'N' reg UK owners beware!

[Chilli Monster]

If you haven't already heard someone at the DfT has a bee in their bonnet about foreign registered aircraft being based out of the UK.

If you fly 'N' reg for the usual reasons (more attainable IR) then these proposals (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=14254&l=2) are going to screw you big time.

Read and respond folks

[porridge]

Yeah, yeah - we all know about that. So if you get the permission what the big deal? As long as the instructor is both FAA & JAA qualified there's no problem!

[TheOddOne]

I read through this stuff, and 'bee in the bonnet' seems about right, to me. They say they haven't a clue how many a/c there are operating in the UK on foreign reggies, which amazes me. Perhpas they should go to Stansted and count the 'EI' a/c there, or the TF elsewhere...

Surely the benchmark is safety. If, say, 20% of light a/c & bizjets were foreign registered (which I think is what they're suggesting) and there was a safety issue, then more than 20% of the UK-based aircraft in the AAIB reports every month would have foreign registrations. There ARE plenty of reports involving foreign-reg a/c but they are mainly visitors - B777 at Manchester with brake problems etc. You don't see too many Cayman Island reg G4 or N-reg Seneca III in the reports, or do you?

I guess the nub of the argument is that they feel they haven't any control over the activity. They should instead look at the reasons why people choose not to put a/c on the UK register. They cite the cost of a PPL and added ratings as £149 and £100 respectively. They do admit there are additional costs involved in obtaining these ratings. What they don't say is that the cost is many thousands of pounds. For porfessional licences, the differences are even larger.

If the DfT think that their subsidiary, the CAA, are losing revenue by people looking to the cheaper and more effective alternative of working on the N- or VP registers, then they perhaps should look at how they can drive down their own costs so that they can make the G- register just as attractive. Only then, I believe, do they have the right to require UK-based a/c to be on the G- register...

Cheers,
The Odd One

[Chilli Monster]

Porridge
Yeah, yeah - we all know about that. So if you get the permission what the big deal? As long as the instructor is both FAA & JAA qualified there's no problem!
It's got nothing to do with that at all - try reading the document instead of summising.

[Justiciar]

Everyone talkes in terms of N reg, but what abouth the numerous Russian, Lithuanian and Hungarian registered Yaks and the like? If these countries are not (yet) part of EASA, what is to happen to them?

[KitKatPacificuk]

Chilli Monster is right, This has been going on for a long time and has nothing to do with instructing in foreign reged aircraft.

It's all about removing foreign reged aircraft from the UK.

The instructing side of things is a different matter. Porridge mentioned that it doesn't matter as long as the instructor is JAA and FAA rated. It does. It's not the instructors licence it's the aircraft they are in. If they are in a N-reg and instructing in UK airspace then unless the aircraft and student has a DfT waiver form they are instructing illegally in UK airspace no matter what licence they have.

AOPA are on the case with the DfT regarding the removal of the aircraft. If you read the General Aviation magazine for Aug 2005 they talk about a scheme for keeping them here and helping with safety information and distribution of it.

[IO540]

How do AOPA propose to help with "safety" information (I don't get their magazine)?

There are NO safety issues with N. It's now well known that the DfT asked the CAA to come up with data showing that N have more accidents than G but the CAA reported there is no data showing that.

The DfT proposal was written by somebody who knows next to nothing about aeroplanes. There are so many factual errors in it, it's hard to know where to start. Their estimate of the economic cost of everything going back to G is low by (very roughly speaking, obviously, and taking into account all the non-AOC turboprops and non-AOC jets) a factor of about 1000 times.

Quite sad really.

[beerdrinker]

IO540

Info has also been in the AOPA section of Pilot Mag. Although I note that they are not on the distribution list.

[englishal]

In conclusion, while no significant safety issues have come to light in relation to aircraft registered on the US, Bermudan and Cayman Islands registers,
) Aircraft Registration. Currently the CAA charges £50 or £100
ii) Certificates of Airworthiness. The charge for a certificate of airworthiness varies according to the weight and type of the aircraft, for example a charge of £651

It appears to be all about making money and nothing to do with safety. Of the 1500 or so foreign aircraft based here, the CAA could make an extra £1,500,000....

The scary thing is though, the people who write this document haven't got a clue what they're on about:

However, it seems unlikely that the total cost of reregistering the aircraft affected by the proposal will exceed £0.25m

and

Foreign licences may be used to fly UK registered aircraft on private flights in visual meteorological conditions.

At least the Channel Islands are outside of the EU......wonder what this could mean for foreign aircraft "based" in the CI (or even Gibraltar).??

[Final 3 Greens]

It's not without precedence. Look at what happened to the IT contractors, with the IR35 legislation.

The government line was that they were avoiding paying the right amount of tax and I would see this initiative as being similar, "aircraft owners are avoiding European harmonization."

If you operate an aircraft off the G-reg, you have to accept the risk that government action may close your options. It's the same with most areas, where individuals seek (quite legally) to work around legislation. When that legislation is altered to close the loophole, perhaps you have to accept that times have changed and reassess your position.

[MichaelJP59]

I suppose the other thing to bear in mind is that fairness doesn't really come into it.

If the DfT have already made up their mind on this it doesn't really matter what fair and reasoned arguments people come up with:(

People will be allowed to have their say in the consultation period, of course, but will that make any difference?

[Reds. Blues, Greens]

The DfT have missed the point it would seem. The majority of N reg pilots/owners (not talking about the likes of British Gas and big corporations that have their Corporate machinery on the American/Cayman/Bermudan registrations in the UK) have the aircraft on a foreign register, for License purposes (i.e the FAA IR).

Being a bunch of "Good ol' chaps" at the CAA, they decided to make the IR almost unattainable to the average Joe Bloggs PPL in the UK. I can see some reasoning behind this, like avoiding having a load of Warrior pilots filing and flying airways within the UK (we simply don't have the room), so what they did was give us the IMC rating...useless if you want to use it outside the UK FIR in IMC...DOH....OR in airways...you just can't do it.

IF "they" do ban foreign reg aircraft here...what will they do with the aircraft that aren't available on the UK reg? What will they do for all the pilots that only maintain their foreign licenses? And they even mention "The addition of a rating to a licence would cost £100"... well okay then...here's your 100 quid...now give me my JAA ATPL!! Yeah right!

The document should, and I hope, will, be torn to shreds, filled paragraphs starting with "It is not uncommon..." and "It is assumed..." and "It appears..." etc etc. They clearly don't know what they are talking about.

There is NO SAFETY BENEFIT to be had at all.

Has capitilism suddenly worked it's way into the DfT...it looks like it... as the ONLY PEOPLE TO BENEFIT WILL BE THE CAA/DfT as their revenue will go up...and that makes me feel incredibly sick!!!

[Charlie32]

MJP59

"Fairness" does indeed come into it. The policies of DoT, as a branch of the executive, are amenable to judicial review. Two of of the grounds for judicial review, are the so called "Wednesbury test of reasonableness" and that their actions should be based in good faith, and follow the principles of natural justice.

So I trust that if the DoT is foolish enough to proceed with this folly, that AOPA will instruct its lawyers to challenge any such policy in the High Court.

[IO540]

What about compensation? If the Govt chops off your front garden to build a road, they have to pay compensation. The figures for this would be astronomical.

I also don't like describing the keeping of an N-reg plane in the UK as a "loophole". Some things are prohibited and those are ILLEGAL. Everything else is LEGAL. Not 99% legal. It's 100% legal. This is actually a clear cut case, because we have the ANO (which doesn't prohibit it) and nothing else. It isn't like the tax law and its mountains of precedents.

Keeping an N-reg here is every bit just as legal giving your (non-working) wife half your savings so she can get the interest paid gross. Or selling enough shares to crystallise an £8400 gain every tax year. Etc.

"Loopholes" rank alongside "common law wives" - the press like to use the term but there is no such thing.

[Final 3 Greens]

IO540

Loopholes are legal. There is tax avoidance and tax evasion - the former uses legal mechanisms to reduce liability and the latter is just illegal.

One could argue that private pilots are exploiting a loophole to gain FAA IRs and that government action to address this is no different to closing down various tax schemes, in that the government wishes people to comply with its regulation. The commercial use of N and other reg for UK based aircraft is a matter that I don't understand.

It must be galling for owners of N reg aircraft in the UK, but I doubt that the government would be obliged to pay compensation, just in the same way that they changed the tax laws affecting computer contractors and paid no compensation to them either - perhaps Flying Lawyer or a colleague may have an informed view, since I'm not a lawyer.

[2Donkeys]

Talk of compensation and legal action is an unnecessary distraction from the main feature here.

The DfT consultation is flawed in many respects - not least its own self-confessed lack of detailed analysis in relation to the impact of the changes that it is proposing.

There are a number of solutions to the problem - most of which ultimately relate to Flight Crew Licensing, rather than to the desire on the part of British Pilots to own their aircraft through a US trust.

Sadly, rather than look for solutions, the DfT is seeking to coerce the N-reg community back to the G without any real understanding of the issues.

We need, rapidly, to educate our legislators.

2D

[dublinpilot]

Loopholes are legal. There is tax avoidance and tax evasion - the former uses legal mechanisms to reduce liability and the latter is just illegal.

If you put funds into your pension, and thus legally reduced your tax liability, no one would call it a loophole. This was simply the way it was supposed to operate.

Likewise, FAA licenced pilots flying N-reg aircraft isn't a loophole. It's simply the way it was supposed to operate.

I agree that calling this a loophole is a hindrance. You certainly wouldn't find the word loophole in any document reviewed by a PR consultant who was working for GA on this issue.

dp

[Final 3 Greens]

Dublinpilot

With the greatest of respect, loopholes are in the eye of the beholder.

What happened to MIRAS? Why did the government encourage small firms to incorporate and then complain that they took advantage of dividends in a way that they did not forsee?There are a number of solutions to the problem - most of which ultimately relate to Flight Crew Licensing, rather than to the desire on the part of British Pilots to own their aircraft through a US trust. In that case, if playing devil's advocate, I could argue that the two issues are not related. If people are using ownership to circumvent UK FCL rules, then surely the government is allowed to govern, by legislation.

I would be very careful how you construct your argument.

[IO540]

2D

I agree that the bottom end of the GA market is going N primarily for what you call FCL (the FAA IR) reasons, but I don't think that's anywhere as true higher up.

There are turboprops and bizjets which are on N for serious (and in some cases insormountable) certification reasons. I met a man recently with a bizjet (not a cheap one like a Citation) who reckoned it would cost him £600k to move it to G. Nobody would even consider putting that plane on G. Yet, it doesn't have any equipment that would be considered unusual for the type. He has an FAA CPL/IR, and a UK ATPL. JAA IRs/ATPLs are exceedingly rare at the bottom (SEP) end of GA (I gather you've got one) but not so rare higher up.

I know all this stuff has been done to death here, in which case one could ask why does anyone spend the time to write anything here. I am just making the point that it's a complex picture. Most people reading this think that the problem consists mostly of the little N-reg planes sitting on the grass at the local airfield(s).

Equally there are a lot of heads in the sand. This part of Pprune is largely dealing with the very low end of GA, and I suspect VERY few people involved with bizjets ever read the "bizjet" sections. I know that people that fly seriously just don't have the time to read these forums.

But these people, many of them very influential, are going to start waking up now.... I don't think there is going to be a shortage of material for educating the DfT :O

F3G

A Govt is allowed to govern but the rules should be reasonable. If people do something to get around rules that ARE unreasonable that is no suprise. It isn't as if people were going N primarily to save money.

[Final 3 Greens]

IO540

But who decides what is reasonable? The 36% who voted for the government or the rest? This government (or more accurately the previous 2 incarnations) has a track record of acting quite forcefully to deal with certain anomalies.

And if that government then closes the loophole, is it being unreasonable or just using its mandate to govern?

I'm not against you on this matter, but the way executive power is granted.used in this country leads me to believe that the government will get it's way on this one. N Reg ovwners are too small a minority to lobby and I would imagine that few of them vote Labour or are perceived to vote Labour.

And not only this one. That's one of the reasons why I'm currently looking at off shoring my company and moving to another country. BTW, I am neither a computer contractor nor a N reg owner :D

If I were you, I would be considering my options carefully.

[2Donkeys]

It seems that some people are happy to debate anything but the matter at hand...

IO540 The issues relating to Bizjets might just save our bacon (by virtue of the people they upset) but are not relevant to a forum such as this so I avoided them in this discussion.

The issues relating to the acceptability or otherwise of the FAA IR for flight inside controlled airspace in a G-reg are what really make the difference. For a lesser number of souls, it relates to Regulatory Stability (conspicuous by its absence under JAR/EASA), and for others it relates to the desire to use the latest STCs.

These are the features which need to be brought to the DfT's attention - if it cares...

Voyages of mental masturbation relating to the nature of democracy and fairness are all very well, but won't achieve anything, I fear.

2D

[IO540]

*The issues relating to Bizjets might just save our bacon (by virtue of the people they upset) but are not relevant to a forum such as this so I avoided them in this discussion. *

Yet this is why these debates pointlessly go round and round in circles - because nobody takes in the whole picture. The N-reg Arrows, Senecas, Aztecs, TB20s, SR22s, etc, plus various assorted helicopters, in the UK make up a tiny (and politically insignificant) part of the picture.

Which is NOT to say that the "little people" cannot make a useful and effective representation to the DfT. They can and should.

*The issues relating to the acceptability or otherwise of the FAA IR for flight inside controlled airspace in a G-reg are what really make the difference. *

If an FAA PPL/IR could fly IFR anywhere in Europe, in a G, in any airspace where IFR is allowed, that would be brilliant. But is there any prospect whatsoever of this happening? The flight training business (European protectionism) will make sure it doesn't - even if it doesn't do them any good.

*For a lesser number of souls, it relates to Regulatory Stability (conspicuous by its absence under JAR/EASA), and for others it relates to the desire to use the latest STCs.*

If you count a whole aircraft that is not certified in Europe as "a latest STC" then yes :O Not a lot of people will go N just to fit some piece of kit.

*Voyages of mental masturbation relating to the nature of democracy and fairness are all very well, but won't achieve anything, I fear.*

I agree.

[Sir George Cayley]

News that the Isle of Man Govt is planning to set up its own aircraft register using the prefix M.

Apparently their scheme for ships has been an outstanding sucess and they see aircraft as a logical progression.

Presumably all we need to do is get their DCA to write an ANO(IoM) along the lines of the FAA regs and Bob is one's uncle!

Sir George Cayley

[Cathar]

I believe that Isle of Man Government needs the approval of the UK Government (ie DfT) to establish a register. As I understand it, an Isle of Man ANO also has to be agreed with DfT. It appears that the section of DfT discussing this issue with the Isle of Man is also responsible for the current consultation exercise.

If the Isle of Man were to adopt FAA standards, aircraft on an Isle of Man register could not be based in the UK under the DfT proposal. While aircraft could be based at Ronaldsway I suspect that space will be somewhat limited.

[SR20flyDoc]

Maybe you can also make a point to your goverment that the CAA / DFT is failing.

The inspections they should use for foreign aircraft, ( SAFA - teams , safety of foreign aicraft ) are not up to standards / failing, and the can't even estimate how many foreign aircraft there are.

Something like; all foreigners from outside europe should apply for citizenship after 90 days, cause the visa system does not work...

S.

p.s. the Dutch CAA; IVW/DL seems to be heading the same way.

[Chilli Monster]

Cathar
If the Isle of Man were to adopt FAA standards, aircraft on an Isle of Man register could not be based in the UK under the DfT proposal.

I don't think anyone suggests they adopt FAA standards, where aircraft (which is the main DfT thrust at the moment) are concerned.

A hypothesis for you:

IOM registry adopts EASA standards, thereby allowing aircraft to be kept in the UK.

IOM issues licence validations based on ICAO licenses - which would include FAA certificates and ratings. (the main reason people go 'N' reg - IR privileges)

DfT is happy
Owners happy

Life continues as before.

[IO540]

In that case the IOM would be doing exactly what the Caymans (e.g.) do; accepting FAA licenses ratings.

This would be a move forward for people unable to do the JAA IR but would not address the proposed residence limit for N-reg planes. Moving UK's N fleet to G (or to any EASA member state CofA regime such as M) would be a hugely expensive and complicated task in most cases, and impossible in many cases.

I am not sure how one can maintain an aircraft to EASA requirements if the aircraft or any part of it is not EASA approved.

Therefore I don't see how any registry that requires EASA maintenance would help - except to future FAA IR holders. And to be honest the DfT's objective of scaring the living daylights out of anyone wishing to do the FAA IR and go N in the UK is certainly working already!

It would also mean that anyone on the M register would need the same CAA medical as a JAA IR (PPL/IR or CPL/IR) requires e.g. the same pointless JAA audiogram requirement even for a privately flying PPL.

Funnily enough, the people that put a plane on the Cayman register are CAA-employed inspectors... Do they inspect to FAA standards, or CAA standards? Can you put a SR22 or TBM700C2 on the Cayman reg? (forgetting for now that the Cayman reg doesn't want SEPs)

[Chilli Monster]

It would also mean that anyone on the M register would need the same CAA medical as a JAA IR (PPL/IR or CPL/IR) requires e.g. the same pointless JAA audiogram requirement even for a privately flying PPL.

Why would they?

Do not confuse the DfT's actions against aircraft of foreign registry, with what is required when a licence is validated by another country. The two are totally separate issues and my hypothetical solution above contains what are both, in effect, totally separate issues and solutions.

[IO540]

I agree; I was wrong on the medical side.

However it still leaves us with the need to move the foreign-reg planes to the registry of an EASA member state, which involves certification on that registry.

Incidentally I think that EASA will ultimately have no choice but to accept FAA certification completely (*). Otherwise, their published proposal to subject all EU-based planes to the EASA maintenance regime will not be possible. But that is yet another obstacle which is at least a few years further down the road after the DfT has finished over here :O

(*) The national certification authorities (CAA in the UK) will really hate that because they won't have anything to do; they will just have a man sitting there issuing an AAN for every STC that comes in the post.

[Cathar]

A hypothesis for you:

IOM registry adopts EASA standards, thereby allowing aircraft to be kept in the UK.

IOM issues licence validations based on ICAO licenses - which would include FAA certificates and ratings. (the main reason people go 'N' reg - IR privileges)

DfT is happy
Owners happy


I believe that DfT probably have more than just airworthiness/maintenance standards in mind. As you may be aware, proposals for EC legislation extending EASA's remit to cover aircraft operations and personnel licensing are expected to be published very soon. It is likely that the implementing rules for flight crew licensing will be based largely on JAR-FCL which, if I understand correctly, currently limits the validation of non JAR-FLC PPLs with instrument rating to a maximum of 12 months. However, whatever EASA decide on validations, their requirements will have to be followed by all EC states including the UK, and presumably the Isle of Man if they wish DfT to permit aircraft on their register to be based in the UK.

[Reds. Blues, Greens]

That's it... I give up. I'm off to the live in the USA...but knowing my luck, the DfT would throw a spanner in the works for me there too!

It's a farce...somebody has looked at the increased revenue that can be sucked out of all the N reg operators by making them switch reg's and thought (in a Homer Simpson tone) "Hmmmm Revenue!". N reg for owner/operators tends to be done for the FCL issue.... and plenty of other pilots!

I know several FAA CPL/IR's flying N reg aircraft for individuals/companies, who are in a position whereby they need to take considerable time off work to wade through the 14 JAA ATPL exams. This is because there's no point just doing the JAA CPL/IR..because if you decide to change to JAA ATPL later on...you have to sit ALL the exams again, even the ones that you've already sat to get the JAA CPL/IR!!!!! Why is this? Why make it difficult for good pilots to get into flying jobs? I'd rather sit in the back of an Airbus with a guy in the right seat who has a few thousand hours flying BizJets/large twins/fast complex singles..than with a 21 year old, 250 hr number cruncher who can't fly for toffee. Doing what i do, I've flown with CAAFU examiners, BA training Captains, RAF display pilots right across the board to Joe Bloggs fresh PPL. Believe me....having a JAA pro licence doesn't neccessarily make you a good pilot!!! One guy I know has 12000 hours on BBJ's for Gawd's sake and flies his N reg "toy" at weekends. He's a cracking pilot...but....he needs to sit 14 exams to fly the same aircraft on a different reg? Madness...it really is utterly stupid!

Knitting...that's it....take up knitting!

[englishal]

That's it... I give up. I'm off to the live in the USA
You know what....I think I might just do the same.

I can then own a plane without it bankrupting me, fly a plane as its meant to be flown without all the b*llsh*t, own a decent sized house without paying stupid prices, own a ski boat which costs me half the prices, pay $2 per gallon of petrol, not £0.95 per litre....Oh yea, and get paid to fly ;)

Now so long as I can ignore the bible bashing mormons........

[slim_slag]

englishal

I can then own a plane without it bankrupting me,

No, it will still bankrupt you, you will just have a nicer fleet in your hangar :)