Isle Of Man registry - Flight Duty Times

[skibeagle]

As it seems that all ICAO states will have implemented Flight Duty Time limitations for private operators by the end of next year, can anyone tell me what standards the IOM will likely adopt ? There is a rumour in a large Swiss based management company that it will be CAA regulations, but personally I can't see them being more restrictive than Bermudan/Cayman ANOTO 2007 regs.

Any information would be appreciated, as would the name of anyone in the Isle of Man whom I could contact for more definitive info.

Thanks in advance.

Skibeagle

[silverknapper]

Aircraft Registry - Isle of Man Government DTI (http://www.gov.im/dti/Aircraft/)

Took 1 second on google.

[Daifly]

I have heard that the Isle of Man have stated they are not going to comply with all the requirements of ANO(OT) shortly?

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Why dont you just ring and ask - small team.... if they dont know they'll just tell you.

[JB007]

The ICAO requirement for operators of Corporate aircraft above 5,700kgs to have a Fatigue management programme becomes applicable from 18 November 2010. The IOM will have to amend their regulations before that date to be ICAO compliant. To date they have not declared how they will meet the requirement, but since all their operators are private their scheme will probably be relevant to corporate operations rather than commercial air transport

[merlinxx]

Local/National association such as BBGA/EBAA/NBAA etc or IBAC dct:ugh:

[skibeagle]

Thanks for the smart @rse comments, and the helpful ones from JB007. I am familiar with the ICAO website, IOM website etc etc, I was merely asking if anyone had any information as to what they were intending. When I am available to call the IOM during office hours I shall make the call. Some of us are rather busy trying to keep their respective show's on the road. And as for you merlinxx, what on earth would the NBAA know about proposed Isle of Man Fatigue Management and SMS systems exactly ? It seems I owe you an apology for annoying you with my apparent stupidity or lazyness as your headbanging emoticon implies. ;)

By the way, does anyone know of any Falcon 900 EASy freelance Bermuda validated pilots that may be available from a London base in the first half of next year ? And yes, I know it perhaps warrants a separate post.

[Hawker 800]

Just bumping this thread due to a debate on another part of pprune.

Anyone have a definitive answer as to whether IOM private operators are going to be FTL limited next year? Part NCC seems to only apply to EASA/EU states for which the IOM is not for aviation purposes, even according to our wonderful UK CAA.

It initially looks like there are many loopholes, such as basing an operators shelf company outside of Europe, etc. Not according to one of the below links from AIN.

This is an interesting read.

http://www.applebyglobal.com/publication-pdf-versions/articles/articles-2015/new-icao-regulations---april-2015---brian-johnson.pdf

As is this...

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-08-06/isle-man-feels-established-bizav-registry-choice


Philippe Renz, with Geneva-based law firm Meyer Avocats, advised operators to be ready to comply with the new EU rules on non-commercial complex aircraft (Part NCC). “The EU is trying to push [safety management requirements of] non-commercial operators closer to those of commercial operators. [It] will add Camo, operations manual, SMS,” he explained. Although the Isle of Man is not part of the EU (it is part of the British Isles but not part of the UK), the island tends to observe EASA requirements. The key point, said Renz, is the importance of “knowing who is the operator…An empty shell [company] cannot be considered to be the operator…so it could be the pilot or aeroclub.” He gave the example of Volkswagen, which has nine aircraft; the company is the owner, manager and operator, so NCC rules will apply.
A panel of business aviation executives, moderated by Mark Manton of the Aircraft Registry, discussed key issues. Paul Norton, managing director of Harrods Aviation; Andrea Meier-Züllig of Jet Aviation; and Russ Allchorne, v-p of flight operations at TAG Aviation Europe, weighed in on the most important issues facing operators in Europe, other than NCC.
Allchorne said that “the industry is crying out for a set of FTLs [flight time limits] that actually understands business aviation”–but the conversation soon returned to NCC, with Norton noting that the new stricter regulation will have consequences. For example “[Using] private landing sites will be a major headache.” AOC holders already find themselves unable to justify the use of such sites.
The conference then focused on another current issue: U.S. owner trusts for N-registered aircraft belonging to non-U.S. citizens. Kevin Austin, aviation attorney with Aero Law Group of Bellevue, Wash., said, “The U.S. became concerned in 2010 and started to work on identifying who was operating U.S. [N-registered] aircraft.” The FAA is working to “examine all trust agreements and the operating agreements,” with U.S. trustees now responsible for providing additional information. He noted that money laundering is a big problem “with aircraft, cars, boats.”


EU AIR OPS & Part NCC
Qjet believes that the EU has no legal grounds for enforcing Part NCC compliance on non-EASA registered aircraft. The new kid on the block as far as ICAO Annex 6 Part II compliance is concerned, is trying to teach the others how it should be done, it is not their place to do so.
"EU /EASA member states are also ICAO member states which means they agree to comply with the same standards, in this case Annex 6 Part II (audited compliant). How then could the EU (which is not yet a full member) legally enforce additional legislation/standards on already compliant states?"
The deadline for Part NCC compliance for Operators of EASA and non-EASA registered aircraft, with their principle place of business in the EU or an EASA member state, is August 2016. Please refer to the articles below for further information.

http://www.qjet.aero/en/news/

http://www.fly-corporate.com/new-eu-part-ncc-revolution-riddled-uncertainty/

http://www.fly-corporate.com/part-ncc-easa-for-a-global-solution/

[Above The Clouds]

Hawker 800
Looks like a drive to have all bizjets placed under management with all of these new regs.



That is how its being regulated, at the moment nearly all bizjets are operated under a management company, eventually all will be operated under a management company, its the company that then has to implement an FTL scheme in accordance with the link I showed earlier.

[Hawker 800]

eventually all will be operated under a management company

I can agree with you on many points, but not the above although I will concede that appears to be what the regulators want.

None of the private aircraft I crew are managed. It is something that the crews can do themselves to save owners money. Of course, some crews want the easy life and wouldn't want the paperwork. Nothing wrong with that, were all pilots before pen pushers.

You just have to look at some of the management (so called) professional companies out there... :ugh:

[Hawker 800]

But that quote is from another thread, not this one!

[dallas]

Part NCC seems to only apply to EASA/EU states for which the IOM is not for aviation purposes, even according to our wonderful UK CAA.
That's correct Hawker, but Part-NCC is only the EU's response to ICAO Annext 6 Part 2, which instructs all operators over 5600kg worldwide to introduce higher standards; OM, fatigue monitoring, SMS etc

Word is EASA have overdone it a bit, versus their required minimum compliance to the ICAO Annex, and IOM - who are indeed not part of EASA - are adopting an intentionally very helpful approach by producing their own template OM very soon. Each OPR can then tweak and submit and it will meet Annex 6 requirements, albeit they have said it may also require an additional annex for individual national requirements as, of course, different countries interpret EASA AMC and GM differently :)

The grey area - as per your link - is what is EASA's mandate to legislate over non-EASA registered aircraft just because they reside within the EU?
The first SAFA ramp check August 2016 will be exciting :ooh:

[LRdriver III]

Yep, alot of management companies are a joke.. They look great on the surface but fear of losing an aircraft contract means they threaten/force/tell pilots to bust any rules required to keep the petulant owner happy.

Nothing will change..mark my words.

[deefer dog]

The grey area - as per your link - is what is EASA's mandate to legislate over non-EASA registered aircraft just because they reside within the EU?
The first SAFA ramp check August 2016 will be exciting :ooh:I'm sorry, but which bit of the following EASA legeslative text
‘Principal place of business’ means the head office or registered office of the organisation within which the principal financial functions and operational control of the activities referred to in this Regulation are exercised.


appears grey to you. That is the definition included and if anyone here doubts that please let me know where in the legislation the phrases "aircraft base" or "where the aircraft resides" is mentioned. Both are absent.

However, I can imagine the overweight, pipe smoking Swiss SAFA inspector (the one with halitosis, and a chip on both shoulders who often polices Samedan) asking for proof of operator's residence. It will be my pleasure to remind him that such a document is not required to be carried on the aircraft, before I ask him to let me on my way!

[dallas]

I'm sorry, but which bit of the following EASA legeslative text...appears grey to you.
I get the parameters they've set; I say grey because EASA has no mandate to legislate over non-EU operators, yet they've stated they can!

[Hawker 800]

‘Principal place of business’ means the head office or registered office of the organisation within which the principal financial functions and operational control of the activities referred to in this Regulation are exercised.


That would surely be difficult to prove in a court of law. A European owned VP reg, N reg or M reg BizJet's owner could easily start a non European affiliate shelf company and operate the aircraft (paperwork wise) from that non-EU base?

I know of several 'foreign' UK based aircraft that have done just that. Mind you, I also know of several Americans crewing a UK based Global (M reg), a Canadian crew on a European based Gulfstream and a few South Africans flying various equipment. All on a rotation basis without EASA licences as far as I know. I wonder if the Americans would be so inviting for me to pack up and get a rotational job out of Florida now...

[Global_Global]

That would surely be difficult to prove in a court of law. A European owned VP reg, N reg or M reg BizJet's owner could easily start a non European affiliate shelf company and operate the aircraft (paperwork wise) from that non-EU base?

How would you see that? Base the shelf company in Panama and base the aircraft there just to get around some FTL's? Try to explain that one to the owner... :\

The wording you quoted is clearly written to ensure a shelf company is worthless for that purpose....:ooh:

[Hawker 800]

Global Global,

I'm sure that you are aware that many private aircraft are just that. Take a 'retired' millionaire for example. No current financial income perhaps. How would that argument work then? Principle place of residence? Don't think so. Many jet owners have several so perhaps owners tax base? Not sure that would be legally enforceable either.

No, not base an aircraft in Panama for that reason, don't be absurd. Shelf company, perhaps. Hence the question mark after my question. I'm asking!

The wording you quoted is clearly written to ensure a shelf company is worthless for that purpose....:ooh:

I am aware that it states principle place of business, but what about the genuinely private cases? There are so many variables in this, and no doubt a good lawyer teamed with a good accountant could tear holes in this one.

I am aware of numerous management pilots perhaps erroneously setting up shelf companies to avoid EASA licencing and the rest. For what it's worth I believe that a European national pilot should hold an EASA licence if working in Europe. A bit of job protectionism would be nice for a change here in Europe. You just have to look at the number of Americans 'based' in Switzerland but flying everywhere in Europe for Swiss management companies. Don't suppose it will affect them, not being EU. Can we do the same? No.

[Global_Global]

It is simple: if you as a private individual have a VP, N or M reg as a Monaco (tax) based resident and use a BVI company as "owner" and "operator" but the aircraft spends most of it's days in LFMN and has you as main pax you are an eu based principal... Yes it will be something that some of these people will take EASA to court for but the majority prefer to stay under the radar and will comply... :8

Again I dont see the issue as it will give more management pilots the power to say NO to overbearing owners... :ok:

[Beaver100]

That's the same as saying that European based FedEx crews flying European based N reg aircraft with US licences (or any other crews with third country licences) would need EASA licences. Surely illegal for EASA to demand this, if so what about reciprocity and the FAA, Transport Canada etc demanding all pilots flying into their airspace having an FAA, Canadian etc license.
How about Aircraft manufacturers and their support pilots ? They sell a plane to Europe and can no longer offer a support pilot as they need an EASA licence ?

[Global_Global]

Ehh the first 2 letters of NCC spell out why it does not apply to Fedex and the like... :}

[Global_Global]

And looking at the other points you mention in your post Beaver may I suggest you read the rules first.... :cool:

[Beaver100]

Ehh the first 2 letters of NCC spell out why it does not apply to Fedex and the like... :}

And therein lies the defence to all of this. Tell me why it doesn't ? If Operator is based outside of Europe whether Non Commercial or Commercial then what is the basis for the law ? Certainly not safety then. Also, anyone who is directly affected should it be enforced has a very good case in the European Court of human rights for starters as they are deemed to be "directly affected" by the law. That could run into many years lost salary claimed by many people

[Global_Global]

Ehh thanks for answering: you have no clue.. :rolleyes:

The definition of an operator is your answer. If your definition of an operator is a mailbox in the BVI then you are right: the rules are pathetic. :ouch:

Easa disagrees with you and feels that the main beneficiary and base of the aircraft defines what rules should apply and guess what: I agree. Now the way the rules are implemented and the rules itself needs extra work and time but the idea that if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and sounds like a duck means that it is a duck is hard to disagree with... :8

Also who will loose salary? With proper FTL's more pilots will be needed not less so again no clue what you are smoking... :hmm:

[Beaver100]

Sorry, but I feel that you haven't read the regs. You are absolutely incorrect if you think FTL's are going to be changed. The new regs have nothing to do with FTL's for private ops. I haven't been smoking anything, and I would politely suggest that you be careful with such wording on a public forum. Read my post again and do some research. Your posting is very wrong.

[Global_Global]

Yep I have no idea what I am talking about... Our private aircraft has been given the verbal ok last month that we will get the letter of confirmation when applicable although the NAA that we are talking to has opted out for now but has looked through all we did and is happy. The only issue we had to address were two airports that we had to write a special procedure for and an OM. We already had an FTL so that box is ticked and we have "real" postholders borrowed from the AOC of the management company.

If you have the basic AOC like manuals and the people at the NAA your aircraft is based at know who to call as person responsible there is no major issue. I can imagine the fear a lot of one man bands have and rightly so as they will have to change the way their work drastically. I used to self manage and thought I knew all until we moved to a proper company with a real SMS system, training, CAMO, etc. The extra cost is a token for somebody who can buy a $50M aircraft for private use and hopefully this will kill the cowboys out there :E

[Beaver100]

Your SMS and Ops Manual mean nothing to most aircraft management companies, as do your FTL's. Some of the worst management companies operate in Europe, and flagrantly and regularly threaten loss of job to the pilots who do not break FTL's and other rules. FTL's do not figure in the equation of these new rules

[Global_Global]

So what are you saying than? No rules because people are breaking them? Not trying to improve safety because people are being pressured??? That is exactly the rational behind NCC in the first place.:D

Good luck beaver in your ongoing "everything is bad attitude" because I am happy to work for an owner who cares (and pays!) and with a management company that is doing a good job. Too bad your glass is half empty and I wish you well in finding a proper company but wondering how long you will survive with your very positive attitude to rules, changes and the rest of the industry :rolleyes:

[Beaver100]

So what are you saying than? No rules because people are breaking them? Not trying to improve safety because people are being pressured??? That is exactly the rational behind NCC in the first place.:D

Good luck beaver in your ongoing "everything is bad attitude" because I am happy to work for an owner who cares (and pays!) and with a management company that is doing a good job. Too bad your glass is half empty and I wish you well in finding a proper company but wondering how long you will survive with your very positive attitude to rules, changes and the rest of the industry :rolleyes:

And that's exactly why NCC won't work. No oversight of most of the management companies who break FTL's etc. It's just how the industry currently is, AOC ops breaking rules, threatening crews with their jobs to break FTL's etc all of the time. These AOC companies have been doing it for years and were supposed to be the ones who were closely regulated. Are they ? No, so why try to start applying AOC style Ops manuals, SMS etc into private ops ? I am not disputing your point with FTL's I think it's a good idea, but simply put it won't happen in most private ops because it's unlikely to be a mandatory change.

I'm glad you are happy with your lot with your nice manuals, but that doesn't mean that everyone else needs the same level of beaurocracy when things work perfectly safely and well as they are.

You do become very personal and fly off the handle quite easily don't you ?

[Private jet]

And that's exactly why NCC won't work. No oversight of most of the management companies who break FTL's etc. It's just how the industry currently is, AOC ops breaking rules, threatening crews with their jobs to break FTL's etc all of the time. These AOC companies have been doing it for years and were supposed to be the ones who were closely regulated. Are they ? No, so why try to start applying AOC style Ops manuals, SMS etc into private ops ? I am not disputing your point with FTL's I think it's a good idea, but simply put it won't happen in most private ops because it's unlikely to be a mandatory change.

I'm glad you are happy with your lot with your nice manuals, but that doesn't mean that everyone else needs the same level of beaurocracy when things work perfectly safely and well as they are.


Yes, bravo Beaver100.
There's an old adage, " The tighter you grasp, the more I will slip through your fingers..."
A concept that is totally incomprehensible to many core continental Europeans.....

[deefer dog]

Global Global;

Easa disagrees with you and feels that the main beneficiary and base of the aircraft defines what rules should apply and guess what: I agree.(my bold)

Sorry, but EASA may feel that, but the legislation does not even mention the word "base" or phrases "aircraft base," "beneficiary" or even "beneficial owner." Also if you care to read through it, the word "operator" is actually defined - and very precisely in my opinion.

All in all any operator of a non EU reg aircraft having a principle place of business (as defined in the legislative text) outside of EASAland can stick two fingers up to Part NCC. Of course if you like jumping through unnecessary hoops, and wasting costs filling in forms to impress those who have no right to supervise you, then you can fill yer boots.