That's the legal position for any trust arrangement. To say you are the 'owner' of anything legally owned by a trustee would get you in tax trouble as well as other things.

Legal information N registered aircraft

An IR (r) instrument rating restricted (old IMC) has no validity outside UK airspace, it is at present a UK only qualification.

The IR (r) qualification is also only valid on UK registered aircraft flying within UK airspace and has no validity on USA registered aircraft flying in any countries airspace including the UK.

To fly IFR in an N registered aircraft anywhere the FAA licence must be endorsed with an instrument qualification.

A UK issued IR (r) or EASA full IR does not authorise a pilot to fly an N registered aircraft IFR.

In a sea (sorry) of speculation, that seems to be the first real black & white bit of info we have had on this thread.

FARS allows a foreign pilot to fly a US registered aircraft in the State that issues the pilots licence. There is no limitation of exercising any of the privileges held on that pilot's licence, including using an IMC rating. This was recently confirmed by the FAA's New York office in writing. It is of course not valid in another State.

To introduce another slice of Swiss cheese...
Prior to the flight, the passenger messaged friends to come looking for him if he fell out of contact. We don't know if this was said in jest, is it an acknowledgement that the passenger was cognisant of the risks of this flight or was he nervous of flying in small planes?
However, two other messages during the flight seem to be genuine expressions of apprehension.
A nervous passenger at night over cold water, is in itself an additional pressure for a single pilot.
In a worst case scenario the passenger effects flight safety.

Mjb

The Sun now reporting that the plane, departing from Nantes, "only managed to take off after 4 attempts." Anyone know any more about that at this point?

So were these flights safe?
 

I hope you'll indulge an SLF here after reading some of the above comments.

In early autumn last year I flew as one of three passengers on an N-registered SE Piper (not sure about exact model but I think had four rear seats facing each other) from Caen to Guernsey; daytime flight, calm sea state, excellent visibility. We were given life harnesses by the pilot and briefed, summarily, on their use.

I made the return trip that afternoon with a different pilot, one other passenger, no life jacket or briefing, in a G-registered Piper Cherokee. We departed early at the pilot's insistence because the fog was closing in as it does over there. In fact we ran to the plane and taxied out and took off in a big hurry; by the time we left the runway, the fog was rolling in at the end of the runway and probably not far off the ATC limit for us to take off. The rest of the flight conditions were as on the outward leg. After the flight with hindsight I was a little worried about this haste and can totally see the pressure pilots come under in these GA situations.

For both flights I have no knowledge of the arrangements other than that I am sure an invoice was issued; I was on business and trusted my client.

My questions are:
- was one of these flights safer from a regulatory point of view?
- was the level of risk of either or both of these flights acceptable for such an arrangement when carrying paying passengers?

Thanks for any answers.

Right, plenty of talk about weather this flight should have gone or not, and how qualified people where.

Is it me or is there a glaring beacon that this stinks to hell, what the hell is a professional premier league footballer earning 50k a week doing in this situation on a plane like this flown in the way, it makes no sense whatsoever, something is up here
​​​​​​
​​​​​​Why did he not travel on a commercial flight? Or why not a proper bizjet company

I do not doubt the letter you have received from a FSDO however I can find no basis for this opinion in US law.

US law is specific that an instrument qualification is required on a FAA licence for IFR. .

Furthermore the CAA specifically state that this IR (r) qualification is limited to UK registered aircraft in UK airspace. The IR(r) does not meet the requirements of ICAO recognition and therefore is limited to UK aircraft and UK airspace.

US law will always be paramount regarding operation of US aircraft and the only relevant US law regarding recognition of ICAO pilot licences is below.

§61.75 Private pilot certificate issued on the basis of a foreign pilot license. (a) General. A person who holds a foreign pilot license at the private pilot level or higher that was issued by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation may apply for and be issued a U.S. private pilot certificate with the appropriate ratings if the foreign pilot license meets the requirements of this section. (b) Certificate issued. A U.S. private pilot certificate issued under this section must specify the person’s foreign license number and country of issuance. A person who holds a foreign pilot license issued by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation may be issued a U.S. private pilot certificate based on the foreign pilot license without any further showing of proficiency, provided the applicant: (1) Meets the requirements of this section; (2) Holds a foreign pilot license, at the private pilot license level or higher, that does not contain a limitation stating that the applicant has not met all of the standards of ICAO for that license; (3) Does not hold a U.S. pilot certificate other than a U.S. student pilot certificate; (4) Holds a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter or a medical license issued by the country that issued the person’s foreign pilot license; and (5) Is able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that applicant’s pilot certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft. (c) Aircraft ratings issued. Aircraft ratings listed on a person’s foreign pilot license, in addition to any issued after testing under the provisions of this part, may be placed on that person’s U.S. pilot certificate for private pilot privileges only. (d) Instrument ratings issued. A person who holds an instrument rating on the foreign pilot license issued by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation may be issued an instrument rating on a U.S. pilot certificate provided: (1) The person’s foreign pilot license authorizes instrument privileges; (2) Within 24 months preceding the month in which the person applies for the instrument rating, the person passes the appropriate knowledge test; and (3) The person is able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that applicant’s pilot certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft. (e) Operating privileges and limitations. A person who receives a U.S. private pilot certificate that has been issued under the provisions of this section: (1) May act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft of the United States in accordance with the pilot privileges authorized by this part and the limitations placed on that U.S. pilot certificate; (2) Is limited to the privileges placed on the certificate by the Administrator; (3) Is subject to the limitations and restrictions on the person’s U.S. certificate and foreign pilot license when exercising the privileges of that U.S. pilot certificate in an aircraft of U.S. registry operating within or outside the United States; and (f) Limitation on licenses used as the basis for a U.S. certificate. A person may use only one foreign pilot license as a basis for the issuance of a U.S. pilot certificate. The foreign pilot license and medical certification used as a basis for issuing a U.S. pilot certificate under this section must be written in English or accompanied by an English transcription that has been signed by an official or representative of the foreign aviation authority that issued the foreign pilot license. (g) Limitation placed on a U.S. pilot certificate. A U.S. pilot certificate issued under this section can only be exercised when the pilot has the foreign pilot license, upon which the issuance of the U.S. pilot certificate was based, in the holder’s possession or readily accessible in the aircraft.

I trust this clarifies the requirements

Amazed by ignorance?
 

Having quietly read many discussions here it doesn't surprise me at all. Most people only know about the regulations that impact them directly. For example, in this thread it was asserted that only a US National can own a US registered aircraft. Simply not true. I'm not a US national and I have legally owned more than one US (N registered) aircraft. What is strange, but true, is that a US National and a non US national cannot be joint owners of an N registered aircraft. Ownership of US registered aircraft is actually restricted to "US Persons" a category that includes not only nationals but also those with resident alien status.

There's no conspiracy. He was with his mates in Nantes. Offered a commercial flight back from Paris but decided to go back with the plane his agent booked for him. Unfortunately, he was between clubs so not really being managed or looked after. He (and probably his agent) had no idea about the sort of things we're talking about here. You tell Joe Public he's going on a private plane and he sees in his mind everything from a twin beech to a twin jet. If the pilot is confident and reassuring (either through stupidity or get home-itis), it's going to be a passenger with very acute clarity of thought who doesn't go along.

That is very true clareprop. I probably know as much about football (next to nothing) as this chap knew about aviation,and what to us seems a mad decision for someone with his financial resources was probably something that never occurred to him. What is certain is that he was very badly advised.

Graham Hill springs to mind.

When I used to live and fly in the CIs many years ago I remember whispers of an insurance job ditching near Alderney, the Casquets location ensuring that the changes of finding any evidence pretty much nil due to the tides and currents. Legend had it that the pilot was collected and survived to do it again. CI secrecy is famous and this could all have been Aero Club wind-ups of course.

I used to fly to Alderney from Jersey and back every day in a single engine piston, clearance was always SVFR not above 1000, got caught by the 40 knot fogs a few times and had to divert to LFRC....is VFR at night allowed in French airspace now?

Why would the transponder cut out over water at 2300 unless there was a problem in flight, fire/structural failure? Would icing affect the antenna?

Anyhow can only imagine what must have been going through that footballer's mind in his last few minutes, it doesn't bear thinking about. RIP.

It isn't possible to be high enough to glide to land if the engine calves for the entire segment between Guernsey and the on track shore crossing point. I may be missing your point, but two things. We know he wasn't "planning" to fly at MSA because he filed for higher. That aside, what is wrong with crossing the channel at MSA when IFR, or 100 feet when VFR? It's 75 miles from Guernsey to the far shoreline. He couldn't maintain 5000 and had to request lower to 2000, so the only glide to shore places were at best max 10 northwest of Guernsey, and no more than 10 short of the intended shore crossing point. I have flown a bit from Biggin Hill VFR to the Channel Islands, and sometimes that was at 1000 due to weather. Mind you, it was in a 310.

The assumption is they are down near Guernsey, and that is a good assumption. The truth may be they are five miles from Cardiff or really anywhere between Guernsey and Cardiff, including in the Bristol Channel. Sure, 80% in the search area, but in all of these circumstances, buck shee chisel chartering, the questionable legality of the flight if an emergency had been declared and questions asked, it is possible that this was a guy ducking down to get home, but IFR and unable to ask for lower than the MSA.

It doesn't seem that the pilot was fully at the races with IFR.

The report by The Sun, that the aircraft took three or four attempts to take off, are they suggesting three or four take off rolls, with a taxi back to the take off point, it is bizarre and makes me think back to the Munich disaster. I cant imagine a pilot attempting more than two take off runs, and that would be very rare and with good reason. Again a take off roll with a few hops again would be unlikely. As for any reasons behind such a departure such as being overweight, contaminated flying surfaces, engine malfunction or incorrect configuration, this could not happen to the worst pilot on his worst day, could it? Not least it might cause suspicion to ATC or recall back to the apron/stand.

An interesting suggestion that the aircraft may have pressed on to Cardiff, placing the crash site anywhere in the English Channel, Bristol Channel, Exmoor or Dartmoor. It would be interesting to know what exactly the radar traces reveal.

I think the best plan is to take anything printed in The Sun with a pinch of salt until it is confrimed (or otherwise) through official channels. Especially if, like you say, it sounds unreasonable. It probably is, being printed in The Sun.

As to the "take off attempts": Big, cold, fuel-injected engine, difficulties in starting it, and the attempts to get it running were counted as "take off attempts"?