known all this. Why act now?
Perhaps it is time for somebody in the "trade" to confront them directly and get a statement out of them. There would be nothing to lose.