They're Baaaaaack!

[NickLappos]

Britain Proposes Ban Against Basing Non-UK Aircraft
The UK's Department of Transport (DOT) last week issued its official proposal to prevent foreign-registered aircraft from being based in the UK “by limiting the time (e.g. 90 days) such an aircraft may spend in the UK in any 12 months.” While the DOT said that “no significant safety issues have come to light” in relation to aircraft registered in the U.S., Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, the agency does not know what other registers are involved or the safety risks associated with those registers. The DOT believes that many private and corporate aircraft based in the UK have been placed on foreign registers “to take advantage of what are perceived as less onerous regulatory requirements.” The use of foreign-registered aircraft to “opt out of the UK regulatory system undermines the harmonized European standards.” There are some “significant differences” even between the U.S. and the UK regulations, according to the DOT. Moreover, aviation authorities in countries at some distance from the UK “can face practical difficulties in ensuring that aircraft on their register but based in the UK comply with their requirements.” The proposal would also require pilots of foreign-registered aircraft to obtain a UK license and type ratings for operating under IFR. Comments on the proposal are due October 28

Here is the detailed posting:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=14254&l=2

Here is the response email and snail-mail address:

[email protected]

or alternatively by post to:

Ray Pusey
IASD4, Aviation Directorate
Zone 1/29
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DR

[Gunship]

Ray Pusey

Nice surname :E

[Jack Plug]

Dont it make you proud to be British.
Actually, Were not all Arseholes.
Just the regulators.

To change the subject a bit. I just got my insurance renewal. Up 25% due to the same arseholes.

[headsethair]

Nick, this is largely a UK reaction to the recent FAA statement that they cannot regulate N aircraft beyond USA borders.

Which of course makes you wonder what Untied, Noneworse, Downthepan am and the other US international operators have been getting up to once they get beyond the territorial limits.

You can just see them now at some foreign base.....slipping nitro into the fuel.......over-pressuring the tyres......sniggering as they put clingfilm over the toilet seats.

It must have been hell for a globe-trotting FAA Inspector.

[cyclicmicky]

Does this mean that if we keep our aircraft on the uk register...and maintain it as per the regs that we get a 25% discount....I think not,...it will still have gone up 25%.
Grin and bear it....call em lots of names when they ain't around
:E

[212man]

What exactly is the siginificance of '90 days' ?

How can a figure appropriate to UK tax rules have any relevance to airworthiness?

[SASless]

Why don't they ask the question of themselves...."Why are so many operators/owners avoiding UK registration of aircraft?"

I would suggest that is a question and answer they really do not want to know about.

Mind you...the FAA is heading down that same road as time goes on.

[212man]

I think that is what headsethair was alluding too ......

[aspinwing]

we will now go after all of the foreign flagged vessels in UK waters that includes cruise ships.

Just goes to show how much the regulators know. :mad:

The insurers run the industry: just try bending something and see what your insurer does if the logs and maintenance are not up to snuff no matter where the a/c is registered. :yuk:

[212man]

Exactly; we as pilots might think the regulations are large and cumbersome, the lawyers must think they are flimsy broadsheets by comparison to most of the stuff they read through.

[SASless]

"The use of foreign-registered aircraft to “opt out of the UK regulatory system undermines the harmonized European standards.”

That is a wad of bovine fecal matter.....does a thing called ICAO ring a bell with anyone? If member states claim membership in ICAO.....does that not supecede the almighty EU equine fecal matter?:uhoh:

[GROSSER]

A guy I know normally flies his own jet (with his wife as co-pilot) regularly to Europe but decided to take an airline recently as the EASA public liability cover has been increased to US$150m.
So I am told - is this true?

Thank goodness we have the Patriot Act to protect us!

All the anniversaries we are having lately about events of 60 years ago and the truths that are surfacing about what really happened make me wonder about the current agendas. :sad:

[muffin]

The main reason that most UK operators have been going over to N reg is nothing to do with insurance but everything to do with Flight Crew licensing. Quite simply, an FAA IR is attainable, whereas the JAR IR is so difficult and expensive now that it is out of the reach of most people who have other jobs to do. And with an FAA IR you can fly airways in an N reg aircraft.

[ppheli]

Some stats to put this in perspective.. the following is my current estimate of non-G-dash helicopters based in the UK by country of registration. This includes a handful which are on rebuild to flying status.

F = France = 2
HA = Hungary = 3 (more to come, eh, md600driver...)
LX = Luxembourg = 1
N = USA = 77
OY = Denmark = 1
S5 = Slovenia = 1
SE = Sweden = 1
VP-B = Bermuda = 3
YU = Serbia = 5

Total = 94

[NickLappos]

Did anyone read the justification garbage inside?

Here is the summary in their words of the cost of this fiat (annex A Cost Implications):

"The immediate costs associated with transferring to the UK register are:

i) Aircraft Registration. Currently the CAA charges £50 or £100 to register an aircraft depending on it size.......

ii) Certificates of Airworthiness...... a charge of £651 would be made.

iii) Pilots licences and ratings........Some pilots may also need additional type ratings. The CAA charges £149 for the issue of a private pilots licence. The addition of a rating to the licence would cost £100......

13. .....it seems unlikely that the total cost of reregistering the aircraft affected by the proposal will exceed £0.25m. .....The major cost to them would be in obtaining the relevant ratings for a UK licence."


The shear simplicity of this under-estimate is scary. I would guess the guy who wrote this never signed a check to operate a flying machine in his life, and never had to live under the rules he invents. It makes that Kenyan guy in the other thread sound like Einstein!! I surely hope someone sets them straight.

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

Governments seem to have a tit for tat, worldwide trend to make users of organisations pay in whole for their existance, thus removing any burden from the tax payer, so they can throw more money at unworthy causes. The prices at the CAA Gatwick canteen represent their intentions. The best of everything at peanut prices - and twice the price for vistors. This sums it all up for me. Jobs for the boys and masters of their own existence. £100 to add a type rating is nothing but common theft. Not suprising they're looking at more ways to bring more money in. The coffee there don't come cheap for them and they like the way it tastes !

Rant over !!

TFS

[SASless]

Compare the cost of renewing" an ATPL in the USA to the same process in the UK...(.hint....we do not "renew" a booklet page....)...simply renewing one's medical does the trick. Currency is done by flying....and doing your checkrides that are a normal course of business.

What is it now....600 UKP for a renewal of an ATPL?

[Thomas coupling]

This is brilliant news:

More money for the CAA
More tax for the IR
Less dodgy 'foreign' a/c flying round the UK.
Less FAA pilots flying round the Uk.
More jobs for the boys.

A win win situation - shows EASA is working finally :E

[SASless]

Fewer people taking up helicopter flying...

Higher costs for owners...fewer helicopters...

Fewer jobs....decreased ability of owners to give pay rises...

Less taxable income for the IR...

Fewer pilots and machines for the CAA to monitor...

Fewer jobs for folks at the CAA...

The answer is in streamlining the effect of the JARS dance so more aviation comes to the the UK at a cost effective rate.

There is a limit to what costs the industry can stand before the goose starves to death.:uhoh:

[Oogle]

Don't worry SAS.

I will just be waiting to hear them say that the reason is for national security. No doubt most of London town is a restricted area in the aftermath of the terrible things that have gone on there.

And the reason for the increased costs? To pay for the extra security measures. What a load of :mad:

I feel sorry for our UK brothers having to put up with some of the most stringent requirements on the planet. No doubt more to come.

Also the dumbarse requirements for people wanting to convert to a JAA licence is a case in point.

[Robbo Jock]

TFS,

make users of organisations pay in whole for their existance

It's worse than the CAA just recovering their costs from their users. They actually have to return a 6% profit to the Treasury. So for every £100 it costs them to do something, they have to charge £106.

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

I found this exclusive fly on the wall picture of the top brass at Gatwick CAA HQ meeting up to disucss the latest in their Campaign Against Aliens !!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v650/theflyingsquirrel/aliens2.jpg

[SASless]

TFS.....one should not be unkind to our CAA brethren....most are genuinely nice people that are trying to do the best they can within the system.

I know dressing like the boss is supposed to be a way to success....but really....playing with Mr. Potato Head at a staff meeting....that just is not cricket.:uhoh:

[R1Tamer]

Yep just another example of why there is sweet fa great about britain any more.

I knew there was a reason I joined the brain drain from that third world country and moved to a more progressive nation where common sense, practicality and democracy reigns rather than idle pricks in suits.

[Hidden Agenda]

R1Tamer,

Never thought I would hear the North East of England as ‘a more progressive nation where common sense, practicality and democracy reigns’!

Must have changed since I migrated from there!

[SHortshaft]

NickLappos,

I know you are sensitive to hidden agenda, you told me so on another thread.

What I can’t work out is what your is here?

If the UK government believes that the public should be protected from the aviator and that the aviator should pay to provide that protection then surely that is a domestic policy matter. If a side effect of this action were to return the oversight of aviation in Britain back to the British (Europeans) then I for one would be for it.

[Heliport]

SHortshaft

Are you expressing your preference from Asia?

I realise Nick Lappos is posting from America, but he has a very good knowledge of aviation in the UK (historic and current), and his post reflects concern here about the recent proposal.

[SASless]

Ah the UK....encountered some of that enlightened thinking recently.

Whilst doing touch and go's...closed circuits to the training area....the landing fee was charged for each time we "entered" the circuit. We are not considered to be a "training machine" despite the only thing we were doing is training. We pay a landing fee each time we go buy fuel which is 18 pence per liter higher than other places and when the airport is "closed"....no operations allowed. I just love having to call on the phone....and "book" my arrival/departure and/or fuelling. What really tops this off is the radio call for permission to start engines....now cmon' guys! We do not exactly fly out of Heathrow nor do we have an instrument clearance to pick-up or anything....just a simple VFR single engine helicopter.

Everyone I have met in the system are kind, nice, friendly and helpful.....but the system sure seems designed to counter all that.

I prefer the way we do it in the USA....preflight, fire up, call tower....depart....land as the case may be. Pay at the bowser....no walking all over the airfield to find the office to pay. No landing fees, no airway fees, no booking of landings/departures (when VFR).

Where did the Hi-Vis vest thing come from? We don't do that in the states and we do not seem to be losing folks to engines, props, or tugs?

British Aviation seems headed towards an Orwellian finish.

[SASless]

TFS...

Remember we have the same kind of costs...but the taxpayer supports the funding by means of our kindly donations to the government in the form of income taxes. The FAA receives funding from tax revenues thus the "user" costs are spread amongst the many and not the few.

[Oogle]

Sasless

Right on brother!

But why stop at the UK. Most of Europe is like that (at least the parts I have flown in).

:ok: