IoM/Channel Isles business aircraft..

[MungoP]

Anyone have experience of operating IoM or Channel Isles registered business aircraft in Europe ? My current contract is coming to an end and I'd like to return to the UK.. my UK licence expired some years back while working around the world.. now only using my FAA ATP which I can convert to IoM or similar.. I've not seen any vacancies advertised in recent years for pilots for IoM/Channel Isles reg business aircraft..maybe I've not been searching the right places.. any advice appreciated..
MungoP

[PURPLE PITOT]

Take a look at the IOM website regarding non EASA licences and the overflight of EASA airspace.

Sorry to say you might be looking at an expensive conversion if you want to operate in europe.

[Journey Man]

Majority of biz jets in Jersey/Guernsey are G- registered.

[Steak&Kidney_Pie]

MungoP,

Jobs are generally NOT advertised through country of registration. It soon becomes entertaining when you are taken on to fly an M-reg, to find out it's now G-reg because the owner is going to charter it out. (And perhaps gain some tax advantages:ok:)

If you are EU based however, as of April 2015, you will need a current EASA licence to go with your FAA one flying an N-reg based in the EU. However the Channel Islands are non-EU! (Ideal if based there)

Word of mouth is probably best job wise, which may be a little unhelpful to you. CI jobs don't appear very frequently.

There are a selection of registrations within the CI, of which a max of 50% are G-reg, because they are chartered out!

Best of luck.

SKP

[CEQforever]

Guernsey (2-....) and Jersey (ZJ-...) will both have their own registries going forward.

2-REG (http://www.2-reg.com/)
Jersey Aircraft Registry (http://www.jar.je/)

[deefer dog]

If you are EU based however, as of April 2015, you will need a current EASA licence to go with your FAA one flying an N-reg based in the EU.


EU 216/2008, the reference I presume Steak and Kidney Pie alludes to, certainly does not refer to the residence of the pilot, or even where [B]he or she[B] is "based." The legislative text is very clear and makes reference to the residence of the OPERATOR. The word "base" does not feature in the text of the legislation.

Also, you cannot "convert" your FAA license to an IOM one. IOM do not issue licenses, they merely validate ICAO licenses.

[MungoP]

Many thanks for that...
I certainly don't wish to undertake the european licence.. the UK version was enough of a pain 30 yrs ago..still smarting from that experience ! Maybe I'll just go quietly into the night flying an Aeronca Chief around the countryside for pure pleasure :>)
Thanks again.. MungoP

[cskafan123]

If you are EU based however, as of April 2015, you will need a current EASA licence to go with your FAA one flying an N-reg based in the EU. However the Channel Islands are non-EU! (Ideal if based there)



Same for the Switzerland. In our company we operate several M-registered aircraft,and most of the pilots fly with FAA Licenses. So far no one has been put into the process of getting an EASA license, but maybe its because the company is registered in Switzerland.
I'd be eager to see how the Swiss will solve this issue.

Last year EASA prolonged the new implementation for April,2015. Rumor has it they will just keep delaying this procedure.

I guess we all going to find out pretty soon.

[deefer dog]

Mungo, your FAA license is an ICAO licence so you can fly M reg using it - once the IOM validate it. (Approx 120 quid and two days). No need to retire just yet! Good luck.

[moonym20]

Just going into bat here.
From the CAA FCL point of view they would appear very adamant that come April 8th 2015 the regulation will come into force. According to EU law it will be mandatory for any aircrew flying any aircraft who's operator is based within the EU to hold a Part-FCL licence as well as their "third-country" licence. At the moment there is no scope for this to budge, be delayed or altered in anyway. It is what it is.

you need to apply for a validation or conversion from the NAA of the country in which you reside. In the case of the UK you have to dance with the CAA.

Should you not be in possession of a validation issued your NAA, besides turning into a pumpkin you're also grounded if your operator is EU based on April 8th 2015.

Adding to the above, the guys and girls at Pilot Validation are starting to get busy again... If you want your validation issued in time, don't leave it too late in the hope there's changes.

Unless someone else has more update information or is in touch with someone 'in the know' that really is the outlook according to the CAA at this present moment in time.

Good luck to everyone who this affects.

[deefer dog]

I can only assume that the CAA have not actually read the legislation. As I stated previously the word BASE does not even appear in the wording of 216/2008, which, after all is said and done, is the legislative text.

The UK CAA have, and will continue, to form opinions. They are entitled to do so, but the test comes IF they decide to prosecute. They rarely do this if there is any doubt that they will secure a prosecution. The IOM have already stated in writing on their web site that they believe otherwise. So do I.

The regulation 216/2008 (referred to as the basic regulation) seems to me to be VERY clear in it's wording. Even a CAA employee could understand it - if he or she wanted to. The fact is that they no longer make the rules.

There are other threads here that explain the detail of 216/2008 if you care to read.

[deefer dog]

And another thought....

So all UPS and FedEx crews BASED in Europe, but employed by an American OPERATOR, will, according to the CAA's logic, need to get EASA licenses? What about American Airlines, Cathay Pacific and tens of other non European Airlines that have crews BASED in Europe.....will they now also need to re train their crews?

Get real.

[moonym20]

You may be missing the point slightly.

For the time being the regulators don't care where a crew lives, where they are based or who they pay their taxes to.

What they do care about is the location of the operator who they work for.

The case of UPS, Fedex, AA etc, these operators are the other side if the Atlantic, their pay checks come from the other side of the Atlantic. It's irrelevant.

However, if you fly a CJ or even a King Air on a non EU reg and the operator is based within the EU and you fly within European Airspace. Then you face a problem.

[PURPLE PITOT]

And yes, we all think it is a stupid idea from EASA. Surprised the FAA have not retaliated in some way.

[MungoP]

Thanks Deefer dog.. there may be hope yet..The very thought of dealing with the UK CAA still raises the hair on the back of my head.. My understanding is that an IoM validation relates to a specific operator/tail number so I'll need to find a position before putting this to the test.. which brings me back to my original query.. where to find a web-site likely to be listing vacancies for M reg or CI reg a/c.. My usual haunt is Climbto350 but I can't ever remember seeing an ad in there.. but then it's mostly US based..
Again everyone.. thanks for that..
MungoP

[Private jet]

Downloadable list's here;
Isle of Man Aircraft Register - Registered Aircraft - Isle of Man Government DED (http://www.gov.im/ded/Aircraft/aboutus/registeredaircraft.xml)

[deefer dog]

[QUOTE][moonym20

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: someplace between FAF & MAPt
Posts: 92
You may be missing the point slightly.

For the time being the regulators don't care where a crew lives, where they are based or who they pay their taxes to.

What they do care about is the location of the operator who they work for.

The case of UPS, Fedex, AA etc, these operators are the other side if the Atlantic, their pay checks come from the other side of the Atlantic. It's irrelevant.

However, if you fly a CJ or even a King Air on a non EU reg and the operator is based within the EU and you fly within European Airspace. Then you face a problem.
/QUOTE]


With respect your post is a little muddled. You start by stating that the regulators care about the location of the operator which is almost correct. (The legislation actually refers to the residence of the operator). However, you then go on to state in your last paragraph that the base matters.

Sorry, but the base of an aircraft matters not one jot. I have pointed out twice already that the word base (or indeed location) is not a word included in the legislative text. Change the word base for residence of the operator and we are in agreement with each other.

FedEx, AA, UPS etc do operate in Europe. They use FAA licensed pilots to fly N reg airplanes and these pilots may indeed be resident in Europe, and legally so because the OPERATOR is resident outside of the EU. It is the residence of the operator that matters. The residence of the crew, or indeed the base of the aircraft, for the purpose of EU 216/2008, is of absolutely zero significance.*


Please read the text of the legislation. If the UK CAA tell you otherwise get them to state their position in writing.

*Subsequent legislation, not related to crew licensing, is addressing the base of the aircraft but this is a different matter entirely.



Back to the OP's question. Private Jets post is a good source of info. Also, you are correct...to obtain a validation a tail number and letter of request from the operator is required so you will need a job offer first.

[clivewatson]

The thing is the M register is becoming less attractive for private operators at the present time

Can you be more specific? I have not noticed anything that makes them less attractive than say Guernsey.

[HyFlyer]

The thing is the M register is becoming less attractive for private operators at the present time, I'm not sure if there has been a change in management but the risk for someone in your position is that the operator flips over to the G reg and all of a sudden you find yourself not being able to fly the aircraft.

There is a new head of the registry in IoM, but not any change of attitude or professionalism. Have you heard of anybody flipping in the way you suggest (tail #'s please). What I have seen is an every increasing number of M registrations and a bunch of happy clients.

This is the most developed, most accepted and most efficient registry currently..and with a host of advantages over an EU registration as long as you are not seeking to charter the aircraft.

[clivewatson]

I agree 100% with HiFlyer.

Windypops, could it not be the case that the operators you make note of did not actually understand the requirements in the first place? For those who may not, feel free to call the team in Douglas - they won't make you feel like an idiot, or try to bust you for what you may have misunderstood - they are there to help.

Yes there has been a change at the top. Hartley Elder has left the registry, and Brian Johnson has taken up the post of Director of Civil Aviation; both of whom are in the top of any league.

I doubt very much that any register could compete with the M in terms of customer service, a common sense approach and a practical understanding of the difficulties that operators potentially face from time to time. If you have a question or request these guys are there to help - no need to kiss arse and bend over - if you play by their rules (which are simple, straight forward and very well explained) they will help solve any problem or operational issue and you can be assured that they are not out to get you. These guys make it easy to comply!

This is a register that is expanding (third most popular private register in the World) not one in decline. Anyone operating an aircraft for private purposes in Europe who does not register on the M must be deranged!

[silverknapper]

Windypops

I'll have to call you on that too. Interesting to see you name tail numbers you categorically know switched to the G registry due to admin issues with the Manx registry. You can PM them if you like.

A quick glance through shows any de registered aircraft generally went overseas. Bermuda and US being the favourites. Then there's the ones which were placed on the registry during a change of ownership. Of the ones which transferred to the UK the majority seem to be light piston aircraft. Which makes sense given the rules on sub 5700kg aircraft.

Anyone who feels the Manx authority is difficult to deal with must be approaching them in the wrong way. Almost 750 aircraft can't be wrong. And try dealing with the UK CAA:ugh:

[deefer dog]

Windy,

The IOM publish their rules and regs on their web site. Everything can be downloaded. If operators don't know how to read plain ICAO English they have only themselves to blame.

Every operator irrespective of which flag they fly on needs to keep abreast of the regs as they change. IOM make them easy to read, and easy to find.

You cannot say that about EASA as is evidenced by 28 countries not being on the same page when it comes to a COMMON set of rules!

What do your "unhappy" operators expect? Personalised letters to each absolving them all from their regulatory responsibilities?

[BizJetJock]

Of course you can expect more changes as they come into line with the latest ICAO requirements. In the specific case of RNAV approaches the only reason the CAA have not brought in the requirement for G reg aircraft is that is is covered by the EASA Part-NCC rules that come into force (on the latest timetable revision) in 2016.
As for notifying all operators of changes, I think in most peoples' book publicising it on their website meets that definition. It is not the regulator's job to go and hold the hand of everyone who wants to play with aeroplanes. Part of the job of the manager of a flight department is exactly to read through changes in regulations, or make sure somebody does. If you want to play with the big boys, you need to expect to do some work...:eek:

[BizJetJock]

I think you have unintentionally hit the nail on the head. Far too many flight departments have no-one managing them properly. It doesn't need to be a separate person, one of the pilots or in some cases an engineer can do it. But if it's not done then you get sloppy and often unintentionally illegal operations usually because the pilots think that all there is to operating aeroplanes is flying.
It is precisely because of this that the bureaucrats have seen fit to bring in lots of new requirements to try and make people sit up and do things properly. Note that this applies equally to many small airlines and most charter companies, not just corporate flight departments. Unfortunately, all this achieves is more work for people doing things properly while rarely stopping the cowboys.

[deefer dog]

Windy, did your authority send you a personalized letter recently.....maybe along the lines of;

Dear Windy, Just a reminder to let you know that Part NCC is on its way, so you'll soon need to get busy. Give us a call if you have any questions old boy and our knowledgeable staff here at the Belgrano will be pleased to assist in figuring out all of the anomalies and contradictions. Just in case you don't receive our letter we'll give you a call anyway...we know you are probably too busy flying too keep abreast of the sh1t that EASA keeps sending our way.

Happy landings Windy, from the UK CAA.

Well did they?

And, in respect of the IOM, they have been banging on for more than two years about changes to the ANO. There were even drafts available on their web site that I used when adding an aircraft to the register so that everything would be in compliance when the rules change.

[moonym20]

Is anyone able to validate the rumors about the mandate to gain a Part-FCL validation has been pushed back to 2018? (other rumors suggest 2016). If so, then great... but WTF to EASA and the CAA who are/were adamant no further delay will take place....


:ugh:

[cskafan123]

Sorry Gents, for the off topic:
If a M-registered airplane is scheduled to departs from Hong Kong to LA which regulations apply for selecting alternate airport? Isle of Man ANO doesn't say much.

[noneya]

Depends on your country of operation that you operating the IoM aircraft under. Are you regulated under FAA, rules, CAA, etc.... They will be the same as the country you operate under.

[deefer dog]

Depends on your country of operation that you operating the IoM aircraft under. Are you regulated under FAA, rules, CAA, etc.... They will be the same as the country you operate under.

What do you mean by "country of operation" or "regulated by" when we are talking about an IOM registered aircraft? Could you expand on your answer, or were you just guessing? :=

[NuName]

You have to consider the regs for the country of registration and the airspace you are flying in and adopt the most restrictive.

[noneya]

DD,

I was not guessing... I operate 2 IoM Aircraft and we (because we are a USA operator) fall under FAA rules for Flight (i.e. how to select an alternate for flight planing purposes) along with IoM.

So if you are a Europen operator you would fall under EASA rules of Flight...

Does this make better since to you?

[Beaver100]

That is completely wrong



DD,

I was not guessing... I operate 2 IoM Aircraft and we (because we are a USA operator) fall under FAA rules for Flight (i.e. how to select an alternate for flight planing purposes) along with IoM.

So if you are a Europen operator you would fall under EASA rules of Flight...

Does this make better since to you?

[dallas]

The IOM are looking to amend their ANO to incorporate ICAO Annex 6, which requires better regulation of GA through use of ops manuals, SMS, FRMS etc. If you are operating on the M- an amended ops manual should satisfy authorities outside of the EU, however if '[the OPRs] principle place of business' is within the EU then EASA have directed that they must - irrespective of registration - operate to the conditions of Air Operations Part-NCC, which are regarded as more prescriptive than the core ICAO Annex.

Where this is a little controversial is EASA are prescribing operating procedures to aircraft registered outside of their jurisdiction, and there is some discussion as to the legal basis. I am assuming (as I know little about FCL) that EASA has used the same bully boy tactics for licensing.

If anyone wants a steer on the rules, please PM

[noneya]

Beaver,

Maybe you care to enlighten me as to how I am wrong.

Being that I operate 2 M reg aircraft as well as 2 N reg. Both of which we bought new and I went through conformity with the IoM and the manufacturer. As well have an IS-BAO approved SMS manual..

[deefer dog]

Dallas, IoM have already published their amended ANO and you can download it directly from their web site. IoM registered aircraft have always been operated iaw Annex 6 Pt 2 ops anyway. The latest ANO is nothing to get alarmed about and all quite straightforward.

Noneya might well operate two IoM registered aircraft, as indeed do many of us. I too have been operating their aircraft since 2007 and have been an NATR since then (no big deal, hundred of pilots get approved for this, as well as a/c managers), but I have never heard of "going through conformity" with them, unless he means he checked that the aircraft spec would meet the IoM equipment requirements, or he completed the registration and CofA applications.

In respect of cskafan123's question I'm afraid the given answer is not entirely correct, and is rather misleading. Take fuel requirements as a good example. An IoM registered aircraft when departing on an IFR flight from a USA airport is most certainly NOT required to plan using NBAA or FAR IFR reserves. IAW the IoM ANO Part 8 the commander is however required to;

(carry, ensure that) sufficient fuel, oil and engine coolant (if required) are carried for the intended flight, and that a safe margin has been allowed for contingencies;




There is no specific mention of departure alternates in the ANO, but Part 8 nevertheless covers just about every eventuality under the title pre-flight actions of the commander, and these are the rules that must be followed wherever the IoM registered aircraft flies.

In respect of State rules though Noneya is again partly correct. In USA for example 200 kts is the speed limit below Class B airspace, and when operating in the US any IoM registered aircraft must comply with this limit, even though in Europe we don't have to fly at such a leisurely pace in such circumstances. He is of course incorrect to imply that a USA operator of an IOM registered aircraft must limit himself to the 200 knots when flying in European airspace because he is subject to US regulations. The U.S. operator of an IOM registered aircraft, when flying in Europe can fly at any speeds that EU regulations and ATC clear him to, even if it MUCH faster than FAR's permit.

[Beaver100]

Well said Deefer !!!

Also, the IOM isn't part of the EU. EASA are on extremely thin ice !!!



Dallas, IoM have already published their amended ANO and you can download it directly from their web site. IoM registered aircraft have always been operated iaw Annex 6 Pt 2 ops anyway. The latest ANO is nothing to get alarmed about and all quite straightforward.

Noneya might well operate two IoM registered aircraft, as indeed do many of us. I too have been operating their aircraft since 2007 and have been an NATR since then (no big deal, hundred of pilots get approved for this, as well as a/c managers), but I have never heard of "going through conformity" with them, unless he means he checked that the aircraft spec would meet the IoM equipment requirements, or he completed the registration and CofA applications.

In respect of cskafan123's question I'm afraid the given answer is not entirely correct, and is rather misleading. Take fuel requirements as a good example. An IoM registered aircraft when departing on an IFR flight from a USA airport is most certainly NOT required to plan using NBAA or FAR IFR reserves. IAW the IoM ANO Part 8 the commander is however required to;

(carry, ensure that) sufficient fuel, oil and engine coolant (if required) are carried for the intended flight, and that a safe margin has been allowed for contingencies;




There is no specific mention of departure alternates in the ANO, but Part 8 nevertheless covers just about every eventuality under the title pre-flight actions of the commander, and these are the rules that must be followed wherever the IoM registered aircraft flies.

In respect of State rules though Noneya is again partly correct. In USA for example 200 kts is the speed limit below Class B airspace, and when operating in the US any IoM registered aircraft must comply with this limit, even though in Europe we don't have to fly at such a leisurely pace in such circumstances. He is of course incorrect to imply that a USA operator of an IOM registered aircraft must limit himself to the 200 knots when flying in European airspace because he is subject to US regulations. The U.S. operator of an IOM registered aircraft, when flying in Europe can fly at any speeds that EU regulations and ATC clear him to, even if it MUCH faster than FAR's permit.