Britain Weighs Ban Against Basing Non-UK Aircraft

[NickLappos]

One way to solve the flight from CAA registry, make it impossible to avoid!! As Henry Ford said, "You can have any color Model T you want, as long as its black!"

From Aviation INternational News:

Britain Weighs Ban Against Basing Non-UK Aircraft
The days might soon be over for the basing of non-UK-registered general aviation aircraft in the UK. The country’s Department for Transportation (DFT) is considering a plan to prohibit non-commercial foreign-registered aircraft from being permanently based in Britain. A comment period on the plan is expected shortly. According to the British Business and General Aviation Association (BBGA), if European authorities addressed the factors that lead operators to register offshore–in its view, excessively burdensome regulation and bureaucracy–then many aircraft would in fact return to EU national registers. According to a DFT spokesman, the comment period will begin before the end of August. Full details of the process will be posted under the consultations section of the department’s Web site at www.dft.gov.uk. French civil aviation authorities have been considering similar changes over the past two years, but do not yet appear to have made a firm decision. They too have become concerned by the dwindling number of non-commercial aircraft on the French register. But like the BBGA, the French chapter of the European Business Aviation Association has essentially argued that operators are being driven away from their national registers by excessively complex and costly regulations

[Oogle]

What a total load of crap!

Talk about having their heads up their preverbial. Looks like the Brits are lacking commonsense again. No. 1 being their requirements for gaining UK/JAA licence conversions from an ICAO licence.

If they want to come out of the dark ages they (the authorities)need to make it easier for the flow of GA aviation to and from their island.

Australia, New Zealand and the USA can do it, why not the poms.

:*

[Genghis the Engineer]

You'll find very few Brits who disagree with you there, although post-JAR-FCL it's got worse, not better.

The basic problems are:-

- Lack of an affordable IR for PPLs / GA.
- Inability to use the UK IMC rating outside the UK
- Particularly silly and expensive rules for exchanging a non-JAA licence for a JAA one.
- UK insisting upon every GA airfield used for training being licenced for public transport.

I'll not say that we Brits are alone in this sort of stupidity, but we are probably one of the worst countries in the world.

G

[NickLappos]

Bad news, but the basic problem is more basic than that:

Lack of accountability of civil servants for the economic burdens of the rules they invent.

Countless times we have debated here about the differences across the pond, with those who pride themselves on how hard it is to satisfy CAA saying this rigor somehow yields better pilots and safer aircraft.

Not only is this not proven by any stats I have seen, the opposite is true - excessive govenrment interference drives the aviation system downward.

The US has twice the aviation assets per capita - pilots, aircraft - half the operating costs and a somewhat lower accident record.

I suggest that you fix the system, because my experience is there are no greater aviation lovers on the planet than in the UK. You deserve better.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Nick,

You aint wrong, but I'm afraid that it may well be worse than you perceive from over there.


In the last few years, we (UK industry) were doing a reasonable job of forcing the UK-CAA to be reasonably user-friendly, and one particularly beneficial way of doing this was the government imposed requirement for a Regulatory Impact Assessment as part of any proposed regulatory effect, where basically the working level staff at CAA had to prove that any change had to either have a neutral or reducing effect upon industry cost and effort, or a justifiably large increase in safety.

In addition, we had this generally benign situation where as somebody senior in the industry, I could always go right to somebody at Gatwick and argue out any problems. I didn't always win the argument, but generally I'd get something I could live with.


Then, our friends in the European Union (of which very few Brits are fans) voted for the creation of EASA, the "European Aviation Safety Authority", which has basically sidelined UK-CAA (and many other national authorities) to the status of a regional office with no real power.

So, if (say) I need to certify a change to an Islander now, I can't drive down to Gatwick and talk through what we're doing - I have to deal with Eurocrats in Cologne who probably don't know the type, may not speak English fluently, and in all likelihood aren't competent enough to make a reasoned decision - all they'll do is blindly follow the rules whether they make sense or not!

Allied to that the UK has just rolled over and accepted new European insurance rules, despite EVERY British government, CAA and industry representative, at every level, voting against them. Speaking for myself, the insurance bill on my private 2-seater has gone up by 380%, which hurts!

Even in the areas where Euroland hasn't taken over yet it's chaos. CAA has just closed down it's radio approvals section so that EASA could handle it - but EASA hasn't set one up, so you can't get a new GA radio certified for UK use at the moment. Also, because of EASA CAA has frozen recruitment for a couple of years, and most of the good people have either got fed up and left, or gone to work for more money in better weather to the South - so we have the least competent CAA since before WW2.

The UK is not, right now, the best place to be an aviation professional. If you know of any good Certification Engineers jobs or Professorships of Aeronautics going stateside at the moment, please let me know - I've about had enough. (That said, we keep trying - I'd like to feel that I'm doing something to keep British Industry on its feet for the time being at present.)

/rant !!!

G

[Oogle]

Hear, hear Nick!

I feel sorry for the Brits pilots that have to put up with the garbage that the CAA (and God knows whatever other pen pushers) come out with.

Having to do 13 theory exams to change from an ICAO ATPL(H) to a UK one does not a better pilot make.

When are they going to realise it?

[212man]

Talking of EASA (as GTE was), have you ever seen a more poorly designed website hosted by a regulatory authority? It's awful.

[Speedbird48]

There is another view on the subject of foriegn registered airplanes in any country and that is the problem of legality.

As one that was once a poacher, both in the UK, Africa and the US, and now a gamekeeper, I find it interesting when I am in the UK to see the "N" numbered airplanes that do not comply with FAA regulations and neither do the pilots.

The best one I saw was an airplane about to depart to fly in an air display with a temporary registration certificate, not legal outside the US, and a CAA pilot flying it!!

When I came home I happened to be in the place that the temporary registration came from and the man who was named on the certificate was somewhat taken aback as he had sold the airplane and thought the registration had been transfered to a new owner in another state. He had no idea that his name was on a certificate in another country.

The legalities are one thing and with the FAA only having maintenence people in the UK they are unlikely to do much inspecting but the insurance issues may be another deal all together.

Try an accident without having the correct sign offs in the log book, airplane or pilot!! If the insurance company knows what to look for??

You guys deserve better from your own authority and the days of going to Redhill, Holborn or the Gatwick office (as once was) are long gone. I had many pleasant conversations with the folks there and although I didn't necessarily win I did get a logical argument. But, with the European setup you are going to be screwed by a faceless wonder who probably doesn't know his backside from a hole in the ground.

The answer, as has been said earlier is for the UK to get out of this European aviation mess and make a sensible Instrument Rating that can be used anywhere. The insurance issue is another debate.

Then of course we have ICAO for the airlines and the US doesn't necessarily abide by those rules either. Non type rated co-pilots on large airplanes amongst them.

What a mess, and it all costs the industry, and you, lots of money!!

Happy Flying.

[Pat Malone]

This is not a Europe vs UK matter. I interviewed the head of EASA, Patrick Goudou, last week. Just like the DfT he wants to "remove the advantages" of operating on a third-country registration in Europe. He says he is under pressure from the FAA, whose position is that they cannot provide safety oversight in Europe.
At the instigation of AOPA, the JAA is looking at changes in the JAR-FCL IR(A) with a view to making it more accessible to pilots here. After two years of effort, a JAA LST Working Group has been set up to propose elements for removal from the theoretical knowledge test. It looks like the flying will remain at 50 hours, but two blocks of 10 hours can be done before the IR course is started, thus spreading the cost and making the time element less onerous.
I think EASA will on balance be an improvement for UK general aviation. Goudou proposes a private licence that would be administered by industry, not EASA or national authorities (similar to the NPPPL) and would allow the holder to fly a non-complex single anywhere in Europe. It would have 'bridges' to an ICAO-compliant licence so that a proportion of hours could be carried onto a commercial licence. This at a time when the CAA wants to milk another £5 million in fees out of general aviation and sub-15 tonne AOC operators. Despite losing staff and responsibilities to EASA the CAA's budget goes up by £3 million next year, and under the "user pays" principle that comes out of your pocket - plus the six percent profit the CAA is required to make from the industry.
EASA was set up because national authorities were given leeway to interpret and implement JAR-FCL their own way, and made a complete dogs dinner of it. We all suffered. In the coming turf war, I wish EASA well.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I have a CD here with a presentation by Sir Roy McNulty (chairman of UK CAA) to the Royal Aeronautical Society a few months ago. Bear in mind that as Chairman of a government agency, he is by definition somebody who you'd expect to play things "softly and politely".

Below is the contents of two slides (no.s 12 and 13 out of 25, cut and pasted without any change by me.

(If you want to read the whole thing, it's a ½Mb pdf, my email is [email protected])

(By the way, there's a very similar thread running in private flying, is it worth perhaps merging the two, although into which forum I'm unsure? Heliport?)

G




Reflections on EASA to date
• EASA has suffered from a number of initial
handicaps e.g.
– a very ambitious initial timetable
– delay in appointment of Executive Director
– Commission staffing rules and EP budgetary controls
– delay in deciding EASA location, and the location
selected
• We respect what has been achieved by the
EASA team, against the background above, and
EASA looks likely to deliver some improvements
in regulation.


Reflections on EASA to date (cont.,)
• We (CAA)
– assess EASA in terms of its effectiveness in
meeting the UK’s safety policy objectives;
- believe that the standards of regulation and
management against which we assess EASA
should be the same standards as already exist in
the CAA and other major safety regulators;

• On that basis, we are disappointed with the way in
which EASA has developed to date e.g.,
- manpower planning/recruitment;
- finance & charges; contracts with NAA’s
- approach to safety regulation;
- approach to standardisation;
- attitudes towards co-operation;
- lack of proper planning, management and governance

[Pat Malone]

Sir Roy McNulty has a £70 million empire to protect and it stands to reason he will try to do to EASA what the national authorities did to the JAA. Our problem is that we're the meat in the sandwich. I believe he is arranging a conference of all European regulatory bodies in the UK in October - no doubt so they can all express their support for EASA.
The first purpose of a bureaucracy is self-preservation. If you think the CAA is going to go quietly, think again.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Having sat through Sir Roy's presentation that's not the feel I got. It was basically "EASA is here whether we like it or not, JAA didn't really work, EASA is currently working worse but we've no choice - we must make it work".

Didn't sound to me like protectionism. My main criticism of it was that safety was absolute, and nowhere in his presentation was the priority of ensuring an economically viable industry. That got no mention at-all.

G

[NickLappos]

Before I get painted as anti-european, I must say that the airworthiness people I have dealt with were always reasonable and quite practical, as well as being very good engineers. The CAA crew who do helicopter cert are second to none in the world, IMHO, and the French and Germans I have flown with are also top notch, with strong practical sense. I think most of my concern is with CAA and EASA Operational types, and the pilot certification rules/procedures. It seems to me a very good engineering staff at the civil agencies are not backed up by the same calibre of operational/standards talent -note the British spelling!! ;-)

[IO540]

Just a reminder to all concerned:

It is VITAL that you also write to your MP, with explanatory notes on the DfT proposal.

The DfT address to which responses are to be sent is the department which presumably drafted it, and they are free to disregard any response they don't like.

Whereas the MP's involvement cannot be thus disregarded.

I am convinced that the majority of "higher up" pilots (turboprops, jets) are completely unaware of this proposal, so mention it to anyone you know in this category.

There are only a few weeks left!

DfT proposal: http://tinyurl.com/ar229

[mrwellington]

After reading this :
1. A significant proportion of private aircraft based in the UK by UK residents and companies are registered in other states. The majority of these aircraft appear to be operated mainly or exclusively for flights within the UK.


It sounds like a fair proposal closing this loophole.

[B Sousa]

If Mr Wellington is correct then the proposal is probably correct. In the states you would be required to maintain N numbers vs. any other country. Sounds fair, I only assume its done to avoid fees in the money hungry country.
If folks are flying these on FAA issued licenses vs. validations, Im sure they can prepare to get hammered there also.

[Heliport]

Thanks for the reminder IO540. :ok:

Excellent idea for people to send a copy of their response to their MP.


More details here (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_039540.hcsp)



Heliport