ACTION! N-Registered Aircraft in UK changes

[RVR800]

As a UK pilot I have become aware of some proposed changes to the regulation of private aircraft based in the UK that will restrict choice and impose a Euro-centric regulatory burden on pilots.

Some owners of aircraft choose to opt out the UK regulatory system by placing aircraft on foreign registers mainly the North American register.

The reason for the presence of these opted out aircraft in the UK is a manifestation of the failure of Europe regulatory bodies (CAA, JAA and EASA) bodies to provide an environment that aircraft owners prefer.

This is a matter of choice. Restriction of an individuals ability to choose should not be based upon the needs of the regulators, but on the needs of UK taxpayers and pilots. The forced re-flagging of these aircraft that currently operate legally in accordance with international law is typical of a Europe that seeks to localise its own rule set for no good reason other that for vested interest.

One possible reason for these pilots choosing to use an American registered aeroplane is that the pilots use American ratings like the FAA Instrument Rating. The equivalent UK Instrument rating would need to be completed by these pilots to continue to exercise these privileges. Unfortunately the equivalent JAA Instrument rating has been a failure in the UK indicated by its appalling take-up rate. This rating has only been granted to about 20 pilots per annum out of 60,000 UK private pilots since introduction. Many Europe pilots prefer the FAA system that works quite safely under instrument flight rules and is more popular with private pilots.

The proposals to force these aircraft onto the UK register by the CAA is an act of desperation in the light of evidence that many pilots are voting with their feet against a regulatory environment that is not working for them but for itself. Many pilots joke that the CAA acronym really stands for the ‘Campaign to Abolish Aviation’. If these proposals take effect that will cease to be a joke it will be a reality.

They should organise and implement international civil aviation law rather than those just restricted to Europe?

I encourage you to voice your concerns to

[email protected]

[IO540]

This stuff is being widely debated all over the place, but as you mention it I think it's worth making just a few points as regards responses to it.

The DfT proposal is so poorly researched it's hard to know where to start taking it apart. However I feel that making the author look a complete fool will be counterproductive.

The DfT believe (I've spoken to them in the past, on largely unrelated matters) that people go N-reg to skimp on maintenance. It is of course possible, though IMHO less likely, that this is a position designed to facilitate the proposal...

It's vital to make the point that most people go N-reg for the FAA IR, and that there is little (usually NO) maintenance cost saving because of the limited options on where to get the work done in Europe. The CAA know this very well already (I've spoken to them too).

The DfT acknowledges there is no evidence of reduced safety of planes on foreign registries. This is one fine piece of honesty in the whole proposal.

The estimate of the economic cost of going back to G, £250k in the proposal for the whole UK fleet, might cover the cost of moving a single bizjet to G! The cost over the whole UK fleet is probably 100x more than their estimate.

The effects of the proposal on upmarket GA (turboprops and bizjets) will be much more financially severe than on the piston end and rest assured these people are busy doing their bit, through the additional avenues that are open to them.

[porridge]

And how is all the enforcement going to be policed and funded - surely not from the legitimate G-reg owners and CAA licensed pilots?!
If we don't have enough customs and immigration staff to address al the problems with smuggling and illegal immigration, how in God name can they even hope to staff this properly, let alone the cost to the public purse in unsuccessful prosecutions?
This has got to be a non-starter and I very much doubt it will be fairly and evenly applied on a EU-wide basis, which means owners will change the aircraft 'normal residency' to states who apply the rules to suit them (you all know who we mean there).
Making a more practical IR written exam available for GA pilots would be one good move, bringing back the class 3 medical another and finally ensuring that all corporate pilots are dual qualified both on licence and type!

[On the Spot]

The address for the consultation document is www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_039540.hcsp.

Are they really needing the additional revenue at the CAA from a few aircraft registrations and pilot ratings/licences or are they saying that the FAA registration results in a lower level of safety ?

The brief discussion for instance conveniently ignores the actual cost of obtaining a UK IR and instead mentions the £100 paperwork cost of adding it to your licence.

Why should aircraft from another JAA state be excluded as the same issues of non visibility exist - if that is really the issue

My money says they will force it through, against all logic, and drive yet another nail into the coffin of aviation.
:(

[IO540]

GA is already aware of this.

However, it's very important to spread the word among owners of turboprops and bizjets, especially those which face certification problems under EASA regs, and also among manufacturers of anything that might be affected (e.g. avionics).

A lot of these people are very much in the dark about this.

In France, a similar proposal got killed off through industry pressure.

[Yankee]

In Annex A of the draft it states that the cost of a C of A for a 2730kg plane comes out at £651. May be I'm missing something here but when I looked up on the CAA web site the application fee for the C of A on a AA5B 1024kg was £957 + VAT.
In the cost implications they haven't included the cost of obtaining the export C of A which you would require before putting in on the UK reg. which at the last count we have been quoted £2500.

[IO540]

The DfT proposal is a very poor piece of "research". Their cost estimates (of forcing every N back to G) are done along the lines of ... the cost of keeping a car is the cost of annual road tax, or the cost of keeping a dog is the cost of a dog licence. The person who wrote it didn't know much about aircraft.

The min cost of going back to G is about £5k, and that is probably with the easiest case.

More to the point, forcing N to G will strip the pilot of his European IFR privileges, the renewal of which for Europe (the full JAA IR) will cost say £10k and 1-2 years of study. This is a very poor safety argument!

[G-KEST]

Hello there,
Thought you might like to see my own response to the DfT consultation so here it is. If you think I have missed something do let me know by PM and I will send an addendum.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
:mad: :mad: :mad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :cool: :cool: :cool:
______________________________

Mr Pusey,

As requested by Duncan Nicholls I submit my personal response to the consultation.

I am a retired professional pilot with some 51 years as a pilot and 50 years as an airshow pilot. Nearly half the period of manned powered flight since 1903. My own involvement in General Aviation goes back another ten years to starting as a keen young aero modeller at the age of six. I have over 13,000 hours logged in a wide variety of, mainly, fixed wing light aircraft, gliders and balloons including over 9,000 hours as an instructor or examiner.

The introduction to your letter of consultation starts with the following -
"A significant proportion of private aircraft based in the UK by UK residents and companies are registered in other states."
The use of the word "significant" is emotive and just not correct. A small minority of such aircraft are based in the UK for private, sporting and recreational use. You may be correct if this is applied to corporate and business turbo props and jet aeroplanes along with turbine helicopters but not for light piston engined aircraft.

Frankly the "additional requirements for import" imposed by the CAA for decades has been the main factor in an owner deciding to keep a business or corporate aircraft on a foreign register. However the advent of EASA has eliminated all but a fraction of these, often unreasonable and arbitrary, impositions by an ever more desperate CAA as it fights a rearguard action to defend jobs for its employees in the face of the EASA takeover.

Coupled to the above is the fact that owners in the UK are subject to CAA charges not imposed by the FAA who are funded largely through a levy on airline ticket sales plus an aviation fuel tax. In addition the UK maintenance requirements are often vastly in excess of those required by the FAA on identical aircraft. These factors do bring huge financial disbenefits to owners of aircraft on the UK register.

Another factor, this time for the private pilot, is the virtual impossibility of qualifying for a UK instrument rating on his or her licence. Again the introduction of JAR-FCL has made it even more difficult, time consuming and expensive than the process was before. In the USA a "significant" number of PPL holders also have instrument ratings under the FAA system. A system identical to that which qualifies all the flight crew of US airlines operating into the major airports in the UK. A system that is demonstrably safe and fully compliant with ICAO Annexe 1 provisions.

There is no wonder that UK pilots vote with their feet in terms of getting a US licence and instrument rating. Having got it then it is not possible to use it in UK airspace unless flying an "N" registered aircraft. What a piece of bureaucratic bull***t....!!! There are those in the UK, among them CAA examiners from FCL6, who are convinced the FAA system of qualifying for an I/R is sub-standard. If so then you, in the DfT, should immediately ban any US air carrier from operating in UK airspace under IFR and into UK airports in less than VMC. I bet that would upset the "special relationship" between the UK and the USA so beloved of those in the corridors of power on both sides of the Atlantic.

For some 14 years from 1984 to 1998 I was employed by the CAA as a flight standards officer in what became the General Aviation Department. For the last 12 years I was Head of the Section tasked with the operational regulation and oversight of private, sporting and recreational general aviation in all its aspects in the UK and, for UK registered aircraft, no matter where in the world they might be operating.

One of our tasks was the resolution of Occurrence Reports where we attempted to get the pilots side of the story in cases where no legal action was being contemplated. Indeed our attempts to investigate by writing to the owner virtually negated any chance of a successful prosecution even if there had been a breach of aviation law. Our role was to ensure that the causal factors giving rise to the occurrence were known by the pilot and thus unlikely to occur again. An educational role for us, backed up by FCL action in extreme cases. For UK registered aircraft it was easy to write initially to the owner however this was virtually impossible in the case of foreign registered aircraft. To get any response from foreign national aviation authorities was often well nigh impossible and when coupled to the system of US "trust" ownership it was ten times worse. Not a situation to be acceptable to one charged with responsibility for operational safety in general aviation within UK airspace.

Indeed I was told by the FAA that the only responsibility in terms of operational oversight for "N" registered aircraft outside the 50 states of the USA was solely for air carriers. My own response to this was to comment that they were in breach of their obligations as signatories to the Chicago convention giving rise to the formation of ICAO. A somewhat apologetic reply was to the effect that the FAA resources were limited so they could only deal with what they perceived as being the headline area. I had to reluctantly agree with their solution to a dilemma. But I did not like it.

A similar difficulty was encountered when attempting to deal with the Russian Federation Aircraft Register and NAA's in other former socialist bloc countries.

These problems could be solved if only the states involved met their obligations implicit in their membership of ICAO.

To summarise, I am opposed to your proposals to require aircraft permanently based in the UK to be on the UK register. This until the anomalies in relative costs and ease of obtaining qualifications are resolved. With regard to the problems I have outlined on the difficulty in contacting owners and pilots of foreign registered aircraft then it is your responsibility, as the responsible government department, to pressurise other national governments to meet their obligations under ICAO.

[IO540]

Doesn't the CAA have a database of all aircraft over 2000kg that ever fly IFR? They should have, since they invoice them for en route charges.

It's easy enough to discover/contact the owner of an N-reg plane. You write to the trust company. They will pass on the communication, and all those I have spoken to will reveal his identity anyway to anyone in authority (e.g. the CAA, or to some airport claiming unpaid parking charges). Then the trust company bills the beneficial owner a nice amount of dealing with the correspondence :O

[G-KEST]

IO-540,

I acknowledge your current appreciation of the "N" bird scene and especially the situation on "trust" ownership and their willingness to pass on details of the owner(s).... at additional cost to them. I did, however, have enormous difficulty back in the period 1984 through to 1998 when working for the CAA, of that I do assure you.

It is not the CAA that bills owners for en-route charges. It is the Eurocontrol charges office in, I believe, Brussels. So the CAA does not, as far as I know, have access to any such data base as you describe.

To be perfectly honest it was not IFR aircraft generally that gave rise to Occurrence Reports. Those usually came from VFR operation.

Cheers,

Trapper 69

:suspect: :suspect: :suspect:

[slim_slag]

To get any response from foreign national aviation authorities was often well nigh impossible and when coupled to the system of US "trust" ownership it was ten times worse. Not a situation to be acceptable to one charged with responsibility for operational safety in general aviation within UK airspace.

Isn't this the basis of the dft argument that foreign aircraft should be brought under UK/European regulation? I also cannot see why the FAA should get stick. UK citizens resident in the UK don't pay into the US tax bucket which funds the FAA, The vast majority of N reg private operators based in the UK are freeloading on the backs of US taxpayers who are under increasing pressure themselves to justify a non user-fee based regulatory regime. The problem lies in the UK system, not the US one.

[G-KEST]

S_S,

You do have a valid point of view. However "freeloading" from the state is extremely common in the UK in terms of benefits to individuals who really do not deserve the handouts funded by general taxation in the UK. Some do and I do not begrudge them at all. Many do not and I detest them passionately.

I listened to Marion Blakey, the current FAA administrator, at Oshkosh during her "Meet the Administrator" forum along with perhaps a hundred others. She mentioned the the Aviation Trust Fund was running perilously low. This is what funds the FAA. It would seem that direct user charges payable by all including General Aviation are on the horizon in the USA. I have no doubt they will be resisted by such organisations as AOPA and the EAA on behalf of their membership but they are likely to come into being. If and when that happens then the UK owners of "N" birds will have to pay their whack to the Feds. Thus no accusations of "freeloading" would apply or be justified.

I do wonder as to the relative efficiency of our CAA compared with the FAA in terms of cost/benefit. We might see quite soon.

Cheers,

Trapper 69

:{ :{ :{ :cool: :cool: :cool: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[IO540]

SS

There is a significant chunk of the world that regards itself as intellectually and morally superior to the USA (Europe) yet is very happy to freeload on the back of the USA on security. How much has the USA spent on defence, and doing various dirty work (most of it necessary) around the world, since the commies took over in 1946?

Even with the Iron Curtain down, the hypocrisy continues. The USA doesn't seem to mind; somebody has to do it and a relative absence of anarchy is in their national interest anyway.

The DfT is indeed making its case on the basis of lack of regulatory oversight, but that bit isn't hard to fix. The data can either be easily provided (let's face it, the whole airport and every plane spotter within 100 miles have seen your plane parked there) or it is already known. The plane spotters have most of it well documented, right down to airframe serial numbers :O

The real issue behind this is good old traditional European protectionism. Flying schools have been lobbying for domestic business since day 1. That (and the European intellectual superiority :O ) is why the FAA IR cannot be used in a Euro-reg aircraft for IFR in CAS. If EASA accepted FAA certification, and accepted the FAA IR (for noncommercial use as a concession) most of the N business would go away. Running a plane under N is hassle, hassle and more hassle. Relative to Private CofA G, there are almost no advantages for the small aircraft owner.

On certification, EASA have pushed the CAA into a purely paper passing-on role (no more AANs) and are gradually accepting FAA certification but it is the STC HOLDER (not you the owner) who has to apply for it. Most American firms can't be bothered to do the paperwork for this, especially for a less than common aircraft type. So it isn't a lot of progress, unless there is a big commercial drive behind something (like e.g. SR22 certification).

On the FAA IR acceptance, the chance of Euro protectionism going away is IMHO nil.

EASA will take over FCL from the CAA anyway, very soon. All that the CAA/DfT will be able to control after that will be odds and ends e.g. the right to park a plane in the UK, and the colour temperature of fluorescent lighting in the room used to sit the JAA exams :O

[slim_slag]

Whether there is sufficient cash in the aviation trust fund to pay for FAA operations depends on the political agenda of the person you are talking to. Less than 100% of FAA funding comes from the trust fund, the rest from the general US tax bucket, the figure can be changed by the politicians depending on their agenda of the day. However you look at it, the FAA doesn't get a penny of the tax paid on AVGAS sold in the UK, so having a go at the FAA for failing to fulfil their international obligations seems a bit rich to me.

I'd take out all the stuff about not being able to get the owners address (which is strange as the database is available from the FAA, probably for free, and is all over the Internet) and the stuff telling the FAA what to do. It's a losing argument IMO, and plays into what the dft want to do and makes them appear quite reasonable. Concentrate on the massive cost increase to UK taxpayers. I'd also work on getting the IMC recognised by other JAA countries. I don't know too much about it, but it appears to me that if, for instance, a UK permit aircraft (non ICAO?) can be accepted by France, there must be a mechanism to accept a non ICAO pilots licence too. I also take it back that the UK CAA are the problem, it's the JAA/EASA or whatever they call themselves now.

[IO540]

One could also say that the FAA spends very little money overseeing its foreign fleet, so the drain on the US funds is minimal.

For example, an FAA (standalone) PPL lasts for life, whereas the CAA (JAA) one has to be renewed every 5 years and somebody has to pay for all that paper pushing which serves absolutely no purpose at all except job creation.

Same with CAA CofAs; a lot of paper pushing every 3 years.

Yet, there is no difference in safety records between CAA/EASA and FAA registered aircraft. The FAA system demonstrates that one can achieve the same high level of safety with a lot less regulation.

There is no prospect of JAA recognition of the IMCR. All JAA member states would have to support it, and there is zero chance of that. Also, the IMCR fits in well with the UK airspace model where you can fly IFR anywhere, on a DIY basis. Outside the UK, IFR requires a full IFR flight plan and clearance, and the argument is that the IMCR doesn't cover the skills for all of that (which I think is true).

If the CAA amended the ANO to no longer limit the IFR privileges of the IMCR to UK airspace, and if e.g. France decided to recognise it, that would work in France, but again there appears to be no chance of that, for the above reasons.

I don't know what will happen. A few years from now, EASA will take over everything anyway and will be doing its own thing.

Pluses:

Some control over local job creation schemes (like the CAA)

EASA will require consensus so it will be hard to do something really stupid like the present DfT proposal

Any one member state with a "favourable attitude" towards certification will enable the item to be fitted to any EASA aircraft

Minuses

Many U.S. STC holders won't ever bother to apply for certification, whereas the CAA would have given you, the owner, an AAN on the basis of an STC under the now-defunct FAA-CAA treaty

Due to the need for universal consensus, any member will be able to block really progressive measures like FAA IR recognition/conversion.

The last one above is what's needed to address the move to N.

[slim_slag]

IO540,

I'm sure the FAA doesn't spend much money compared to it's total budget, but the suggestion made is that it should spend more in order to oversee airplanes/pilots who contribute zero cash to the regulator's income stream. The last thing GA in the US needs is some smarmy politician saying a load of foreigners are getting a free ride and we need to introduce user fees. I accept the rest of your post but it's something the Europeans need to sort out amongst themselves, best solution would be for Europe to just become another FAA region or three.

[IO540]

Yes, I suppose a politician can build a platform out of just about anything, and shaft a section of the society in the process.

However, that doesn't appear to be the immediate threat. The immediate threat is the DfT (no doubt the CAA, being the official consultant to the Govt on aviation matters, is behind this one, being squeezed by EASA on cost control, and looking for extra income) and then EASA will be next but that won't be for a few years (consensus takes time).

In GA, there is always something to worry about. Your airfield will probably get sold to some house builder before foreign reg planes get comprehensively kicked out ... one has to deal with one threat at a time and enjoy flying in the meantime.

[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!

[valenii]

Our Flying group have now finalised our responses.

We have a Letter (http://www.cirrus147.com/dft-ffa/MP_Letter_DFT.doc) for ANYONE to send to their MPs

And we have our actual response (http://www.cirrus147.com/dft-ffa/FreeFlight_DFT_Consultation_Response1.6.pdf) online.

Please send an MP letter of your own (you can use ours if you like with your name and address included), and take ideas from our response if needed in your own.

I think MP letters may have more effect on the result than arguing with the DfT!

Ian

http://www.cirrus147.com/d_f_t_propose.htm

[AngloPepper]

One thing has always confused me about these N-reg aircraft in the UK. I have to submit a form to the FAA every 6 months verifying that more than 60% of my flying has been conducted within the US. Failure to do so can result in registration cancellation. How do UK operated aircraft get around that?

[Fuji Abound]

Whilst I agree with your campaign and I also agree with writing to your MP I cannot agree with the emphasis you place on IFR operations being safer than VFR operations.

I think this creates a very misleading impression with people who are less well informed about avaition matters and suggests that the vast majority of pilots who operate VFR are dangerous.

Moreover I think your assertions are dangerously wrong - I am not aware of any evidence to support your argument.

As an instrument rated pilot I believe the point that should be made is to operate in Europe for business which by definition requires running to a reasonable schedule then a pilot can only operate safely with an instrument rating - quite a different matter.

[M14P]

Additionally, there are whole airlines happily operating on foreign registers in the UK.

Ryanair, for example, merrily claims that its main base is Dublin. Eire is JAA so despite it's slightly flag-of-convenience flavour it is perfenctly entitled to operate in the UK.

Air Atlanta - Icelandic. You'll see lots of supposedly British Airlines (like VAA) using Air Atlanta aircraft to operate in the UK.

Therefore, I find this whole N-reg thing barmy - the AOC costs from Ryanair alone would knock any financial gain out of the private stuff for six...

It's all rather strange - why not delve into the TF and EI register game to draw precedent?

[IO540]

AngloPepper

When I last looked into this, 2 years ago, I found out that the 60% (or whatever it is) requirement applies only to U.S. Corporations.

It does not apply to the more simple trusts where any U.S. Citizen can own the N-reg aircraft on behalf of a beneficial owner (called TRUSTOR in U.S. legal terminology).

Have you spoken to one of the N-reg trust experts on this?

[Say again s l o w l y]

M14P, why? because we in GA are easy targets unlike the likes of Ryanair.:mad:

[slim_slag]

I think that 60% rule allows a N-reg to be owned by a US company that is 100% owned by a non US entity. So a UK citizen could own a Delaware corporation that owned an N-reg, but that N-reg would have to have 60% of its flight time in the US. So not much use for the planes under threat.

[G-KEST]

With a slightly sardonic twist it occurs to me that if Tony Blair gets much further up George W's fundamental orifice then the UK will be considered the 51st state of the USA.......!!!! Thus the 60% minimum will be done in FAA regulated skies. Where then the DfT proposals?
Cheers,
Trapper 69
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: .......... and now a roll off the top..!!!