Non Commercial UK based N regs to be banned?

[Droopystop]

Don't shoot the messenger, found this on the Rotorheads forum.......

DFT plans to restrict Non G regd a/c based in UK (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=181333)

[2Donkeys]

The forthcoming consultation is old news which has been commented on here before as well as in some of the GA press. FLYER dedicated an editorial to it a month or three ago. In fact, "Cathar" on these forums showed remarkable foresight over a year ago by suggesting to us all that this was coming.

For those looking for a slightly biased summary of the facts, I've written one here (http://www.polestaraviation.com/?p=9)

I've subsequently written other pieces related to the primary issues raised.

Thoughts on the N-reg regulatory oversight issue (http://www.polestaraviation.com/?p=49)

Evidence of anti N-reg Bias in other sections of the DfT (http://www.polestaraviation.com/?p=47)

This is shaping up to be a faite accompli without doubt.

It would be good to get people motivated to challenge it. We all know that in reality, people only really go onto the N in light aircraft in order to take advantage of the FAA IR. If our regulators fixed the "IR problem", the issue would disappear like snow in summer. Unfortunately, the DfT when challenged on that point simply shrug their shoulders and point to EASA. The DfT would rather fix a symptom than apply pressure to cure the problem.

2D

[nouseforaname]

2donkeys...

read through your page there about the N reg. do you think they can just turn around and say we aren't recognising FAA licenced pilots or is the worst possible scenario that you can't own an Nreg aircraft on UK turf?

[2Donkeys]

The most likely move is one in which N-registered aircraft will be required to revert to G-registration if they reside in the UK for more than 180 days in the year. Proof of residence would be relatively easy to extract from airfield movement logs, hangarage/parking fees etc.

None of this has a lot to do with licence recognition. I would expect FAA licences to be recognised in the same way they are now - the downside is that without an N-reg aircraft to exercise them in, their privileges are restricted.

2D

[Genghis the Engineer]

Surely DfT/CAA/EASA have got the message by now that unless they make things reasonably "user friendly" for business or high-value private GA users BEFORE any N-reg crackdown, they'll have an almighty fight on their hands.

Nobody, so far as I hear, has any real desire per-ce to operate an N-reg aircraft. What they primarily want is an affordable and useable IR for light aircraft. The UK alone is part-way there with the IMC rating, extend that to airways and make it an EASA qualification - whilst leaving the existing IR alone but intended (as it clearly is) for commercial traffic, and you've solved most people's concerned.

If EASA does that first, then nobody will do more than have a mild grumble about an "N-reg crackdown". If they don't, then we'll have a quiet (or not so quiet) civil war on our hands.

But, as others have said, none of this is new!

G

[WorkingHard]

Genghis I agree with most of what you say BUT do you really think that the CAA/Dft?EASA et al really give a toss about GA? From my perspective (and others at the lower end of the business GA community) they would be happy for us to simply disappear altogether. Reading the mil and air traffic threads it seems there are number there who would like it also. Am I just feeling particularly vulnerable at this time with huge increased costs of avionics fit and insurances and licencing and!!!!

[Genghis the Engineer]

They may not care about GA, but a lot of wealthy and influentual people do - and the likes of DfT DO care about a quiet life and not finding themselves in the middle of a public controversy. I'd count on that.

G

[Mike Cross]

Doesn't a similar restriction apply to ships not registered in the EU?

Which would explain why the Isle of Wight Ferry is not registered in Monrovia as it would be a bit of a pain to take it out of the EU every six months. Ditto the cross-channel ferries.

Probably also the same reason why EU licensed airlines have lots of freedom to fly passengers betweeen EU airports but non-EU carriers do not.

[2Donkeys]

Mike

Your observations blur at least two issues.

Firstly we are not talking about commercial passenger carrying operations, such as the Isle of Wight Ferry. The DfT consultation piece similarly is aimed fairly and squarely at non-commercial GA.

Secondly, if it were as simple as removing your aircraft from EU every so often, most people would have no issue with the odd flight to the Channel Islands. This consultation is likely to deal with the question of an aircraft's place of effective residence.

2D

[Genghis the Engineer]

This is a different issue, that isn't really relevant to GA.

We've all got overflight permissions under ICAO - I can (if I could afford it, which sadly I can't) either go to the US, buy an N-reg aeroplane and fly it around the world on my FAA licence, or do the same from here in my G-reg PA28 on my UK/JAA licence. That right is, for all reasonable purposes, guaranteed to me by the Chicago convention.

However, the actual agreements to use slots at international airports is largely subject to bilateral international agreements. So, for example, the UK and Canadian governments will agree roughly the same number of slots in either direction for their respective fleets, but neither has any incentive to agree to allow, say, Qantas to fly between London and Montreal. This "International Slottery" is the cause of much heated debate and negotiation - since it's clearly of great economic importance.

In GA we don't worry about slots - we have the luxury of using pretty much any airfield we want. But, states of registration have the right to lay down how their domestically registered traffic are dealt with. So, the UK has every right to insist that a G-registered aeroplane is based in the UK, and equally has the right to "lean on" the FAA to insist that no N-registered aeroplanes are based in the UK. But, if FAA won't play ball, or (more likely) just proclaim that they don't care, it's actually very hard for the UK/EU to enforce things without being in breach of the Chicago convention. And let's face it, the UK/EU, which rely enormously upon trade and tourism, cannot afford to jeapordise that!

I have no doubt that our "local" authorities can find a way to make it very hard to effectively operate an N-reg type here; for example they could prohibit aircraft under 5,700kg or cruising under 300kn from flying in certain airways - petty, but effective. But, I really hope that they realise that the only pragmatic way to fix what they see as a problem is to make UK/JAR/EASA regs at-least as user friendly as FAA ones. If they don't realise it, rest assured that AOPA/PPL-IR/BBGA etc. will make quite sure that they hear it.

G

[WorkingHard]

OK Genghis you have a better grasp than I so, is there anything (legal) that the GA fraternity can do to move the problems on and get changes in OUR favour?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Yes, work together to show EASA in particular, and to a lesser extent UK-CAA how to give us what we want on locally registered aeroplanes, without giving them any grief, or degrading the current safety stats.

Then, having got them to accept the point, make ourselves loud and objectionable if they ever veer from the path of approving these changes.

And, because this is the way of the world these days, this will have to be done through the various UK and (more importantly) European representative associations. This won't be hard, just ask any knowledgeable German or Czech PPL what they want most out of EASA, and the answer is usually the same "the UK IMC rating, valid across Europe".

G

[SR20flyDoc]

@ Mike Cross

Which would explain why the Isle of Wight Ferry is not registered in Monrovia

The FAA is not located in Monrovia......

I'm realy mad about these developments.

BA does do stupid things with their 74's (are they registered in Monrovia ? Is this question already asked to the DfT ?)

A Cirrus SR22 can only be on the N-reg ( or Canadian, Australian , but no JAA ), for a Cirrus SR20 it costs € 5000 to put it on the EASA reg's. Will it fly faster or safer at that moment. Think not.

Instructors in Holland have a CPL, no IR. To many CFIT after trying to prevent VMC into IMC already :mad:

The CAA had a good thimg, an IMC rating. Why not implement it in all EASA coutries ?

S.

[2Donkeys]

I have no doubt that our "local" authorities can find a way to make it very hard to effectively operate an N-reg type here; for example they could prohibit aircraft under 5,700kg or cruising under 300kn from flying in certain airways - petty, but effective.

This is all way too complex and not the sort of thing we should expect to see.

It is no infringement of the Chicago Convention for the DfT to require all foreign registered aircraft spending more than 180 days a year in the UK to register on the G-reg. As simple as that.

The DfT will point out, no doubt, that the US already places a similar requirement on UK aircraft operating in the US.

2D

[Fuji Abound]

G t E

I agree with everything you say.

The trouble is this issue has been discussed for years and nothing happens. Why? I can only assume because we (GA pilots) are so apathetic individually and as a group our apathy means we have no effective representative body and in consequence no effective pressure has ever been brought on the regulators to do anything about it.

It has always seemed incredible to me that when for example you route cross channel from LYD without an IR you are prevented from climbing to remain within gliding distance of the shore (and the same is equally true if conditions are VMC and you do not have an IR). In reality for most of GA with a practical altitude limit of 10,000 opening up the lower airways would have little effect on commercial traffic but would increase controller work load, undoubtedly a factor for the regulators wishing to effectively prevent GA traffic using the airspace.

I wrote to AOPA recently and received the following reply:

“As the result of IAOPA initiatives, and following extensive work completed by Pamela Campbell on behalf of AOPA UK, the JAA have decided that the time has come for a comprehensive review of IR requirements. To this end a JAA Working Group has been established to look at the situation and to come up with proposals. The first meeting of this Group is to be held on 25 May and Pamela Campbell will be representing AOPA UK interests. It is a prime aim to make the IR more achievable for the PPL holder and initial efforts will be focused upon the theoretical side of IR traning.
Ongoing progress will be reported in due course through GA magazine.”

I have seen no reports of the progress made and nor have I received a reply to my emails to AOPA.

I would like to see the use of N reg aircraft in the UK banned for one reason. A large number of proactive pilots have decided over the years it was far easier to go N reg than bring any pressure to bare on the regulators. I don’t blame them. However by banning the use of N reg aircraft at this time hopefully we will as a group of pilots finally persuade the regulators that it is unacceptable for them to prevent GA using Europe upper airspace.

[Genghis the Engineer]

United we stand, divided we fall!

Try writing direct to Prof.George Done, AOPA-UK's chairman, he's a good guy.

(Edited to say) But if it's important enough to you, remember that these associations have a tiny permanent staff, and a lot of volunteers. If it's important enough to you, become one of the volunteers, don't sit there expecting somebody else to make all the running.

G

[Whopity]

The CAA have no safety case to support a ban on N reg aircraft therefore; it is out of their ballpark. The DFT wish to ban these aircraft on political/economic grounds, neither of which fall within the CAAs remit.

DFT are nevertheless looking to the CAA management to support their case. If they are asked to justify such a ban on safety grounds, there is no case to support it.

[IO540]

None of this is simple.

A straight 180-day ban as mentioned by 2D, implemented by the UK only, would be easily circumvented by swapping a plane with e.g. a Frenchman, every 180 days. This much is obvious. Clearly a lot of ordinary GA N-reg owners wouldn't be able to arrange something like that and they would be forced back on the G register, losing their existing FAA PPL/IR IFR privileges. A really great safety case to be made there (NOT!!!).

Higher up the GA scale, there is a lot more mobility and by the time you get to fractional ownerships in turboprops and jets, the concept of being in the UK for 180 days is less and less meaningful. There is also a lot more money splashing about in this sector (the direct operating costs of these planes start at say £500/hour and for that you get just one prop) and this opens the way to obvious commercial schemes....

So the DfT could implement a rather spiteful scheme which would have no effect other than to curtail IFR privileges to much of the bottom end of the N-reg population. It would have no effect higher up.

Particularly spiteful, given that N-reg planes are generally the best maintained planes of the UK fleet (if you want to find poorly maintained planes, look at G reg Cessnas or Pipers, not N) and the pilots are generally the highest-currency and the most experienced pilots.

As for UK AOPA, don't place too much hope in them. They do a worthwhile job on many fronts but their flying school membership is very substantial indeed, and flying schools have less than zero incentive to support N-reg! AOPA simply cannot act against the wishes of this section of its membership. They were also party to the recent proposal for a European cut-down IR which had the useless 10,000ft ceiling - no pilot who actually flies around Europe could have come up with that. Sadly, nobody represents owner-pilots in the UK. The PPL/IR group is a better group to back, perhaps.

FA's point about apathy is dead on, unfortunately. But I don't think more than 1% of pilots that actually go places read Pprune or any of the other forums - these are inhabited by a small group of permanent residents. Many rarely read the UK mags. Some action is certainly needed on this front, and I think the various N reg registration agents would be a place to start (they will lose a lot of business if this happens). However, if the DfT actually get around to doing something, then everybody will wake up, and there are some big and powerful interests involved.

The UK is also supposed to be a friend of the USA, and kicking American planes out of the UK is going to go down really really well - if raised at the proper level in the USA.

High level political lobbying will be the way on this one.

[Cathar]

In fact, "Cathar" on these forums showed remarkable foresight over a year

Much as I might like to claim the status as resident savant it was not remarkable foresight, I was simply reporting on what I had been told.

After last year I think I will steer clear of the debate on this subject.

[SR20flyDoc]

Unfortunately, the Dutch NTSB / the Raad voor TransportVeiligheid, just published a memo to the ministery of Traffic and Waterworks (Ministerie van Verkeer & Waterstaat) to impose laws against GA non-EASA registered aircraft.

This because Russia does not provide oversight to Russian reg planes in The Netherlands, and there were two crahes.

There are so called SAFA inspections, (safety of foreign aircraft, check for ONUR Air and Phuket Airlines threads) so the conclusion should have been these are not effective or something :confused:

But they even don't state the crashes of these Russian aircraft were caused or related by poor maintanance.....

They just state EASA certification is better :yuk:

S.


Link in Dutch



http://www.rvtv.nl/data/Persbericht_Russische_vliegtuigen.doc

[WestWind1950]

the same problem has been discussed in Germany for years now. Over here it doesn't seem to be a matter of having an IFR rating or not, but because of the "cheaper" insurance, the lesser inspection requirements, the noise certificate requirements, etc.

I read some time ago that it was the FAA that wanted US registered aircraft being in the USA at least every 6 months, not the LBA or any other European authority. But then, regs change so often... who can keep up? :bored:

Westy

[AlexL]

I think this concerns everyone - not just N reg owners, as I believe this is the thin end of a large wedge. In every other field - when this government have closed an 'evasion method' (think stamp duty, think IR 35 IT contractors etc), following the change in law a massive increase in charges or taxation has occured. currently if the CAA increase charges to people on the G-reg fleet, then moving to N reg is an option. Remove that option and the CAA can charge what they like - without limits, and this effects everone - not just N reg owners.
Fixing the 'IR issue' would still not prevent this possiblily.

[IO540]

The cost of moving to N is so high, and the maintenance cost savings are little and often negative, so that CAA charges don't really feature on the decision horizon.

At the bottom end of the GA scale (i.e. most people reading this) it is done for the FAA IR, to get European IFR privileges. Of the pilots who have a life and a job earning the money needed to buy a decent plane and to fly IFR with some currency, few are able to do the JAA IR.

Higher up (turboprops and above) it is done for all sorts of other reasons, some to do with certification, some to do with straight cost, but the UK govt will never be able to comprehensively hit that group, due to its international mobility.

[windy1]

IO540 said

As for UK AOPA, don't place too much hope in them. They do a worthwhile job on many fronts but their flying school membership is very substantial indeed, and flying schools have less than zero incentive to support N-reg!

*******

The logic of this is unclear to me. I assume the UK schools target IR market is 90% people who want to go commercial and only 10% privateers (my guess).

But if there was an IR lite or an FAA IR clone for Europe, then the market for privateers across Europe would surely expand considerably, witness the interest in the UK IMCR. If I ran a school, I might be interested in that target market, as well as the commercial all singing and dancing rating. I would not see it as a taking that market away.

Further, if the main difference between the UK and US IR's is the ground school element and the flying training hours are not that different, then it is only those establishments whose business is predominantly ground school teaching who might feel threatened. Are these the establishments who determine AOPA's policy?

[IO540]

The political reality within EASA (who will take over flight crew licensing from the JAA) is that is it practically impossible to get agreement from all member states for an IR replacement which makes any concession whatsoever relative to the present IR and its ground school.

If a replacement was agreed upon, there is a real risk that its privileges would be so crippled that few pilots would bother with it - when they can get worldwide IFR privileges with an FAA IR.

However, the flight training industry is as likely to support such a crippled IR as it is likely to support a useful IR.

[rjt194]

Have I missed something?

What about Article 32b of the Chicago Convention?

[2Donkeys]

32b (for those unable/unwilling) to look it up provides for an ICAO state not to recognise the licences of another ICAO state.

This is not really in the spirit of what has been released so far. This consultation is rather more likely to focus on the rights of aircraft of foreign registry to remain within the UK for more than a certain period of time.

That is covered by different articles within the Chicago Convention

2D

[IO540]

Are the ICAO docs online? Last time I saw their prices, the number of 'unable' is likely to far exceed the number of 'unwilling'.

Which CC article provides for a residence limitation?

[2Donkeys]

The CC has nothing to say on the subject.

There is nothing in the Convention that compels a country to accept aircraft registered in another as permanent residents.

2D

[Cathar]

The Convention can be downloaded from here (http://www.icao.int/icaonet/dcs/7300.html)

[MLS-12D]

The most likely move is one in which N-registered aircraft will be required to revert to G-registration if they reside in the UK for more than 180 days in the year. Proof of residence would be relatively easy to extract from airfield movement logs, hangarage/parking fees etc.Sounds very plausible. The restriction that 2D describes is not dissimilar from section 202.42(1) (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part2/202.htm#202_42) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, which effectively prohibits Canadian citizens from keeping N-registered aircraft in Canada.

We've all got overflight permissions under ICAO - I can (if I could afford it, which sadly I can't) either go to the US, buy an N-reg aeroplane and fly it around the world on my FAA licence, or do the same from here in my G-reg PA28 on my UK/JAA licence. That right is, for all reasonable purposes, guaranteed to me by the Chicago convention. However, the actual agreements to use slots at international airports is largely subject to bilateral international agreements. So, for example, the UK and Canadian governments will agree roughly the same number of slots in either direction for their respective fleets, but neither has any incentive to agree to allow, say, Qantas to fly between London and Montreal. This "International Slottery" is the cause of much heated debate and negotiation - since it's clearly of great economic importance. In GA we don't worry about slots - we have the luxury of using pretty much any airfield we want.!Well, it has been years since I was a serious student of international aviation law; but for what little it's worth, I believe the above is substantially incorrect.

The Chicago Convention protects the first two of the 'five freedoms' (see here (http://www.historians.org/Projects/GIroundtable/Skyways/Skyways5.htm) or here (http://www.tech.purdue.edu/at/courses/at300/bilateral_agreements_and_the_sev.htm)), but not the last three. I.e., there is no right of commercial access to other signatory states' airspace: see Article 6 of the Convention. It is that important omission that makes bilateral agreements necessary ((limited availability of ‘slots’ is essentially a practical restriction, not a legal one). See generally Cooper, The Right to Fly (1947), and Cheng, The Law of International Air Transport (1962).

the UK has every right to insist that a G-registered aeroplane is based in the UK, and equally has the right to "lean on" the FAA to insist that no N-registered aeroplanes are based in the UK. But, if FAA won't play ball, or (more likely) just proclaim that they don't care, it's actually very hard for the UK/EU to enforce things without being in breach of the Chicago convention. And let's face it, the UK/EU, which rely enormously upon trade and tourism, cannot afford to jeapordise that!To the best of my knowledge, 2D is entirely correct: there is nothing in the Chicago Convention about aircraft residency. But as rjt194 has already noted, Article 32(b) potentially provides the CAA with a big stick with which to hammer British subjects who rely upon FAA ‘certificates’ to operate N-registered aircraft within UK airspace.

[youngskywalker]

Will these same rules also prohibit using business jets in the Uk based on the N register? If so that will hit lots of British Pilots who only hold an FAA Commercial licence and rely on this work. 70% of the worlds corporate aircraft are registered on the 'N', and most of the biz jets in the Uk and Europe are also 'N' registered.

I hope this is not going to actually happen......:ugh: