Hello there,
Thought you might like to see my own response to the DfT consultation so here it is. If you think I have missed something do let me know by PM and I will send an addendum.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
______________________________
Mr Pusey,
As requested by Duncan Nicholls I submit my personal response to the consultation.
I am a retired professional pilot with some 51 years as a pilot and 50 years as an airshow pilot. Nearly half the period of manned powered flight since 1903. My own involvement in General Aviation goes back another ten years to starting as a keen young aero modeller at the age of six. I have over 13,000 hours logged in a wide variety of, mainly, fixed wing light aircraft, gliders and balloons including over 9,000 hours as an instructor or examiner.
The introduction to your letter of consultation starts with the following -
"A significant proportion of private aircraft based in the UK by UK residents and companies are registered in other states."
The use of the word "significant" is emotive and just not correct. A small minority of such aircraft are based in the UK for private, sporting and recreational use. You may be correct if this is applied to corporate and business turbo props and jet aeroplanes along with turbine helicopters but not for light piston engined aircraft.
Frankly the "additional requirements for import" imposed by the CAA for decades has been the main factor in an owner deciding to keep a business or corporate aircraft on a foreign register. However the advent of EASA has eliminated all but a fraction of these, often unreasonable and arbitrary, impositions by an ever more desperate CAA as it fights a rearguard action to defend jobs for its employees in the face of the EASA takeover.
Coupled to the above is the fact that owners in the UK are subject to CAA charges not imposed by the FAA who are funded largely through a levy on airline ticket sales plus an aviation fuel tax. In addition the UK maintenance requirements are often vastly in excess of those required by the FAA on identical aircraft. These factors do bring huge financial disbenefits to owners of aircraft on the UK register.
Another factor, this time for the private pilot, is the virtual impossibility of qualifying for a UK instrument rating on his or her licence. Again the introduction of JAR-FCL has made it even more difficult, time consuming and expensive than the process was before. In the USA a "significant" number of PPL holders also have instrument ratings under the FAA system. A system identical to that which qualifies all the flight crew of US airlines operating into the major airports in the UK. A system that is demonstrably safe and fully compliant with ICAO Annexe 1 provisions.
There is no wonder that UK pilots vote with their feet in terms of getting a US licence and instrument rating. Having got it then it is not possible to use it in UK airspace unless flying an "N" registered aircraft. What a piece of bureaucratic bull***t....!!! There are those in the UK, among them CAA examiners from FCL6, who are convinced the FAA system of qualifying for an I/R is sub-standard. If so then you, in the DfT, should immediately ban any US air carrier from operating in UK airspace under IFR and into UK airports in less than VMC. I bet that would upset the "special relationship" between the UK and the USA so beloved of those in the corridors of power on both sides of the Atlantic.
For some 14 years from 1984 to 1998 I was employed by the CAA as a flight standards officer in what became the General Aviation Department. For the last 12 years I was Head of the Section tasked with the operational regulation and oversight of private, sporting and recreational general aviation in all its aspects in the UK and, for UK registered aircraft, no matter where in the world they might be operating.
One of our tasks was the resolution of Occurrence Reports where we attempted to get the pilots side of the story in cases where no legal action was being contemplated. Indeed our attempts to investigate by writing to the owner virtually negated any chance of a successful prosecution even if there had been a breach of aviation law. Our role was to ensure that the causal factors giving rise to the occurrence were known by the pilot and thus unlikely to occur again. An educational role for us, backed up by FCL action in extreme cases. For UK registered aircraft it was easy to write initially to the owner however this was virtually impossible in the case of foreign registered aircraft. To get any response from foreign national aviation authorities was often well nigh impossible and when coupled to the system of US "trust" ownership it was ten times worse. Not a situation to be acceptable to one charged with responsibility for operational safety in general aviation within UK airspace.
Indeed I was told by the FAA that the only responsibility in terms of operational oversight for "N" registered aircraft outside the 50 states of the USA was solely for air carriers. My own response to this was to comment that they were in breach of their obligations as signatories to the Chicago convention giving rise to the formation of ICAO. A somewhat apologetic reply was to the effect that the FAA resources were limited so they could only deal with what they perceived as being the headline area. I had to reluctantly agree with their solution to a dilemma. But I did not like it.
A similar difficulty was encountered when attempting to deal with the Russian Federation Aircraft Register and NAA's in other former socialist bloc countries.
These problems could be solved if only the states involved met their obligations implicit in their membership of ICAO.
To summarise, I am opposed to your proposals to require aircraft permanently based in the UK to be on the UK register. This until the anomalies in relative costs and ease of obtaining qualifications are resolved. With regard to the problems I have outlined on the difficulty in contacting owners and pilots of foreign registered aircraft then it is your responsibility, as the responsible government department, to pressurise other national governments to meet their obligations under ICAO.