Pat Malone
19th Oct 2005, 17:24
Further to my post on Dave Unwin's CAA thread, here is the second part of that AOPA email to members, this one concerning the DfT's attack on foreign registered aircraft in the UK.
DFT Consultation on FRA permanently based in the UK.
What follows is a draft of AOPA’s response to the DfT consultation on foreign registered aircraft in the UK. As you will see, AOPA profoundly disagrees with the DfT’s proposals, which we believe to be misconceived, which will cost huge amounts of money and adversely affect safety.
Please base your reply on what AOPA is saying to the DfT. NOW is the time to ACT.
Your response should be sent by email to [email protected] or by post to:
Ray Pusey
IASD4 Aviation Directorate
Zone1/29
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DR
The AOPA draft begins:
In the opening paragraph the document says that, “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. Your views are sought on whether steps should be taken to ensure, so far as possible, that private aircraft based in the UK are subject to UK and any relevant European regulatory requirements and supervision by the UK Civil Aviation Authority”. However the department has no idea as to the actual numbers involved, yet from industry resources we have been able to get a fairly comprehensive breakdown of the numbers involved.
What is surprising is the notion that the DfT believes that this is a growing trend. How can you possibly make such comments in a public document when you clearly do not have all of the facts? This leads to another point in relation to the operation of these aircraft, where the DfT says “The majority of these aircraft appear to be operated mainly or exclusively for flights within the UK.” How can you possibly know? I suggest that you are basing your arguments on assumptions rather than fact.
The DfT document also refers to ICAO a number of times, spelling out the international obligations of States. There is nothing in the ICAO annexes that prevents an individual from owning and operating an aircraft which is registered in another state. However I believe that you are referring to safety oversight and what you are really saying is that there is a lack of safety oversight provided to FRA permanently based in the UK.
Whilst this may be the DfT’s perception, AOPA UK does not believe that this is true in reality. For example IACO article 12 Rules of the Air require States to ensure that its registered aircraft comply with its own regulations regardless of where they operate. ICAO does not provide any guidance or SARPS (standards & recommended practices) on the basing of FRA that are privately owned and operated. The only thing that we do know is that all aircraft, pilots and operators have to meet the ICAO standards. As pointed out in the consultation document States can and do go beyond ICAO. It seems illogical for a state to agree an ICAO SARP only to apply differences at national level. However AOPA UK understands that difference that States file with ICAO should not be permanent, which begs the question of why the UK has so many differences with ICAO standards? As the ICAO convention is treaty based then by any other name it is Law.
Safety.
By your own admission no significant safety issues have been noted. “While no significant safety issues have come to light in relation to aircraft registered on the US, Bermudan and Cayman Islands registers, the Department does not know what other registers are involved or the safety risks associated with those registers.”
This seems to suggest that there is no unacceptable risk attached to these registers or for that matter any aircraft registered where EASA now has responsibility for certification etc. The fact that the DfT does not know which other registers are involved seems like a crass statement and whilst the UK does not want to be saying publicly that the US standards are unacceptable or those of the Bermudan or Cayman Island (where the UK has safety oversight) are unacceptable, the DfT seems to be saying that for those unknown registers (approximately 60 aircraft) we the DfT propose to introduce a draconian law that will have a major impact on the whole of UK General Aviation.
The DfT paper assumes that safety will be improved just by forcing people to move off the November register and onto the UK register. Unfortunately there is little evidence to support this assumption. In the main UK pilots choose the November option because they want to fly safely and the US Instrument Rating allows an affordable as well as a practicable route to IFR flying, unlike the JAA system. AOPA UK warned both the DfT & the CAA back in October 1999 prior to the adoption of JAR FCL that for multi engine operations & for PPL IR’s more people would opt out over the over burdensome and expensive JAR FCL proposals. It appears that private and corporate aircraft based in the UK have been placed on foreign registers to take advantage of what are perceived to be less onerous regulatory requirements. Perhaps the DfT should revisit the Cabinet Office guidance on “Better Regulation” and try and understand what those documents say. In short though they say over-regulation leads to those who are affected seeking ways to achieve their goals a in a different way. What you are proposing is not in line with the guidance from the Cabinet Office and it seems that you want to cover the mistakes of JAR FCL by preventing pilots from using a regulatory regime different to those of the UK. What you should be doing is asking why our citizens see an operational or economic advantage to operating (privately) an aircraft on another state’s register. Nor is there any demonstrable evidence that points to the UK systems being substantially better than those of the FAA, for example. Perhaps the DfT would be better off examining the difference & the associated costs that drive some people to opt for a system, which is at least as safe as the UK and may in fact be safer. What an irony it would be if you were forcing aircraft onto a less-safe register for reasons of bureaucratic accountability. For aircraft which the DfT or its agent the CAA have real safety concerns over, then Article 120 of the ANO can be used to ground such an operator.
Costs.
On the subject of costs we find that DfT ‘s assumptions to be totally inaccurate, which is not surprising given the overall poor quality of the paper. I do not propose to go into great detail other than to say that one of my members Dr Ian Harnett, an economist, has sent you a detailed breakdown of the sums involved. The DfT-assumed sum of £0.25 million does not take into account the real costs to owner or operators which according to our own research is estimated to be in the order of £30 million. This figure does not take into account the potential impact of jobs throughout the GA industry or the impact of possible negative equity in respect of some aircraft.
“This consultation has been produced in accordance with the principles of the Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation which are included at Annex B. We have not included a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) as there is little evidence that this policy will have an impact on the aviation industry. If such an impact is identified as a result of this consultation an RIA will be prepared.”
AOPA UK believes that there is enough evidence to support the need for a RIA. Furthermore this proposal could lead to the introduction of new legislation, and there is therefore an existing requirement for a RIA as well as a small business impact test and competitive analysis. AOPA requests that you produce the required supporting material.
There is another cost hidden in this proposal, which may not be easily identified. This is the impact of potentially fewer GA operations in the UK. Given that the CAA is trying to increase its charges to industry, all of these proposal are having an impact on our industry because of the level of uncertainty. Our members are having to plan for new equipment to be installed in their aircraft, and at the same time they are considering whether it’s all worth it, given all the challenges. We are beginning to see owner sell their aircraft ahead of a change in the market that reduce the value of their assets. It is unforgivable that the DfT would create such instability at this time – you would not dare to do this to the airlines.
However we also believe that those existing operators have grandfather rights under EU legislation and we will be seeking clarification of this from the Commission.
What is surprising is that the UK in support of EASA is not seeking a Europe-wide solution to the perceived problems with FRA. For example, should the French or German States continue to permit FRA to be based in their States? How would you police the 90 day rule? And what would happen to an aircraft that had stayed for 90 days and then wanted to overfly the UK from say France to Ireland?
In response to the views sought AOPA’s comments are as follows:
i) Should the owners of aircraft based in the UK be able to opt out the UK regulatory system by placing aircraft on foreign registers?
ANS: ICAO does not prohibit such practice
ii) Are the estimates of the number of foreign registered aircraft based in the UK reasonable?
Answer: The estimated figures were a shot in the dark because if you really tried you could have obtained the figures as we did. What do you mean by reasonable?
iii) If it is decided to bring foreign registered aircraft based in the UK into the UK regulatory system, is the proposed amendment of the Order the most appropriate method of doing so?
ANS: No – we would like to see the actual legal wording to be used in the ANO.
iv) If the Order is amended as proposed, would a 90-day limit be appropriate?
ANS: No. We do not support this
v) What additional costs would fall on the owner of aircraft affected by the proposed amendment to the Order?
ANS: This question highlights again the fact that the DfT has no idea of the real costs or issues involved. If you do a RIA you will discover what those costs are. For some the costs will be in the tens of thousands, whilst for larger aircraft / turbines the costs could be in the hundreds of thousands.
vi) Who, other than aircraft owners, might be affected by the proposed amendment to the Order?
ANS: Engineers and insurance companies.
vii) If the Order were amended, what would be a reasonable transition period to allow aircraft owners to move their aircraft to the UK register?
ANS: AOPA sees little value in amending the ANO and would strongly suggest that EASA incorporates this issue into its work plan. We also believe that grandfather rights exist. We believe that any transition would need to be as long as possible.
viii) Are there any aircraft that would be affected by the proposed amendment to the Order which would not easily be able to move to the UK register (eg because they are not type certified in Europe)?
ANS: Yes, the Eclipse, the Diamond Jet to name two. There are other associated problems. The former chairman of the CAA Sir Malcolm Fields moved his corporate jet onto the N register in order to avoid an unnecessary and expensive CAA-mandated modification that would have reduced its value in the international market. There are many more such instances.
AOPA believes that there is no need to rush through a change that could have a serious impact on UK GA. As the JAA is about to cease its operations it would seem logical for EASA to look at the questions surrounding the issues raised in the consultation document. We know that the Agency is already planning to revise a lot of JAR FCL as the Head of EASA understands the impact that system has had on European GA.
Please send a copy of your response to [email protected]
DFT Consultation on FRA permanently based in the UK.
What follows is a draft of AOPA’s response to the DfT consultation on foreign registered aircraft in the UK. As you will see, AOPA profoundly disagrees with the DfT’s proposals, which we believe to be misconceived, which will cost huge amounts of money and adversely affect safety.
Please base your reply on what AOPA is saying to the DfT. NOW is the time to ACT.
Your response should be sent by email to [email protected] or by post to:
Ray Pusey
IASD4 Aviation Directorate
Zone1/29
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DR
The AOPA draft begins:
In the opening paragraph the document says that, “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. Your views are sought on whether steps should be taken to ensure, so far as possible, that private aircraft based in the UK are subject to UK and any relevant European regulatory requirements and supervision by the UK Civil Aviation Authority”. However the department has no idea as to the actual numbers involved, yet from industry resources we have been able to get a fairly comprehensive breakdown of the numbers involved.
What is surprising is the notion that the DfT believes that this is a growing trend. How can you possibly make such comments in a public document when you clearly do not have all of the facts? This leads to another point in relation to the operation of these aircraft, where the DfT says “The majority of these aircraft appear to be operated mainly or exclusively for flights within the UK.” How can you possibly know? I suggest that you are basing your arguments on assumptions rather than fact.
The DfT document also refers to ICAO a number of times, spelling out the international obligations of States. There is nothing in the ICAO annexes that prevents an individual from owning and operating an aircraft which is registered in another state. However I believe that you are referring to safety oversight and what you are really saying is that there is a lack of safety oversight provided to FRA permanently based in the UK.
Whilst this may be the DfT’s perception, AOPA UK does not believe that this is true in reality. For example IACO article 12 Rules of the Air require States to ensure that its registered aircraft comply with its own regulations regardless of where they operate. ICAO does not provide any guidance or SARPS (standards & recommended practices) on the basing of FRA that are privately owned and operated. The only thing that we do know is that all aircraft, pilots and operators have to meet the ICAO standards. As pointed out in the consultation document States can and do go beyond ICAO. It seems illogical for a state to agree an ICAO SARP only to apply differences at national level. However AOPA UK understands that difference that States file with ICAO should not be permanent, which begs the question of why the UK has so many differences with ICAO standards? As the ICAO convention is treaty based then by any other name it is Law.
Safety.
By your own admission no significant safety issues have been noted. “While no significant safety issues have come to light in relation to aircraft registered on the US, Bermudan and Cayman Islands registers, the Department does not know what other registers are involved or the safety risks associated with those registers.”
This seems to suggest that there is no unacceptable risk attached to these registers or for that matter any aircraft registered where EASA now has responsibility for certification etc. The fact that the DfT does not know which other registers are involved seems like a crass statement and whilst the UK does not want to be saying publicly that the US standards are unacceptable or those of the Bermudan or Cayman Island (where the UK has safety oversight) are unacceptable, the DfT seems to be saying that for those unknown registers (approximately 60 aircraft) we the DfT propose to introduce a draconian law that will have a major impact on the whole of UK General Aviation.
The DfT paper assumes that safety will be improved just by forcing people to move off the November register and onto the UK register. Unfortunately there is little evidence to support this assumption. In the main UK pilots choose the November option because they want to fly safely and the US Instrument Rating allows an affordable as well as a practicable route to IFR flying, unlike the JAA system. AOPA UK warned both the DfT & the CAA back in October 1999 prior to the adoption of JAR FCL that for multi engine operations & for PPL IR’s more people would opt out over the over burdensome and expensive JAR FCL proposals. It appears that private and corporate aircraft based in the UK have been placed on foreign registers to take advantage of what are perceived to be less onerous regulatory requirements. Perhaps the DfT should revisit the Cabinet Office guidance on “Better Regulation” and try and understand what those documents say. In short though they say over-regulation leads to those who are affected seeking ways to achieve their goals a in a different way. What you are proposing is not in line with the guidance from the Cabinet Office and it seems that you want to cover the mistakes of JAR FCL by preventing pilots from using a regulatory regime different to those of the UK. What you should be doing is asking why our citizens see an operational or economic advantage to operating (privately) an aircraft on another state’s register. Nor is there any demonstrable evidence that points to the UK systems being substantially better than those of the FAA, for example. Perhaps the DfT would be better off examining the difference & the associated costs that drive some people to opt for a system, which is at least as safe as the UK and may in fact be safer. What an irony it would be if you were forcing aircraft onto a less-safe register for reasons of bureaucratic accountability. For aircraft which the DfT or its agent the CAA have real safety concerns over, then Article 120 of the ANO can be used to ground such an operator.
Costs.
On the subject of costs we find that DfT ‘s assumptions to be totally inaccurate, which is not surprising given the overall poor quality of the paper. I do not propose to go into great detail other than to say that one of my members Dr Ian Harnett, an economist, has sent you a detailed breakdown of the sums involved. The DfT-assumed sum of £0.25 million does not take into account the real costs to owner or operators which according to our own research is estimated to be in the order of £30 million. This figure does not take into account the potential impact of jobs throughout the GA industry or the impact of possible negative equity in respect of some aircraft.
“This consultation has been produced in accordance with the principles of the Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation which are included at Annex B. We have not included a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) as there is little evidence that this policy will have an impact on the aviation industry. If such an impact is identified as a result of this consultation an RIA will be prepared.”
AOPA UK believes that there is enough evidence to support the need for a RIA. Furthermore this proposal could lead to the introduction of new legislation, and there is therefore an existing requirement for a RIA as well as a small business impact test and competitive analysis. AOPA requests that you produce the required supporting material.
There is another cost hidden in this proposal, which may not be easily identified. This is the impact of potentially fewer GA operations in the UK. Given that the CAA is trying to increase its charges to industry, all of these proposal are having an impact on our industry because of the level of uncertainty. Our members are having to plan for new equipment to be installed in their aircraft, and at the same time they are considering whether it’s all worth it, given all the challenges. We are beginning to see owner sell their aircraft ahead of a change in the market that reduce the value of their assets. It is unforgivable that the DfT would create such instability at this time – you would not dare to do this to the airlines.
However we also believe that those existing operators have grandfather rights under EU legislation and we will be seeking clarification of this from the Commission.
What is surprising is that the UK in support of EASA is not seeking a Europe-wide solution to the perceived problems with FRA. For example, should the French or German States continue to permit FRA to be based in their States? How would you police the 90 day rule? And what would happen to an aircraft that had stayed for 90 days and then wanted to overfly the UK from say France to Ireland?
In response to the views sought AOPA’s comments are as follows:
i) Should the owners of aircraft based in the UK be able to opt out the UK regulatory system by placing aircraft on foreign registers?
ANS: ICAO does not prohibit such practice
ii) Are the estimates of the number of foreign registered aircraft based in the UK reasonable?
Answer: The estimated figures were a shot in the dark because if you really tried you could have obtained the figures as we did. What do you mean by reasonable?
iii) If it is decided to bring foreign registered aircraft based in the UK into the UK regulatory system, is the proposed amendment of the Order the most appropriate method of doing so?
ANS: No – we would like to see the actual legal wording to be used in the ANO.
iv) If the Order is amended as proposed, would a 90-day limit be appropriate?
ANS: No. We do not support this
v) What additional costs would fall on the owner of aircraft affected by the proposed amendment to the Order?
ANS: This question highlights again the fact that the DfT has no idea of the real costs or issues involved. If you do a RIA you will discover what those costs are. For some the costs will be in the tens of thousands, whilst for larger aircraft / turbines the costs could be in the hundreds of thousands.
vi) Who, other than aircraft owners, might be affected by the proposed amendment to the Order?
ANS: Engineers and insurance companies.
vii) If the Order were amended, what would be a reasonable transition period to allow aircraft owners to move their aircraft to the UK register?
ANS: AOPA sees little value in amending the ANO and would strongly suggest that EASA incorporates this issue into its work plan. We also believe that grandfather rights exist. We believe that any transition would need to be as long as possible.
viii) Are there any aircraft that would be affected by the proposed amendment to the Order which would not easily be able to move to the UK register (eg because they are not type certified in Europe)?
ANS: Yes, the Eclipse, the Diamond Jet to name two. There are other associated problems. The former chairman of the CAA Sir Malcolm Fields moved his corporate jet onto the N register in order to avoid an unnecessary and expensive CAA-mandated modification that would have reduced its value in the international market. There are many more such instances.
AOPA believes that there is no need to rush through a change that could have a serious impact on UK GA. As the JAA is about to cease its operations it would seem logical for EASA to look at the questions surrounding the issues raised in the consultation document. We know that the Agency is already planning to revise a lot of JAR FCL as the Head of EASA understands the impact that system has had on European GA.
Please send a copy of your response to [email protected]