N register - CAA Rumour

[stiknruda]

A little birdy tells me that so concerned are the CAA about the increasing prevalence of N registered GA aircraft that are domiciled in the UK, that they are seriously considering the position regarding aeroplanes operating under flags of convenience.

The little birdy also tells me that they are in the throes of drafting legislation that may affect the operators of said aircraft. As I understand it, it is long the lines of, "those aircraft can be based here BUT must return to the country where they are registered to have their annual inspection done".

To reiterate this is just a rumour from a very well informed source, however were it to be true, I guess that it would affect quite a few Ppruners. I do not know how it would be policed or enforced - maybe ramp checks a la FAA?

Both of mine are G registered but I often borrow an N reg bipe - so I do have a limited but vested interest


Stik

[IO540]

Unless somebody goes on the record with this, it is just another such rumour.

I am quite certain that some people spread them deliberately, either out of a feeling of personal importance, or because they work for the CAA and they don't like the fact that the CAA isn't getting the CofA and license fees.

Which isn't to say that something isn't in the pipeline. Forcing N-reg to do their annuals in the mainland USA would be a particularly vindictive way to go about forcing GA to G-reg, while not affecting large cargo operations.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Another birdie told me recently that somebody has discovered an N-reg aircraft that had been brought over here having been de-registered, left with the N on the tail and flown in the UK for 5 years without any supervised maintenance or CofA renewal being done.

Given that the birdie who told me was a CAA maintenance standards surveyor, it wouldn't surprise me if moves were afoot !

G

[TC_LTN]

Well done IO540! That killed the thread dead without any proper debate or consideration about what COULD be a very serious issue for many GA operators in this country. While you may well be correct in your assessment, I do think a thread discussing why a regulator may or may not be considering taking such draconian action and why so many people are deciding to go along the N registration path in the first place would be very worthwhile and does not warrant such aggressive sarcasm.

[Flyboy-F33]

Maybe stik would like to indicate (no names required) where his source got the info, or to qualify the rumour in some other way. We have heard many such rumours over the years.

GG

[Flyin'Dutch']

The DGAC recently investigated the possibilities to do this and were not supported by their own aviation industry (TBMs not certified other than in France and US)

That is the word on the street.

These 'rumours' come up with a monotonous regularity.

It would be churlish to deny that in the aviation land as a whole there would not be pressures to 'rectify' the situation.

Unfortunately it may be easier and more 'convenient' to tighten
up regulations than take a good look why there are people choosing to operate under a 'foreign flag' and be proactive about these matters.

A lot of people are happy to blame the authorities for regulating things but at the end of the day that is their raison d'etre and they are trying to do the best they can within the parameters set by us as a society.

Not sure whether the tale of the inproperly registered machine is contributory to the debate as that was obviously someone who was not playing by the rules. I would certainly be unhappy if it was infered that this means that people flying N registered aircraft were somehow cowboys breaking the rules or looking for an easy way out.

For starters people flying on non G aircraft have not only to oblige with the CAA rules when operating but also the FARs.

FD

[PhilD]

Stik

Did your little birdy tell you exactly why the CAA are 'so concerned'? If they consider this a safety issue, I would be interested to know the thinking behind it, as surely all N reg planes will be affected. If it's not safety, then what? Surely not something as trivial as loss of revenue?

[stiknruda]

My little birdy works within the administration of airworthiness approval.

Little birdy cheeped that the reason for doing this was because of the recent saga/fiasco with Yak maintenance and that there was also some concern that certain private operators were using the N reg whilst not always adhering to FARs.

Like I said in my initial post, it is unsubstantiated but it is the first time that I have heard anything of the like and alas I have been around GA a long time!

Stik

[englishal]

I don't see how they could enforce an N reg a/c being returned to the USA for the annual. The FARs require the annual to be carried out by an FAA licenced engineer, and the FARs don't specify where this maintenance must be carried out. So long as the aircraft is inspected and maintained according to the FAA regulations, then nothing else matters as far as I can see....

EA

[MichaelJP59]

Presumably the cost implications of closing this "loop-hole" would be enormous to owners and syndicates with N-reg planes, not to mention FAA IR ratings being difficult to use if you can't get access to an N-reg!

I've not yet got my PPL but was certainly considering going the N-reg route when qualified - hope it isn't closed off.

Would there be concerted opposition and lobbying if the CAA moved on this, or would it have to be grudging acceptance, like when the Inland Revenue closes down tax-avoidance schemes?

- Michael

[Flyboy-F33]

Based onwhat has been said, this would also put many FAA licenced engineers out of business too.

I cant see how it could be enforced without the cooperation of the FAA, and I cant also see those good folks buying into that concept either.

GG

[The Nr Fairy]

It may be slightly different, I don't know, but last year there was a kerfuffle when Swazi-registered Gazelle helicopters were effectively grounded by the CAA. G-reg ex-mil Gazelles (not the pukka civil ones) are restricted to Permits, and this was a way round this.

Is there a parallel, and if so once a precedent's been set, may it be done again ?

I think it would be heavy handed, but then again . . .

[IO540]

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.

[slim_slag]

Are there other reasons? .........

Why act now? "National Security" issues? Seems to be the Guv'mints reason to interfere with other liberties we think we have. Maybe they don't like all these planes flying around which they cannot force Mode-S into? Maybe TSA want to regulate overseas N-regs a bit and the CAA are being poodles. Or something similar.... Bl00dy hell, sound like some mad conspiracy theorist...

[englishal]

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)
Or a negative safety issue...what about ballistic parachute systems, which were freely available on certain FAA types, saved lives, yet were not allowed in the UK....how mad is that? I dunno if its changed at all now....

The problem with GA in Europe, is that its treated in a special way ("ooh no sir, you can't possibly change that light bulb, without filling in forms 1020,1030,1050, in triplicate, then applying to the CAA, waiting 10 monthsm, then paying a large fee, then get a CAA approved engineer to charge you £10,000 for it"), when all it really is is a form of transport to many. Would be great if I could commute to work by plane, but unfortunately unless I get that £500,000 / week job as an F1 driver, its not going to happen. Whereas, if I lived in America, there is a real possibility that I could commute to work by aeroplane, indeed many *normal* (ie. other than the very wealthy) people do (live in Santa Maria, work in Santa Barbara, and its a quick 15 minute hope over the mountains....beats driving). And as stated, there is not a difference in pilot skill / aircraft airworthness between this side of the pond and the other.

Maybe if Private GA wasn't so costly due to regulations, then maybe people could afford the Mode S transponder :D

Right off my soap box....

EA ;)

[WestWind1950]

The same discussions come up in Germany regularly. I did read somewhere that it's the FAA that requires N registered aircraft to spend a certain number of months in the USA, not the European governments!! I don't have the details, but it would be interesting to know what the FAA thinks about aircraft stationed overseas.......

Westy

[Zlin526]

I have also heard a whisper about this, but from the Department for Transport.......Maybe it is down to national security issues?? Something about an aircraft 'registered' in the USA, painted as such and operating over here, but not actually registered anymore with the FAA! Who's to know if it's actually registered apart from the FAA, who tend not to be looking much in the UK.

Lots of whispers together normally make a loud noise at some stage.

[Cathar]

It has been noted that rumours have been doing the rounds at least 3 years and that nobody has backed them up. This may well be because people in the CAA and DfT are asking questions and thinking about the issue but have not yet formulated a firm view. My experience from contact with the CAA and DfT is that they can take time to address some issues. Take alcohol limits and police testing powers. These were first recommended by the AAIB in about 1991. The DfT issued a consultation paper on proposals in 1996 and legislation was made in 2003. That legislation will not come into effect until later this year.

Questions are also raised as to motive. I think the answer that is clear if you think about it. The Government is responsible the safety of aviation in the UK. Through Parliament it has established a regulatory regime and given the CAA the function of regulation aviation safety standards. By keeping and operating a foreign registered aircraft in the UK the provisions established by Parliament for the good of the population of the UK as a whole are being bypassed and responsibility is in effect being delegated to the authorities of another country. While the difficulties this could cause may be ignored if the number of aircraft involved is limited, it becomes more difficult for them to ignore if the scale of foreign aircraft operation rises. I have heard suggestions that getting on for 10% of privately operated aircraft based in the UK are on foreign registers, mainly the US, Bermuda and Cayman. The percentage appears to be a lot higher in respect of twin turbine powered aircraft.

If the CAA or DfT were to decide to do something about this, I am told the most obvious solution would be to follow the Canadian requirements which automatically grounds foreign registered privately operated aircraft if they have been Canada for more than 90 days in the preceding 12 months.

It is my understanding that the FAA, at a technical level at least, would be fully supportive of such action.

[dublinpilot]

How could the CAA force you to have your N reg serviced in the USA? They MAY be able to stop you having it serviced in the UK (I don't know for sure, but suspect they could), but how could they stop you having it serviced in another country?

If you F reg has to be serviced in accordance with FAA regs to stay legal on the F reg, and it's not illegal under local laws to have it serviced in a particular country, then how could they stop you?

I mean could you not fly over to Ireland, and have it serviced here by an FAA approved outfit. CAA can't tell you what you can or can't do in Ireland on an F reg aircraft, flown on a FAA PPL.

Then when you are returning to the UK, you are flying in a N reg, with all its maitenance uptodate, and with an FAA licence. ie...you are ICAO compliant.

Am I missing something?

dp

[Heliport]

Nr F
The Swazi-registered Gazelle helicopters were grounded by the CAA.
The Swazi authority took a sensible approach and issued ex-mil Gazelles with C of A's but the CAA refused to recognise them and not only grounded the helicopters but threatened to prosecute the pilots who'd flown them on flight tests here. I assume someone with more grey cells and not as petty must have intervened because nothing came of the stupid prosecution prosecuting idea, but the Gazelles were grounded until they were put on the G register and issued with permits.

"I think it would be heavy handed, but then again . . ."

it wouldn't be the first time! http://www.bluetonguehelicopters.com.au/pprune/actsm.gif

[Cathar]

If I recall the case correctly, the Swazi authority had not taken a "sensible approach", they had acted contrary to international requirements and the CofA's were not valid under the Air Navigation Order. It therefore does not seem to be a case of the CAA "choosing not to recognise them". If it had been an arbitrary decision it would not doubt have been challenged successfully in the courts.

[IO540]

WestWind1950

That rumour is definitely incorrect - the FAA does not require N-reg planes, held by a US citizen or a US Trust, to spend any time in the USA.

Cathar

By keeping and operating a foreign registered aircraft in the UK the provisions established by Parliament for the good of the population of the UK as a whole are being bypassed and responsibility is in effect being delegated to the authorities of another country.

What evidence can you offer that a G-reg does more "for the good of the population of the UK" than an N-reg?

As a purely revenue raising measure, I can understand it. Not for any other reason though.

Regarding Canada grounding planes after 90 days, I wonder whether they also validate the FAA IR..... ??

[Cathar]

The point I was making is that in establishing the CAA and passing the Air Navigation Order, Parliament takes account of wider interests not just interests of those flying aircraft in the UK. If aircraft are being permanently based and operated in the UK other than under the system established by Parliament this seems to thwart Parliament's intent in establishing the regulatory system. Obviously it is to the good of the aircraft owners to have N registered aircraft otherwise they would not do it. Whether it is or is not in the wider public interest is an entirely different matter and not one on which I have offered an opinion. However, it is an issue which could bring private flying into disrupte in the UK.

I think that your response to Westwind 1950 is a little disingenous. The FAR does prohibit non US citizens from owning N registered aircraft if they are operated outside the US for more than a certain number of day a year. It is to circumvent US legal requirements that people have resort to having an aircraft they have paid for owned and registered by a trust.

[2Donkeys]

Cathar

Am I to understand that you have now watered-down your views on what the DfT intend to do to N-reg operators? You seemed rather more certain that the end of the world was nigh when this last raised its ugly head a couple of weeks ago.

2D

[IO540]

Cathar

How could it bring private flying into disrepute, when UK-based N-reg planes are, on average, maintained to higher standards and flown by more current and higher rated pilots, than UK-based G-reg planes?

Anyone wondering where I get the above from only needs to look at the average UK airfield, where they will see a pile of ancient G-reg Cessnas and Pipers and assorted other WW2-era spamcans, in variously advanced stages of decrepitness (but used for PPL training, and VERY IMPORTANTLY paying the CAA regular sums of money every 3 years), and they will see a much smaller number of N-reg planes, usually privately/business owned, well looked after, and used for more serious stuff e.g. business, and mostly by instrument rated pilots.

If anything is going to bring private flying into disrepute, it has to be the sight of the UK fleet (nearly all G-reg) gradually falling to bits. Nearly all the people attracted into GA in the UK are skint, the schools are mostly skint, and this is reflected in the state of the planes and the very low currency of most PPL pilots. It is evident from the state of the business that there is little scope indeed for bringing private flying into any more disrepute!

Re the US ownership bit, a Trust is legal and something which is legal is not illegal. Certainly that's the case in the USA; may not be that way for much longer in the UK :O

[Zlin526]

How could it bring private flying into disrepute, when UK-based N-reg planes are, on average, maintained to higher standards and flown by more current and higher rated pilots, than UK-based G-reg planes?

Statistics please....... I suspect this is a baited hook, but I'm gonna do it anyway!

Higher standards of maintenance I can maybe understand, but higher currency? Surely that depends on how many hours one flies in an aircraft, not what register it's on?

And higher rated pilots??? For instance, surely the UK Instrument Rating is far more difficult to pass, in technical and intellectual content, than an FAA IR? Having held a UK IR for some years, it's irrelevant to me, but I have heard that one can obtain the answers for the FAA written exams in advance!!

Give me the stats, plleeeeeease!:{

[ThePirateKing]

As IO540 has already mentioned, what about aircraft which cannot be G-registered, such as the Cirrus and the new TBM?

TPK:ok:

[IO540]

Zlin526

It wasn't meant to be a hook :O

I said "on average".

Very very few UK PPLs have a current IR. You can see the license stats on the CAA website. Most of those that do have it date back to the UK (not JAR) PPL; the JAR IRs issued to plain PPLs since JAR are miniscule.

The JAR IR has a lot more ground school than the FAA IR but most of the extra stuff is commercial stuff and is irrelevant in the PPL/GA context. The FAA flight test is by all accounts at least as hard.

It is simply that a pilot going to all the hassle of putting his plane (HIS plane usually, otherwise the N-reg option isn't available) on the N register and getting the FAA PPL/IR isn't going to be doing it to fly down the coast to Beachy Head, IFR. The aircraft registry won't determine the pilot currency but a pilot won't generally bother to do it unless he flies a lot.

I am also not saying an FAA PPL/IR does more hours than a JAR PPL/IR; just that the latter is almost extinct.

I know a fair number of people who fly regularly, long flights into Europe etc. Nearly all of them are N-reg, FAA PPL/IR.

It would take seriously perverse thinking on the CAA's part to believe that banning UK-resident N-reg planes is going to improve safety.

If they were going to do it and avoid looking ridiculous, they would need to a) offer an IR appropriate to GA flying, and b) enable an easy conversion to the new IR. They can't do a) without pan-European agreement... but of course they know all this anyway.

For larger N-reg operators, e.g. fractional schemes, there would be an obvious and trivial way around the regs: have a pool of planes and rotate them via the UK, so each one spends just under the max permitted time here. The CAA would then miss out on the really juicy CofA fees.

It doesn't look very attractive.

[bluskis]

IO

Since many owners look carefully at the potential savings to be made in maintenance costs by moving to N reg, including reduced propellor inspections amongst others, it does not follow that N reg are better maintained in the UK than G reg.

It may well be that UK requirements are over pedantic, but that can only make them safer.

The arguement that perhaps the skills of many maintenance engineers are somewhat lacking applies no doubt equally to FAA licenced UK based engineers.

Your posts are often used to slag aircraft which are not at the end of their design life, and which have had all relavent AD's dealt with, and which the owners are maintaining regardless of the costs caused partially by poor standards of quality controll in their country of manufacture, often the same country that issues N regs.

[2Donkeys]

Since many owners look carefully at the potential savings to be made in maintenance costs by moving to N reg, including reduced propellor inspections amongst others, it does not follow that N reg are better maintained in the UK than G reg.


Neither does it follow that because something is inspected more frequently, it fails less. Indeed many failures occur to aircraft of all nationalities shortly after a visit to the maintenance shop.


This thread seems to have lost its way though focusing on personal digs rather than the larger picture.

Various unsubstantiated rumours are always popping up on these forums and others. The instigators are never authoritative themselves but invariably have "a friend" who is "well placed" to know what is going on. This thread is a fine example, and you only have to look back two weeks or so, when it was Cathar who had "good information" that the DfT were going to be dealing with this "problem".

Some things are certain. The FAA is concerned about the volume of work being generated by (in particular) its large overseas fleet of light aircraft. It must be true, although I don't have a friend "in the know", that the CAA is concerned by the number of pilots who are electing to take themselves out of the system. The IR is the tip of the iceberg. Nobody who has thought hard about the NPPL would actually follow that route if they were aware that for similar money and similar effort, they can obtain an ICAO recognised FAA PPL which permits unrestricted flying in G-reg aircraft. FAA Medicals meet ICAO standards (with a couple of small caveats that are easily avoided), and will often certifcate somebody who by reason of medical history may feel more inclined towards the HGV style approach adopted by the NPPL.

The answer is to sort out the mess that is JAA FCL - not to hamper the international recognition of another country's ICAO-compliant licences and the free operation of another state's aircraft.

IMHO of course :D

[Flyboy-F33]

Bluski

Anyone wishing to switch from CAA to FAA with a primary aim of saving on maintenance cost, are at best dillusional. True, some savings can be made but what with the recent changes in the notice 75 rule, the savings are not all that great. It is just as easy to cut corners on the G reg if you are so inclined.

The point is that that the majority of operators using the N reg tend to be serious IR type users, flying more expensive kit that wouldn't skimp on maintenance anyway.

Amongst the many reasons for changing to the N reg is to cut down on unecessary bureaucracy and the hoops that the CAA / JAR make us jump through. Not forgetting the ability to simplify the IR process.

GG

[englishal]

The fact is its far easier to *own* an N reg, and fly it as a means of transport. US PPLs tend to be *better rated* in that I mean that a far higher percentage of them hold an IR than a UK PPL. This is thorugh no fault of the UK pilot, but the stupid ridiculous level of the JAA IR for the PPL. You *don't need* to be at such a level to fly IFR in a SEP aircraft, you don't need to know about 737 FMS's to operate your Arrow in airways. Interestingly, although some JAR tolerances are higher than FAA tolerances, its all irrelevant after the test. If you use your IR you get better, if you don't, you loose your skills anyway....ok enough of that :D

Who's to know if it's actually registered apart from the FAA
Me, I can go onto the web and check a tail number. No doubt the CAA can too.
I have heard suggestions that getting on for 10% of privately operated aircraft based in the UK are on foreign registers, mainly the US, Bermuda and Cayman
Funny that, isn't Bermuda governed by the ANO (Overseas Territories)?

Anyway, no doubt if the powers that be decide this is the best course of action, then some loophole will open up, like getting your aircraft serviced in the Channel Islands or Luxemburg or somewhere....:D

EA

[IO540]

bluskis

As I have already mentioned, the maintenance cost savings under N-reg are similar to the G-reg Private CofA.

The only real difference is that you can rent out an N-reg whereas you can't rent out a Private CofA G-reg, but that doesn't affect most N-reg owners who are the sole pilots, or syndicate members.

The statistics from the USA (where the majority of the earth's GA flying takes place) show there is NO reduction in safety from the FAA maintenance regime, and NO reduction in safety from the FAA Class 3 medical (compared to JAR). The "G-reg is safer because there is more maintenance" argument is so completely dead that if the CAA closed its GA department and let the FAA do it all, there would be no loss of safety.

As 2D says, these rumours surface regularly but are never backed up. I have just spoken to a "well placed contact" in the U.S. aviation scene and he tells me that he's never heard of any FAA moves in this area. Like the others, this piece of info is worth exactly what you've paid for it :O

[stiknruda]

"Various unsubstantiated rumours are always popping up on these forums and others. The instigators are never authoritative themselves but invariably have "a friend" who is "well placed" to know what is going on. This thread is a fine example, and you only have to look back two weeks or so, when it was Cathar who had "good information" that the DfT were going to be dealing with this "problem".


2D - I was not aware of Cathar's post, but as this is the Private pilot's rumour network :) , I felt it duty bound to share it with you all.

You know who I am and the fact that I rarely contribute to the rumour-mill must mean that I took said "little birdy's" comments quite seriously.

I have no axe to grind, I have a UK PPL with no current additional ratings and fly 90% of my 100 hrs a year in G reg aircraft. My source is suitably placed to be in the know.


Stik

[2Donkeys]

You know who I am and the fact that I rarely contribute to the rumour-mill must mean that I took said "little birdy's" comments quite seriously.

I do know who you are, and I don't doubt the motivation of your original posting, nor the authenticity of the rumour that you originally posted.

We do need to look at these rumours with a critical eye.

We don't need to know "somebody in the CAA" to be able to predict that the CAA is not happy about the massed arrival of N-reg aircraft on their doorstep.

However when that "somebody in the CAA" suggests that there is the thought that N-reg aircraft should be obliged to return to the US for an annual, we can apply our critical faculties.

The sole authority on where N-reg aircraft may be maintained and who may do the maintenance is the FAA. The CAA has no authority to vary this no matter how much it might wish to. So anybody spreading that rumour, is demonstrably mistaken and we can dispense with the detail of the rumour very quickly.

The sort of rumour we should be worried about are rumours implying the sort of changes that the CAA or Executive is entitled to make.

Compelling UK-resident aircraft to swap to the G after 6 months, would be one such change well within their powers. Powers prohibiting UK Citizens from owning overseas assets by trust might be another.

Fortunately, both of those come with such massive difficulties attached that I doubt either will see the light of day.

I am looking forward to hearing a really compelling rumour with a proper punchline.

Any idiot can write "My friend at the CAA says they are not happy with all these N-regs". It takes a much better rumour-mongerer to come up with a credible "... and so the CAA is going to..." bit. No offence intended at all to you Stik.

2D

[bookworm]

Another sanction well within the power of the CAA is to prohibit UK citizens from exercising the privileges of a foreign licence within UK airspace.

[2Donkeys]

Indeed. There are numerous perfectly reasonable rumours that you could spread if you were of that persuasion, and I deliberately avoided listing some of the most credible. Even your own has some obvious issues associated with it.

For the most part the rumours that these threads revolve around contain such basic mistakes that you can spot them a mile off.

2D

[Gruntos]

I own a G registered plane that is about to be re-registered back onto the US register. I chose this as I want to complete my FAA IR rating so I can fly in Europe.

After reading all the comments here about this topic I called the company who is setting up my FAA trust. Yes I know he has interest to register N reg a/c as this is his job but I needed another view on this rumour. He says that this topic comes up every so often and should be treated as a rumour. It starts with the French getting pisssed off with the number of N registered a/c coming over and then they complain to the CAA.

As I understand it there is something in the 1941 (?) Chicago Conference allowing foreign planes to operate in other countries airspace and as long as there are FAA licensed engineers to do the inspections and remedial work as necessary. So to alter this, doesn’t this need a changed by both parties?

The nice chap at the US Trust company spoke to the FAA a few weeks ago about this and they didn’t know anything about this change to policy and stated is legal to own and operate an N registered plane in any country as long as it is serviced to FAR requirements.

I’ll keep going for the moment so we will have to see.

Gruntos

[IO540]

Does anyone know what exactly were the DGAC going to do when they tried to ban resident N-reg - a proposal which they quickly abandoned.

Was it a time period on the plane's residency, and if so what were the exact limits, or was it limited to French nationals?

[2Donkeys]

The French proposition was to force aircraft that were seen to be resident in France for more than 6 months to adopt an F registration.

Whilst it was claimed by the usual doom-merchants in the UK that this move in some way mirrored American action or was a specific move against FAA operators the truth was rather more mundane. It was a sweeping response by the DGAC in an attempt to deal with various issues surrounding Yaks (and similar) of many bizarre and ill-policed registrations that were flying in France on full Certificates of Airworthiness. The N-reg community was an incidental victim of the move.

In the end, commercial pressure placed (in particular) by EADS killed the proposed legislation, since it would effectively have grounded the many N-reg TBM700C2s that have been sold in France (they are only available on the N). Similar pressure was brought to bear by the operators of various Fractional Ownership schemes which are provided for under the FARs, but not under F-reg operations.

Grounding Yaks proved to be a more direct and less contravertial response to the original problem.

2D

[IO540]

2D

There must have been a time limit, e.g. if you were resident for 5 1/2 months, then away for the remainder of the year, you could have come back for another 5 1/2 months?

[2Donkeys]

You are quite correct IO540 - but to the extent that no wording ever got to the point of being published in France, it remains a matter of speculation quite what criterea would have been used to establish the residency status of an aircraft

2D

[TOT]

OK, here we are discussing rumours about what might happen, lets discuss a FACT. In recent weeks the CAA have GROUNDED a pall off mine. He was informed in WRITING that he was no longer allowed to fly in the UK using his FAA PPL. He has been using his FAA PPL to fly his N reg aircraft(several) in this country for many years. Years ago he had a medical problem and as such, then failed his PPL CAA medical. He has not accepted this ORDER lightly , I am watching this space. Any views on this?

[bookworm]

Chicago Convention 1944 Article 32 Licenses of personnel
(a) The pilot of every aircraft and the other members of the operating crew of every aircraft engaged in international navigation shall be provided with certificates of competency and licenses issued or rendered valid by the State in which the aircraftis registered.
(b) Each contracting State reserves the right to refuse torecognize, for the purpose of flight above its own territory, certificates of competency and licenses granted to any of its nationals by another contracting State.

So the CAA is entitled to do this.

[IO540]

TOT

Let me get this right. Your friend has held an FAA PPL, with FAA medicals, for all that time, and been operating N-reg planes, which the CAA ordinarily would not even know were in the UK.

But your friend also kept a UK or JAR PPL and he failed the medical for that. Did he keep that so he could fly G-reg planes outside the UK? He could have flown G-reg within the UK on his FAA license. Maybe he had an IMC Rating. Then when he failed his CAA medical, his AME (who else, unless he told somebody who doesn't like him) told the CAA "this man is continuing to fly on his FAA license"? But it took the CAA a few years to discover it / get around to it?

Depending on exactly why your friend failed, this could have interesting implications. It could be used to ground every N-reg who at some time failed his CAA medical. However you can legitimately fail your CAA medical and still fly on the NPPL.

Or it could be irrelevant to this debate, if e.g. he failed his CAA medical on something which he was required to notify the FAA doctor of.

[PPRuNe Pop]

There is an article about this very subject in this month's FLYER mag which may help.

[englishal]

And not forgetting that the JAR class 2 medical EXCEEDS ICAO standards by the CAA's own admission. Seems hardly fair if someone were to fail on an item that would not be a fail according to ICAO standards....but I don't know the facts and anyway, we've done this one before...

I'm wondering whether its worth me keeping my JAA PPL going, and the implications it'd have IF I were to ever fail a medical (not thats its likely, but you never know). At least if you don't fail a medical exam, you can't be grounded on medical grounds?

It would be very hard for the CAA to not recognize FAA licences, I suppose in theory they could say that they don't recognize FAA PPL's, but they couldn't possibly fail to recognize an FAA CPL, or else the implications would be far greater, and would bring with it a world of cr*p......

EA

[TheKentishFledgling]

There is an article about this very subject in this month's FLYER mag which may help.

Now, who wrote that?

;)

tKF

[Cathar]

2 Donkeys
I have not watered down my understanding of what may be happening, perhaps I have just expressed it badly.

Englishal
Yes, Bermuda is an Overseas Territory of the UK and regulation of aviation is carried out by under a UK statutory instrument. However, the CAA is not the regulator, it is the Governor of Bermuda (or an official acting on his behalf). This arrangement appears to have its problems and the Department for Transport appears to be paying the CAA oodles to help put it right. http://www.caa.co.uk/airsafety/default.asp?page=1802

Re you later point I can see no impediment on the UK refusing to recognise FAA licences (PPL or CPLs) held by UK citizens on domestic flights in the UK. Can you elaborate. I agree that it would be difficult on international flights.

Gruntos
Regarding your point that "Chicago Conference allowing foreign planes to operate in other countries airspace and as long as there are FAA licensed engineers to do the inspections and remedial work as necessary. So to alter this, doesn't this need a changed by both parties?" I think that someone has given you a rather liberal interpretation of the Convention. Article 5 of the Convention states "Each contracting State agrees that all aircraft of the other contracting States, being aircraft not engaged in scheduled international air services shall have the right, subject to the observance of the terms of this Convention, to make flights into or in transit non-stop across its territory and to make stops for non-traffic purposes without the necessity of obtaining prior permission........." The Convention does not cover domestic flights. Indeed, under section 2 of Danish Air Navigation Act foreign registered aircraft may not make a domestic flight within Denmark unless there is a agreement with the State of Registry which permits such flights or permission of the Minister of Transport is obtained. http://www.slv.dk/Dokumenter/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File-568/Air_Navigation_Act.pdf

[stiknruda]

Read THE very interesting article in Flyer today about the N reg option. Article was clear, concise and expresed both sides eloquently.

Did you write it, Kentish Fledgling?


Stik

[Phil Rigg]

I understand that EASA has been established within the EU to take eventual control and responsibility for regulating all a/c and personnel licensing for all EU member states and that the National Aviation Authorities will simply become the regional 'policemen' for EASA.

If this is the case then we should not be concerned about what the CAA, or any other EU NAA for that matter, is rumoured to be doing but what is EASA planning to do regarding EU resident N reg a/c being flown by EU resident FAA certificated personnel.

Phil

[bookworm]

The Convention does not cover domestic flights. Indeed, under section 2 of Danish Air Navigation Act foreign registered aircraft may not make a domestic flight within Denmark unless there is a agreement with the State of Registry which permits such flights or permission of the Minister of Transport is obtained. http://www.slv.dk/Dokumenter/dscgi/...igation_Act.pdf

Which part precisely do you mean? Paragraph 2 in Chapter 1? I don't think you can construe "aviation within Danish territory" to apply only to domestic flights. The Chicago Convention would seem to be the focus of 2(b), that requires an "agreement with the state of registry".

All in all, it doesn't look substantially different from Art 3 of the UK's ANO.

I also think you go too far in suggesting that the Chicago Convention does not apply to domestic flights. It does where the stops are for non-traffic purposes. I don't believe the phrasing used was intended to prevent other than cabotage -- i.e. remunerated domestic flights. You need to read it in the context of the remainder of Art 5 and Art 7.

[englishal]

Re you later point I can see no impediment on the UK refusing to recognise FAA licences (PPL or CPLs) held by UK citizens on domestic flights in the UK. Can you elaborate. I agree that it would be difficult on international flights.
I suppose they can do anything they want. But, say I'm a UK citizen and resident, working for an American firm, flying their aircraft for them in Europe. What happens now, do I just loose my job?

Say I work for an aircraft importer who imports aircraft from the US manufacturer and then delivers them on throughout Europe. Who flies these aircraft, assuming they haven't been re-registered?

Say I'm chartered by a US citizen and aircraft owner to fly their aircraft, while they reside in the UK?

EA

[IO540]

So we agree the CAA could clobber UK resident N-reg in various ways. The question is whether they will ever bother.

The biggest driver in the CAA is probably money (even if they understandably must dress up any regulations in more paletable terms). I am sure that N-reg in UK GA is only a tiny part of the UK N-reg scene, seen in the context of CofA revenue loss to the CAA. For any training or commercial work, it has to be a G-reg, so the great majority of the UK GA fleet will never go N-reg. The sole owner / syndicate fleet which could ever go N-reg is very small; private owners have the Private CofA option which negates most maintenance regime savings and a miniscule % of those have an IR. And very few syndicates have enough "IR" members to make N-reg worth doing.

As in the UK we have the IMC Rating, the real driver behind the FAA IR is European flying, and that pretty well means airways. The % of UK PPLs that have an IR (of any sort) is tiny and always will be very small, not least because most of the UK fleet is not airways legal.

I don't think it is easy to get a plane which is equipped well enough for this, for much under £100k, and the vast majority of the UK fleet is nowhere near that figure.

Also much of what the CAA could do would be ineffective unless the whole of the EU did the same. Otherwise, multi-aircraft N-reg operators could get around any residence restriction by rotating planes through the UK.

There are also higher political considerations. The UK is a friend of the USA so they won't do some sort of blatent "up yours" gesture which perhaps the French DGAC might be able to do.

So perhaps we are making a bigger meal of it than is called for - although discussing it is certainly a good idea. Those who need to go N-reg will do so anyway but they will always be very few in number.

[md 600 driver]

tot
then failed his PPL CAA medical

not actually true he ["me" never failed a caa medical ]

pm me please which pal are you

IQ
"Or it could be irrelevant to this debate, if e.g. he failed his CAA medical on something which he was required to notify the FAA doctor of."
i informed the ame who also got the faa in ok to agree

more later when i can expain but watch this space

[Flap40]

I was reading my new copy of GASIL today and I have a question.

If (as some here have said) N reg is a small proportion of UK GA and is usually flown by more skilled pilots (FAA/IR etc) why do N reg aircraft and training for FAA ratings feature in 50% of the fatal accidents last year?

(Source Gasil 1 of 2004 page 5)

[2Donkeys]

I was reading my new copy of GASIL today and I have a question.

Do you not think that the mercifully small sample size would blow a hole in that rather basic analysis?

2D

[DFC]

Leaving the N reg aside for a moment.

We are much more security consious now.

However, there is nothing stopping any person flying and basing any private aircraft from another ICAO country in the UK for an extended period without any system for the CAA or DFT being informed.

Better still from a security (or lack of it) point of view, any person can produce a piece of paper stating ICAO pilot licence from some far flung State to a flying club and hire one of their aircraft.

How many flying club CFIs can tell what a pilot licence issued by say Afghanistan looks like? The holder is entitled to fly G registered aircraft without having to ask the CAA!!

Of course being able to fly G registered aircraft on an Afganistan licence means that there is access to airside at all airports.

Hello?

I can't drive a car in the UK for more than 1 year without obtaining a UK driving licence (no test - simply provide foreign licence)..........so how is it that I can fly UK aeroplanes for ever on some dodgy piece of paper that the CFI has no way of knowing if I produced it on my computer at home or not?

Gaping security hole to me which I am sure the CAA and the DFT would like to close.

Regards,

DFC

[bluskis]

But Special Branch or customs and Immigration have to be informed of incoming flights and passenger names and date of birth and country of residence given. Allright, dodgy or stolen passports can be obtained, but I would think the authorities can catch those out. Concession airfields make sure they know who is using the concession. OK the EU and the impending enlargement bring some far flung countries into the free movement of people category, but I would assume a check ride before any hire to an Afgan would be a requirement of any insurance policy.

[ChrisVJ]

It's a great debate, if you are concerned you should probably get better informed however:

1. Regardless of the rules and regs, if some government overling or political hack gets it into his head he wants to do something and has the right power or the ear of the right idiot it will come to pass unless there is a sufficient lobby or loss of votes in it. For instance. The Canadian government gave a monopoly which ended up with a foreign firm for the provision of electronic marine navigation maps using info supplied by the Cdn hydrographic department (and paid for by us taxpayers). The company is now jacking the the price of all such maps with a whacking great licence fee. The Liberal government is doing something about this because a) They are already in the doghouse, and b) we are approaching an election and 10 or 20 thousand votes might just be important. The question is will the N reg owners be enough disincentive to the UK government? Probably not. Can they bring other pressure to bear? Judging by the way the whole of UK (and for that matter Cdn) GA business is treated by their government I'd not hold out much hope.

2. Regrettably snese, regulations, justice, etc don't count for much when bureaucracy gets wind up their tail so it's probably not worth counting on them.

[IO540]

DFC

Most airfields in the UK don't have what could be described as a fence, so walking in would be a lot easier and cheaper than flying in :O

Actually you can drive a car in the UK, with false plates, no road tax and no insurance, for as long as you can, so long as you don't get into any incidents and only ever park in a garage.

All these "security risks" are irrelevant when one considers that somebody who wants to commit a crime isn't going to worry about having FM immune avionics, for example.

Flap40

If you have 10 planes that fly IFR, and another 100 that only ever fly on really nice sunny days, most CFITs would be in the former group. Apart from a CFIT, it is hard to get killed in a plane - most landing accidents for example are not fatal.

[englishal]

DFC,

Your arguement is a crock of s*ite I'm afraid. As IO points out, anyone interested in committing crime can and will do so regardless, and arguements like yours simply f*ck it up for the rest of us. This happened at a south coast airfield, where some d*ck head made some flippant remark about security to some wannabe journalist, and how easy it was to fly in from abroad, and what we saw next was the introduction of some arse pain procedures, which are totally un-nescessary. I'm sure these forums are browsed by the press / CAA etc.

Airside access is no big deal, infact its as much of a big deal as walking amongst a bunch of parked cars in a multi storey car park. You won't get far if you start tinkering with the engine of a 737 parked on the ramp, regardless whether you hold a pilots licence.

How do you know that an Afgan pilot is a) intent of committing crime and b) an inferior pilot to yourself? In fact if the CAA recognise the licence and ALLOW the holder to fly on it, then I don't think that you can say that the pilot is inferior. If it is indeed a forgery, then this person is breaking the law, and we go back to square 1. Incidentally, if I was going to forge a licence, I'd forge a CAA issued one, for the fact that a) I can print an exact copy on my lazer printer here, now, today, and no one will be able to tell the difference, and b) Its less likely to be questioned by the CFI in you example. For REAL security the UK licence should be like the UK driving licence, with a photo on it, but I guess thats too hard for the CAA to print on a lazer printer and would probably raise the fee several hundred pounds.

You comment about the UK driving licence is flawed on several grounds. 1) You CAN drive on your foreign licence for more than a year. Not legally, but if you get pulled by the police, who is to know how long you have been in the country? If you come and go in and out of the UK, you could in theory drive on a foreign licence forever legally and 2) you DO need to take the UK driving test to be issued an EU/UK driving licence.

What I would call a "Gaping security hole" is the fact that armed Air marshals are allowed onboard aircraft. How long is it going to be before Al Quieda or whoever manage to get a trainee AM through the candidate selection process and onboard an aircraft. Now there is no need to smuggle weapons onboard a passenger jet, they are already there!

Rgds
EA

[Warped Factor]

DFC,

Using your argument can you explain why crime in the UK involving handguns has gone up since they were banned from being owned by private individuals a few years ago?

Surely we should be living in a crime free Nirvana by now, shouldn't we :rolleyes:

WF.

[Datcon]

2 points.

1. If Cathar says the CAA are thinking of doing something I for one take it seriously. He always knows the rules and regs, always thinks their right, always takes the CAA side and always makes out how reasonable the CAA is. He's got to be CAA or retired from the CAA.

2. Why is it we think any rumours about things the CAA is planning to do or thinking about doing are always going to make things worse for us?
OK. I know the answer to that question but isn't it awful we have to fly under such a regime? If only the CAA was more like the FAA.

[Cathar]

Bookworm

I have no practicak experience of Danish legislation. However, I have been told by the Danish CAA that it is impractical to base N registered aircraft in Denmark as the Danish Air Navigation Act requires such aircraft to obtain permission from the Danish CAA to make internal flights. (NB section is the term for a paragraph in UK Acts of Parliament which is why I used it in this case)

The Chicago Convention is the Convention on International Civil Aviation and as the name suggest it is not designed to cover strictly domestic issues. According to the ICAO Council (as reported in Shawcross and Beaumont Air Law) there are three types of flight covered by the right given by Article 5 these are;
- entry into and flight over a State's territory without a stop;
- entry into and flight over a State's territory with a stop for non-traffic purposes; and
- entry into a State's territory and final stop there for non-traffic purposes.
Presumably this includes the return flight but there is no absolutely mention of flights within a States territory. This is consistent with all other interpretations I have seen.

IO540

On what basis do you suggest that "The biggest driver in the CAA is probably money" The CAA is not a business and does not make a profit. It is a statutory corporation which undertakes regulatory functions assigned to it by Parliament. CAA charges can only ever cover costs (including a marginal return on capital employed if I remember rightly).

I don't think this would be a political issue between the UK and US because, if I understand the situation correctly, the FAA would be quite happy to be relieved of the responsibility for offshore based aircraft.

It would be interesting to know how many multi-aircraft N-reg operators based in the UK and to what extent it would be practicable for the rotating planes through the UK with other based elsewhere in Europe.


Phil Rigg
EASA's responsibility (as defined in EC legislation) is solely for aircraft registered in the EU Member States. While this of course could be changed by further legisaltion I have heard no suggestion that there are any proposals in this direction. The next things on the agenda for EASA appear to be operational standards and personnel licensing. This should keep the Bureaucrats busy for quite a few years.

Datcon

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not now, nor have I ever been employed by the CAA. It's all right to ignore me.

[DFC]

I said that I am not making comments about N registered aircraft or FAA licensed pilots. However the comment from Englishal of;

and arguements like yours simply f*ck it up for the rest of us

is hardly about the other coupple of hundred ICAO countries who could be grouped with the US in any system change.

The problem with the current system is that the CAA has lost control of an ever growing portion of the UK general aviation system.

If the CAA is unable to fully enforce the UK legislation on UK based operators then why bother having a CAA at all.

The question of limiting the time non-European registered aircraft can reside in the UK causes all sorts of fuss among UK GA pilots purely because that closes off a system that they have used to circumvent UK legislation (and expense). I don't hear much fuss from pilots here on visits from the ICAO countries that would be affected by such action.

Of course FM immune and Mode S apply regardless of registration.

Cathar is overall correct;

An ICAO registered aircraft operating outside it's home country is in every case under iCAO requirements.

Under the ICAO standards for such flights, it is possible having arrived in a country to make internal private flights without further permission provided that only the same passengers use the aircraft
i.e. there is nothing wrong with arriving in the UK at Glasgow in an 7Y reg aircraft with Mr Big and Madam Big and after a stopover, flying them to Manchester and then say flying them to Bournemouth etc. What would be wrong is to leave them in Glasgow while different passengers fly from Glasgow to Manchester in the aircraft.

Of course we are talking passengers and cargo here so strictly speaking, there is no problem when only the crew are carried on the aircraft. However, I suspect that many UK based operators of non-European registred aircraft carry different pasengers to those that arrived from the State of regsitry from time to time.

As for the security point of view, I am concerned that the CAA has passed the buck to the Club CFI (or owner) with regard to the validation of non-European licenses.

Englishal said;

Incidentally, if I was going to forge a licence, I'd forge a CAA issued one, for the fact that a) I can print an exact copy on my lazer printer here, now, today, and no one will be able to tell the difference, and b) Its less likely to be questioned by the CFI in you example

I would say otherwise - the CFI will also check the logbook and will seek evidence of experience to match the licence. If the CFI has any doubt then a quick on-line check can put registrations to types and owners. If futher doubt then the CAA is at hand to confirm or deny the validity of the licence.

If you are presented with a piece of paper which the holder calls a PPL from Outer Mongolia then what facilities are at your disposal for the validation of such a licence - None. If you refuse to let the pilot fly then if the licence is valid you are quite rightly accused of discrimination.

Get it wrong and who knows what you may have been a party to when the police come knocking. We have already had instructors arrested for providing flight training to certain individuals.

There is also the current and growing problem that certain operators are providing training in N registered aircraft in the UK which can be used to circumvent US security arrangements with regard to flight training State side.........does anyone think that the US is happy with people cutting up their security procedures?

Of course the USA will not have any problem with the UK kicking out all N reg aircraft after 6 months since that is what the US does to G reg aircraft.

It isn't about breaking the law which as everyone rightly says can be done by anyone. It is about maintaining control and having in place a system that meets the public's requirements.

To put it simply;

Driving on false number plates and licence is illegal. Same applies to flying.

Driving on a Foreign licence for more than the maximum period is illegal. Currently, one can fly a UK aircraft on any foreign licence without ever having any check by the UK Authorities

Keeping a Foreign Car in the UK for more than the maximum period is illegal as is driving it without a UK MOT once the visiting period has expired. However, one can fly a Foreign registered aircraft forever legally without any checks or UK MOT.

Thus currently, there are lower requirements for aviation than for driving.

Is that correct? or more importantly,

Can the public have confidence in the system that is supposed to protect them?

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

DFC

Other than nebulous arguments like "public confidence" (let's face it, Joe Public cannot spell "Certificate of Airworthiness" let alone tell you what it is) or "why bother having the CAA", can you offer some examples of HARM that resident N-reg does?

In GA, the number of N-reg planes is always going to be very small - because commercial/training work has to be G-reg, and for non-IR private owners the Private CofA has a comparable maintenance regime. Anyway, practically nobody goes N-reg to save money on maintenance.

So why bring in restrictions?

Make a case, objectively.

[DFC]

IO540,

Why mention N reg?

Why do you wish to restrict debate about a law that applies to almost every registration you can think of to one particular registration?

(let's face it, Joe Public cannot spell "Certificate of Airworthiness" let alone tell you what it is)

Very true. My bicycle riding child has no idea what an MOT is or why certain cars are requird to have one. That does not change the fact that the MOT is designed to provide them with some small protection from unroadworthy vehicles. A vehicle imported into the country which never undergoes a UK MOT may be perfectly safe or it may not.

Why do you think we need draconian restrictions?

Can we not simply have a system whereby the CAA;

a) Requires all non European registered aircraft based in the UK to register that fact with them; and

b) To continue the current system of permitting ICAO licence holders to fly G registered aircraft bu to require them to obtain a validation first.

If for nothing eles, the CAA can tell when the number of non-European PPLs exceed the number of UK licensed pilots and they can transfer the phones over to Tehran since I bet pleant of the licence holder will be licensed there...PPL for US$1000 anyone?

I always laugh when I see the British Gent who supports the British Motor industry by purchasing an expensive car at a greatly inflated price from a UK dealer despite a big saving on the same car available elsewhere in Europe but then drives to the airfield where they use their non UK pilot licence to fly a non-UK aircraft on business for which they claim against their UK tax!!

They are the one who will moan about asylum seekers, and jonny foreigner taking UK jobs. They support the clamping shut of the borders.......but not so tight that they can't get their foreign registered, foreign licensed and foreign maintained aircraft to and from the UK with their foreign licence.

Love it! :ok:

DFC

[IO540]

DFC

Your a) and b) represent a substantial climbdown from your previous pronouncements on the subject, and I don't suppose many owners of foreign reg planes would mind - unless the CAA wants £600 every 3 years for "processing" the registration, which of course they will. I wonder what they would do to earn the fee?

You are trying hard to make a case for some sort of higher maintenance standard, but the N-reg regime is little different from the CAA Private CofA regime, and you can do unlimited flying in just about any GA plane under the latter. So what does that leave us? It leaves us with revenue generation.

Cars aren't relevant to this. Only a miniscule % of car accidents are caused by mech failure. The strict MOT is there mainly to protect the public from cowboy car dealers. The strict registration is there to ensure that if you are photographed speeding or whatever, they know where to send the summons to. With planes, Mode S will take care of that.

As for the rest, it may be a bait but I don't see the relevance to GA.

[Cathar]

IO540

The MOT test was introduced to protect the public from vehicle owners who were not maintaining their vehicles correctly and keeping them roadworthy. It had nothing to do with protecting the public from cowboy car dealers.

I do not know why you are so hung up on the idea that the only reason that action might be taken against foreign aircraft based in the UK is revenue generation. The CAA are not a profit making private sector company, they are a statutory regulator. Their charges may only cover their costs. They have no incentive to generate revenue. However, if they were to take action it could be to the benefit of UK aircraft owners and licence holders. If it resulted in an increase in the number of UK licence holders, aircraft owners, etc, the CAA might have scope to lower individual charges.

[rustle]

If it resulted in an increase in the number of UK licence holders, aircraft owners, etc, the CAA might have scope to lower individual charges.

Nope.

More staff needed to handle the increased paper work generated by increased personnel and aircraft licensing.

This CAA headcount increase would, with a bit of luck, cost exactly the same as the increased revenues generated - if not more ;)

[Cathar]

Rustle

The cost of licences, certificates etc does not only cover the cost of processing applications and issuing the licence. If I understand CAA charging arrangements correctly, the CAA charges for licences etc also covers the cost of developing, monitoring and reviewing requirements under which they are issued, associated activities, and an approriate contribution to general running costs such personnel management, building security etc. These costs are unlikely to be affected by even if one or two extra admin staff are needed to process licence applications etc.

[IO540]

Cathar/DFC

Putting every UK-based N-reg GA plane onto G-reg would screw up a lot of experienced pilots who fly all over Europe, while raising a miniscule percentage extra money for the CAA.

But let's get back to some basics. Both of you might have a stronger case if (just taking a few examples that come to mind right away, not in any particular order):

Why does the CAA not offer a PPL/IR which is appropriate to a PPL and not an ATPL?

Why does the CAA not approve the Cirrus parachute system; the FAA, responsible for at least an order of magnitude more planes than the CAA, and probably having lots more Cirrus planes flying than the total of similarly aged GA planes in the whole of the UK, has no problems with it. Why?

Why does the CAA not allow one to have a PPL/IR with the Class 2 medical, without the additional Class 1 audiogram. If the pilot can demonstrate he can fly a plane and do the radio just fine, why have these bizzare requirements?

Why does the CAA not accept any FAA STC automatically? The FAA is satisfied with them.

The CAA wanted to charge me about £2000 for the paperwork approving the fitting of a very simple panel-mounted instrument (with no safety implications), whereas with an N-reg the dealer can just put it in and sign it off.... why?

The CAA will not approve the fitting of decent (I mean post-WW2 technology) landing/taxi lights which enable you to actually see the road, when they are available for an N-reg. Not strictly true; for perhaps £10,000 I could get a one-off approval done. Why?

and I am sure others can add far more stuff like this. And that is just from the PPL / IFR point of view.

Objective arguments please.

[DFC]

IO540,

Why limit the topic to N reg aircraft. The debate about non-European registered aircraft applies to Lybian, Iraqi, Iranian, Outer Mongolian and every other ICAO country. So this is not a N register issue (unless you would like some discrimination).

The CAA does off er an IR appropriate to the PPL. It is a qualification that enables the pilot to operate safely under IFR in Europe and the rest of the world. It meets the same minimum standards as every other user of the International IFR system. It is the minimum standard that is accepted by other states. If you want to simply fly IFR within the UK and outside the airway system then operate using an IMC rating.

Can't comment on the BRS debate.

An audiogram is required to fly IFR because if you can't hear the radios, you can't hear the idents or can't hear clearances then you can't fly safely under IFR. The only medical that includes an audiogram is the Class 1. The alternative is to make an audiogram part of the Class 2 medical but I expect that there would be plenty of objections to that.

The CAA does not accept an initial Type Certificate for a new type automatically. The JARs wre designed to make roads towards comonality but progress takes time. It follows then that the CAA would not automatically accept a Suplementary Type Certificate.

I agree that the CAA's system for dealing with minor mods has problems. The problems however are not simply that you need to put time, effort and money into obtaining approval for a mod that has already been approved by the FAA, but that (unlike the US system) having spent that time and money, any other person can then have a free ride on your effort and do the same to their aircraft at considerable less expense.

None of the above answers the only compelling reason for a change in the system that applies to resident non-European aircraft - security.

If as previously said, people don't do it to save money, don't do it to cut corners on maintenance and don't do it to avoid safety requirements. Then why pay for something that legally you will never own.

Mr Big pays a shed load to purchase an expensive item that they will never legally own.......wouldn't the local police take an interest in what seems to be an "unusual" way of disposing of a large wad of cash?

Furthermore, the press would have a field day with GA if they found one pilot that had beed refused a UK medical but continued to fly in the UK using an FAA license. GA does not need coverage like that.

Regards,

DFC

[S-Works]

Jesus DFC you are full of bunk at times!

Pray tell what is sub standard about an FAA IR? There is no way that the JAR IR is appropriate for the average PPL. Having been through the FAA and the JAR systems there is little to choose between the 2 as far flying is concerned. The difference in JAR world is the vast cost and the unreasonable and mostly useless amount of theory required to do the same job.

Your views on security being a reason for banning foreign aircraft is beyond reason, I don't even have the energy to shoot holes in that one.

[IO540]

Well done DFC!

You've got some great ones here.

How many "Lybian, Iraqi, Iranian, Outer Mongolian " planes are in the UK?

Your money laundering argument is even better. I am sure a foreign reg plane would be suitable for importing a certain type of porno material, too. But, anyway, one would deal with ML in the same way as everybody else in the relevant business has to: ask for a couple of utility bills etc :O

The rest of it is plain daft.

[2Donkeys]

This thread ran its natural course some time ago. It has been fun to watch how the ramblings have shifted ground from "which agency is going to legislate against the N-reg (and Libyan ;) )aircraft population", to "what paranoid basis is going to be used as an excuse".

Always good to see DFC back stirring whenever something of this sort pops up too.

Let me make an offer DFC. Drop me a PM including your real name and a location of your choice, and the interested parties on this thread (and some of its predecessors) can meet up for an evening of beer and discussion related to N-reg matters. Its funny how meeting people in the flesh often helps.

2D

[Cathar]

IO540

Putting every UK-based N-reg GA plane onto G-reg would screw up a lot of experienced pilots who fly all over Europe, while raising a minuscule percentage extra money for the CAA.

I have never suggested that CAA revenue would be a driving force, that is your hang up.

I cannot answer your questions about the CAA's policy on various issues. However, they suggest that the N register used to avoid CAA requirements; N reg owners want to base and fly aircraft in the UK but they don't want to play by the UK's rules. However, DFC is correct when he points out that this not really an N register issue. It is the question of who should be the responsible authority for civil aviation in the UK. You also have to realise that flagging out could easily move to a less scrupulous register of convenience.

There appear to be two reasons why this issue may be getting more attention at the moment. The first is EC legislation soon to be enacted on the safety of third country aircraft using Community airports. This applies to large privately operated aircraft as well as commercial aircraft. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2002/com2002_0664en01.pdf. The second is the possibility of an aircraft register in the Isle of Man http://www.mbc.org.im/artman/publish/article_162.shtml

[Keef]

Hey 2Ds, I'll go for some of that!

Do we HAVE to talk about FAA/CAA hangups, though?

[DFC]

2D,

I'll fly my N reg up to EGTC soon and look you up. :D

DFC

[2Donkeys]

Offer still stands, but the PM Box is empty.

Keef and I are not that horrible DFC, and we're incredibly mobile when prompted by the offer of good company.