N Reg; A Flag of Convenience?

[Mike Flynn]

I have started this new thread to pick up where the recent Alderney accident left off.

In my opinion there are many ‘grey charter’ and other ad hoc operators who must be looking at their methods of operations following the Sala accident.

It was unusual to see a UK owner flying a US registered aircraft when I started flying in 1981.

Over the intervening years N reg aircraft have popped up everywhere in Europe and it now appears to be a semi global flag of convenience. This is a term from shipping companies who chose nations such as Liberia and Monrovia to register their fleet to avoid regulators.

The owners of these aircraft are hidden behind trusts such as Southern Air Consultancy at Bungay in East Anglia which is little more than a brass plate office. By chance they operated out of a house just a few miles from my UK home until a couple of years ago. It now appears they have many N aircraft registered in the UK to this small Suffolk office.

Here in Asia it is forbidden to base a non local registered aircraft in the various countries for longer than a few months.

Recent events have focused on this use of N reg in Europe.

The argument is that the US register is much easier to operate an aircraft than the more stringent European equivalent.

Clearly the news in recent days suggests that maybe the operators of US registered aircraft need to address how they comply with the FAA regulations.

Will we start to see the CAA prosecutors addressing this grey area that undermines genuine AOC operators?

[Ebbie 2003]

The rules were made to make flying an elite activity.

The US on the other hand hzve rules that open up flying to the masses - I sm one of them - bought a plane in the US and operste it on the US register as I do not want to go to the time and expense of putting it on the local register.

Indeed the US reg makes it easy to operate.

There are two locally registered airplanes down here which were being switched back to the US register when the A&P IA died in odd circumstances, they went out of local annual and have to be re regustered locally for the switch to occur. A very expensive proposition due to the hangar in which they are located "does not meet standards for work to be carried out to local standards" - so spend a quarter of a million dollars on the hangar (which is a true hangar unlike the one here!) and you can then put the airplanes back to local annual and then switch them to US. Not a realistic proposition for airplanes once on US and in annual have a value at the upper end of a total of $75,000.

To this day over five years since they went out of local annual they sit in the hangar on a nearby island untouched.

That would not be the case had they remained on the US register.

The US has a very safe regulatory regime - the Sala incident would have been less dodgy with an EASA state registered airplane in the same circumstances, after all Wingy type arrangements are legitimate in EASAland (hands up all those who think the pilot of the Sala flight was going to be paying 50% of the cost if the flight!)

Foying US registered airplanes makes flying accessible, it is not a washed up third world convenience to cut corners, as possibly implied by the tennor of the original post. The reason why some locations say based here must be registered here has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the taxes, levies, duties and annual imposts which can be collected on locally registered airplanes once they have breached the bond status of the airport.

[Mike Flynn]

You make some valid points Ebbie but of course you are very close to the US mainland.

You also have the option of the Cayman Island register.

Fine if you have a corporate jet moving across continents.

Not so easy with a locally based 182 or Saratoga.

The point I am making is that Europe is a long way from the USA in terms of regulation.

We already have a lot of old former military helicopters and fixed wing ex Eastern European airframes exploiting the regulations.

[Sam Rutherford]

One of my planes is on the N register, mainly because it is more easily modified (changing windows, adding equipment etc.). Particularly the whole field approval procedure which has no easy equivalent in Europe.

I also 'use' my FAA certificate (commercially) much more than my EASA CPL - thus having that aligned is simpler.

I'm not sure that the FAA is less stringent on fundamental safety, if an owner wants to 'skip' bits of legislation he can do that under any registration.

Are you sure that the camera ship operation is illegal? Don't forget that aerial photography has some exemptions from the full 'commercial' requirements. I don't know what they are though - not something we do.

I object to being lumped in with the Sala crash - rather in the same way that the Airbnb murderer who has just been sentenced is always described as the 'Airbnb murderer'. Not sure Airbnb have done anything to deserve the link!

There was nothing more stopping Mr.Ibbotson (UK PPL) doing exactly the same flight in a G reg Malibu...The relevance of the aircraft registration is...?

And the guy who crashed with the twitchers was using a G reg...

[Mike Flynn]

I think the big difference is using an N reg for commercial use instead of private ops Sam.

Clearly if someone owns and operates an aircraft on the US register for private use that is far removed from leasing it for commercial third party operations.

I would suggest that aerial work and filming comes under the umbrella of commercial operation.

We both know someone who used a US registered aircraft for sponsored and commercial air to air filming.

[Sam Rutherford]

And how does the registration change any of this? G or N, both can be used illegally equally easily...

[Mike Flynn]

Agreed but in the UK there are very few ramp checks by FAA inspectors.

The CAA does not appear very proactive in checking what goes on in the field.

[Sam Rutherford]

Can I suggest that there are equally few G reg ramp checks in the UK by UK CAA inspectors?

[Jan Olieslagers]

The CAA does not appear very proactive in checking what goes on in the field. I cannot speak for the UK situation but my own administration have not shown a lot of activity either. And when they did, it was in ways little effective such as checking whether pilots carried the legally required set of spare spectacles/glasses. It seems much to ask these days for administrations - government or other - to work efficiently and effectively.

[Jetstream67]

If you don't intend to follow the rules anyway it doesn't matter a lot whose rules they are :ugh:

[md 600 driver]

Agreed but in the UK there are very few ramp checks by FAA inspectors.

The CAA does not appear very proactive in checking what goes on in the field.

in the uk the CAA will and do ramp check n reg aircraft and sometimes will carry out airframe inspections

ive never been ramp checked in a g reg but twice in a n reg at racecourses

[Mike Flynn]

The BBC Wales investigation makes interesting reading.
BBC Wales understands that the two jets used to fly various parties including Sala, his agent Meissa N'Diaye, Cardiff City manager Neil Warnock and club player liaison Callum Davies, Willie McKay and his son Mark on seven separate occasions in January did not fall under the AOC at the time.

Both planes were registered in America, which means they cannot be flown commercially in Europe without the express permission of US regulator, the Federal Aviation Authority, and the CAA.

The flights were listed on flight plans, as non-commercial.



It appears there are a lot of very charitable people flying their aircraft on a non commercial basis?

Here again is the list of flights in question.(No doubt just the tip of a very large iceberg.)
The flights:

5 December 2018 - Flight from Stapleford in Essex to Nantes - carrying Cardiff City manager Neil Warnock, assistant manager Kevin Blackwell, Willie McKay and Mark McKay to see Emiliano Sala play against Marseilles
6 December - party returns from Nantes to Cardiff. Both flights made on G-KARE, operated by Surrey-based Flexifly Aircraft Hire Ltd
8 January 2019 - Flight from Cardiff to Nantes - carrying Neil Warnock, Cardiff City player liaison Callum Davies, Willie and Mark McKay to meet Sala and his agent. They're flown back to Cardiff the same day. On N531EA, owned by Guernsey-based Channel Jets
14 January - Sala's agent, Meissa N'Diaye, flown from Paris to Nantes. N'Diaye and Sala are flown from Nantes to Cardiff to have a look around the Cardiff City Stadium, returning to Nantes the same day. Mr N'Diaye is then flown back to Paris. All flights made on N843TE - owned by Channel Jets
18 January - Sala flies from Nantes to Cardiff for a medical and to sign his contract with Cardiff City. Via Channel Jets in N531EA. Sala's agent Mr N'Diaye - who has travelled to Cardiff for the signing via a commercial flight - flown back to Paris by Lord George Porchester in his own aircraft, N14EF
19 January - Sala flown back to Nantes by David Ibbotson on N264DB to bid farewell to his Nantes team-mates and make personal arrangements. Mr Ibbotson books into a hotel to await the return leg of the journey - on 21 January - to deliver Sala back to Cardiff for his first training session
21 January - The flight leaves Nantes at 19:15 and disappears from radar around an hour into the journey.







Dave Edwards, chief executive of Baca, said: "We did our research into these flights, we've identified which aircraft they were and the routes they flew, and that gave us rise for significant concern.

"There's enough for us to feel that the authorities need to be looking very closely at this to make sure everyone is keeping the interests of the travelling public at the forefront of their minds."

Mr Edwards said Baca had been voicing concerns about "grey" and illegal charters to the CAA and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (Easa) for several years.



Looking at Malibu N14EF and flown by Lord George Porchester ‘Oggers’ posted this on the Sala thread.
I can find nothing for this George Herbert (Lord Porchester fellow DOB 13 Oct 92) on the FAA database. It seems likely we have another illegal flight as he would require an FAA licence to fly his N reg outside the UK. There is a George E Herbert but wrong DOB.

Lord Porchester stressed to the BBC he was just doing a favour to McKay.

As the plane is registered in the US, it cannot be flown commercially in Europe and Lord Porchester can only fly passengers in the EU on a cost-sharing basis, not for reward.

Lord Porchester has told BBC Wales he flew Mr N'Diaye as a "favour" for Willie McKay and did not receive any payment for the flight.

"I've got my own aircraft and I flew that flight," he said. "There was no financial arrangement at all with anyone, it was a private flight."

He added: "I've been pulled into this because I've done someone a favour."

[BEagle]

After the Malibu accident, it won't surprise me in the least if new restrictions are applied to 3rd country aircraft based in the UK.

For example, a time limit before they have to be transferred to the UK register. Also, once the BASA is in place, converting FAA licences to EASA licences should become rather simpler.

[A and C]

Any one who thinks the “N” plate is a flag of convenience is sadly mistaken, some parts of the American system are more flexible in terms of implementation but the emphasis is on those within the industry to comply rather than having the state regulator policing the rules closely ( and usualy inefficiently ).

Get caught breaching the FAA regulations and the American leagal system will show no mercy for those who think that just because the regulator is on the other side of the Atlantic they don’t care what you do .

[piperboy84]

The owners of these aircraft are hidden behind trusts such as Southern Air Consultancy at Bungay in East Anglia which is little more than a brass plate office.

Not all are.

Picking up on A and C,s point of the FAA’s willingness to apply the heavy hand of the law for those that flout their rules, IIRC their was a recent case of several ex US servicemen who had seen combat and were now civilian PPL holders, on their Airmen’s medical application they said they had no outstanding issues and at the same time ware applying for or receiving Federal benefits for claimed PTSD from the Veterans administration. They were indicted for BOTH making false benefit claims and also lying on their PPL medical application and are looking at serious jail time. The bottom line? the FAA have rules, flout then at your peril, they are no soft touch or laxed outfit regardless of where you are located.

[Mike Flynn]

After the Malibu accident, it won't surprise me in the least if new restrictions are applied to 3rd country aircraft based in the UK.

For example, a time limit before they have to be transferred to the UK register. Also, once the BASA is in place, converting FAA licences to EASA licences should become rather simpler.

I am inclined to think the same BEagle.

Clearly there are benefits from operating on the N register but these should be incorporated in to UK certification.(assuming we leave Europe)

UK GA tends to be over regulated in some areas but under regulated elsewhere.

We have this strange scenario where a foreign registered ex military aircraft or helicopter can be legally flown in the UK outside of CAA regulation.

[md 600 driver]

Mike flynn
you wrote
We have this strange scenario where a foreign registered ex military aircraft or helicopter can be legally flown in the UK outside of CAA regulation.

can you elaborate which ex military helicopters are you referring too ?

[Jonzarno]

Clearly there are benefits from operating on the N register but these should be incorporated in to UK certification.(assuming we leave Europe)


Just what we need: another layer of regulation....... :rolleyes:

[Mike Flynn]

Mike flynn
you wrote
We have this strange scenario where a foreign registered ex military aircraft or helicopter can be legally flown in the UK outside of CAA regulation.

can you elaborate which ex military helicopters are you referring too ?
Well I could start with this!

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-sud-aviation-se-313b-alouette-ii-ha-ppc

[flyingfemme]

Convenient? Very! Avoiding the ridiculous contortions and stupidities foisted on the aviation community by the ever-changing European regulatory systems must be a huge convenience. The changes from national regulators to JAA and then EASA have confused many and cost plenty for no good reason that I can see. The one great thing about dealing with the FAA is the certainty - they write everything down, there is rarely an "interpretation" and they are generally practical and pragmatic about the things they subject their "customers" to. Upgrades and improvements are cheaper to install and more plentiful, training concentrates on the useful stuff and maintaining one's licence is far simpler. The only actual cost savings are on pointless paperwork and involvement of people who do not need to be in the chain. "Hiding" behind trusts is not actually happening - the FAA know who is behind each one. The same sort of rules appear in most countries registration processes and companies or trusts are used to make things legal. try to register something in the UK if your are not an EU entity or passport holder....
Aerial work by N registered aircraft is allowed with permission from the CAA. Illegal flights are illegal flights, whatever the letters/numbers painted on the side and the Sala flight was a sad, preventable incident. More involvement by regulators, rather than pronouncements from on high, might help the community be safer all round. The confrontational stance does not help.

[Mike Flynn]

Just what we need: another layer of regulation....... :rolleyes:

I don’t think so Jon.

What we need is a more relaxed arrangement whereby minor mods acceptable in the US are applied to UK aircraft.

The LAA avenue needs to be opened up to a lot more UK GA.

The CAA appear to be in a mess at the moment.

I have a friend with a UK private licence but thousands of hours instructing in both fixed and floats in Canada over the last decade.

The CAA has wasted six months without telling him what he has to do to validate or achieve an instructor licence in the UK.

Transport Canada sent them all the info last October.

It appears the CAA no longer has pilots working for them.

[Jonzarno]

If what you are saying is that we should swap the existing regulatory framework FAA regs lock stock and barrel, then I agree.

As most people here know, the reason so many of us choose to fly N reg aircraft is because it is much easier, both from the point of view of licensing (especially for IR holders) and management of maintenance, with no sacrifice of safety.

[Mike Flynn]

I am saying that Jon.

When people start voting with their feet to take advantage of an easier regime it tells you something is wrong with the system.

What is needed in the UK is a stronger representation from the GA community.

[md 600 driver]

This aircraft was originally an ex uk military and was registered on the g reg with full public transport certificate of airworthiness and type certificate as all Alouette’s 11 were made as civil aircraft not military aircraft it was then put on a Hungarian EASA airworthiness which is aligned with the uk CAA to give full control of the aircraft flying in uk airspace

Well I could start with this!

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-sud-aviation-se-313b-alouette-ii-ha-ppc

[Mike Flynn]

Fair enough but it appears the Hungarian register is convenient for ex military helicopters.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422f928e5274a131700076d/Aerospatiale_SA.341G_Gazelle_HA-LFB_10-12.pdf

The bottom line on that accident for those who do not want to click on the link;

The helicopter in which controversial Honister Slate Mine owner Mark Weir died had a counterfeit maintenance certificate.

And an investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch following the fatal crash near the Lake District tourist attraction revealed Mr Weir was not qualified to fly at night.



Let me highlight this part of the report.

Investigators said: “The engine was overhauled by an unapproved repair facility in Serbia and issued with a counterfeit EASA [European Aviation Safety Agency] Form 1.

“A number of serious airworthiness issues were identified with the helicopter during the course of the investigation.

“None of these issues could be directly linked to the cause of the accident, but did raise concerns regarding the way the helicopter was operated.”

The AAIB said the complexity and severity of the issues found and the fact that they are common to a number of other fatal accident investigations conducted of foreign-registered aircraft in the UK warranted a separate safety study.

[Jan Olieslagers]

@md600d: you confused me quite about the Alouette 11 type. I could find no trace of such an aircraft, and suppose you mean the Alouette II ? Call it nitpicking if you will, I was entirely lost. You owe me one!

[Jonzarno]

I am saying that Jon.

When people start voting with their feet to take advantage of an easier regime it tells you something is wrong with the system.

What is needed in the UK is a stronger representation from the GA community.


In that case, my apologies: I misunderstood your earlier post! :ok:

[Proteus9]

Fair enough but it appears the Hungarian register is convenient for ex military helicopters.



Obviously this is a step away from the N reg and into other european Reg's. I know a little about the Quarry crash and would think that similar issues may have occured if he was on the G reg.

My aircraft is on the N reg and I find it to be excellent. It is definietly more convienent to be able to apply a wider range of STC's if need be, and generally seems a far better thought out system.

I do find it a bit annoying that it's somehow painted as some sort of disguise for questionable operations and operators.

Generally the N reg aircraft I see seem to be in far better condition than what I see on the G.

[Pilot DAR]

I've spent 35 years working within Transport Canada's airworthiness regulatory system, and by osmosis, the FAA system. With my less complete understanding of the UK CAA system. I can see that Transport Canada's system was initially inspired by a combination of our UK heritage, and a largely military origin. Over the recent decades, we in industry have been able to convince Transport Canada that many of the more burdensome military origin regulations were excessive, and did not improve safety, and they have been removed or dialed back.

It is apparent to me that the FAA system was more a product of the US government wanting to get as many citizens flying planes as possible after WW2. Thus, things were made reasonably easy, imposing regulations only where there was a clear need for them. From my UK heritage, it seemed more apparent that flying and airplane ownership in the UK was somewhat more reserved for a certain segment of society - who could afford a military type operation for their aircraft.

Due to ICAO privileges, ICAO compliant aircraft are generally welcomed in other nation's airspace, though must be operated to also respect their rules. I have flown Canadian registered aircraft in the US, Caribbean, Scandinavia and Europe, and always felt very welcomed. But, while outside Canada, I try to behave like a guest in airspace, rather than flying by entitlement, as I do in Canada. One of my planes is a Canadian "Owner Maintenance" aircraft, which though type certified, I have voluntarily removed from having a full C of A. As such, it is not accepted in any other nation, so may never leave Canada - it's okay, Canada has lots of room to fly, it does not need to leave!

In my opinion, an obvious decline in private GA ownership, and recreational flying will reduce any momentum to further ease the regulatory structure. Transport Canada staff have told me that they would welcome a regulatory change to greatly simplify the operation (mostly maintenance and modification) of light GA aircraft, but there is just not enough resource to dedicate to creating the regulatory change (which means that there are not enough taxpayers insisting that government time be spent on that). The regulatory structure to maintain a GA plane has eased toward less burdensome and found a "happy place", though modification is still overly burdensome.

For those people who can lobby their regulator for simpler regulation around GA aviation, excellent! But as the staff of the regulator naturally turns over by retirement and hiring, what is happening is that the new hires who are coming to regulate our aircraft are no longer the old, experienced, relaxed ex military people who apply their wisdom, and let things succeed, but rather, new university graduates of business, engineering, or administrative disciplines. They do not have the self confidence to just apply a light touch to a request for change, but will instead dive headlong into understanding every corner of it - if the boss allows the dedication of resource. And, you gotta know, that the Boeing 737 Max 8 goings on are going to intensify the trend toward more intensive review of everything, aircraft certification is not going to ease up for a while! If the regulator cannot afford the resource for the new, less industry experienced staff member to wholly understand, that person will be reluctant, and things will languish - as long as the citizen applicant tolerates it! Literally, a couple of my projects with Transport Canada have stopped, simply because my client died while waiting for a delayed project to advance through the system.

From my perspective, we in GA right now, best get used to working in whatever system we have. Yes, we may affect change, though by the time change is effective, it'll be for the next generation more than us!

[xrayalpha]

I do find it a bit annoying that it's somehow painted as some sort of disguise for questionable operations and operators.



Maybe you have it the wrong way round here. I am thinking that all men are humans, but not all human are men.

I can see the maintenance attractions of N-reg. Questionable operations and operators also need some sort of disguise!

My concern, in the light of Sata, is how the heck do I find out who the actual owner of an N-Reg aircraft is, should they be involved in some sort of incident at my airfield?

Don't think the Delaware trust will give a stuff!

[Mike Flynn]

In answer to your question xrayslpha the US register can be searched in the same way as the UK. It is only foreign based aircraft using a trust that hides the identity of the true owner.

I think for some operators the ability to hide behind a Delaware trust is more important than the cost saving on maintenance. A lot of high end private jet aircraft are actually owned by brass plate companies in places such as the Cayman Islands.

The rules for N registration are simple.




A person may not “N” Register an Aircraft on the FAA Registry in the United States unless the aircraft is (a) owned by a citizen of the US, including US “citizen corporations”; (b) owned a lawfully admitted permanent resident of the US; or, (c) owned by a non-citizen corporation when the corporation is organized under the laws of the US and the aircraft is based in, and primarily used in the US. See 49 U.S.C. 44102, 44103, and 14 CFR § 47.3 of the FAR. Essentially, any corporation which owns the Aircraft must be either a U.S. “citizen” corporation, or, if it is a foreign corporation, it has to qualify to do business in the US as well as use the aircraft primarily in the US.

In order to be considered a US citizen for FAA purposes, at least 2/3 of the Board of Directors and Officers must be citizens of the United States


The trusts get around this problem with a crafty bit of paperwork.



To qualify our non-citizen clients, the common stock shares are issued to a Voting Trustee who is also a US citizen. This Voting Trustee issues Certificates of Beneficial Stock Ownership to the actual non-citizen owner of the Delaware corporation. Once these conditions are met, the Delaware corporation is considered to be a “citizen” by the FAA, and the Aircraft is allowed to be registered on the U.S. Registry. (See 14 CFR §47.8 and related subsections of the FAR’s). Of course, to remain registered with the FAA, the Aircraft must also be maintained to the manufacturer’s and U.S. standards.

We assist our foreign clients by establishing a US citizen corporation or a trustee corporation to hold title to the aircraft on their behalf, thereby enabling the aircraft to be “N” Registered with the FAA. At the same time, our clients retain full operational control of the aircraft pursuant to executed and FAA recorded operating agreements. The trusts and corporate structures that we establish are all specifically approved by the FAA, and following the closing, our clients are free to fly worldwide.

[Jonzarno]

Maybe you have it the wrong way round here. I am thinking that all men are humans, but not all human are men.

I can see the maintenance attractions of N-reg. Questionable operations and operators also need some sort of disguise!

My concern, in the light of Sata, is how the heck do I find out who the actual owner of an N-Reg aircraft is, should they be involved in some sort of incident at my airfield?

Don't think the Delaware trust will give a stuff!

Actually very easily: the beneficial owners of these trusts are available to the authorities.

[custardpsc]

"Over the intervening years N reg aircraft have popped up everywhere in Europe and it now appears to be a semi global flag of convenience "

Or the choice of discerning pilots who chose to avoid the worst parts of EASA oversight and take advantage of the ease and pragmatism of the USA pilot certification process? Convenient? certainly. Flag of convenience - not so much. The safety standards are just as high, but the attitude to general aviation is somewhat more helpful. For a start , anyone on a N reg has avoided the UK CAA to JAR to EASA to Brexit unknown saga.

And what about those N reg aircraft that belong to US airlines ? also popping up on a regular basis.... So where is the difference?

[xrayalpha]

Thanks for the replies:

The original question was a flag of convenience, so I was assuming foreign-based/operating N-reg. Not American Airlines!

"Authorities" may well be able to find out the owners behind a trustee-N-reg, but what about airfield operators? Doubt that. Try pursuing a Delaware corporation for an unpaid fuel bill, landing fee or perhaps an insurance claim?

Ironically, if you wanted to hide you could do it much closer at home: try a Scottish limited partnership with an Cayman-style overseas company as one of the partners. (Alleged to be very popular wth Russian money-launderers!) .

So, yes, I agree that cost of maintenance is - in most cases - the main driver of foreign N-reg. But it also has a certain reputation!

ps. For disclosure: We actually own our airfield through a Scottish LP, but have dropped the (non-foreign!) limited company as a general partner!

[Mike Flynn]

Actually very easily: the beneficial owners of these trusts are available to the authorities.


Could you expand on that Jon?

[Jonzarno]

@ Mike Flynn

I can do so by three examples relating to my own aircraft which is on the N register and is registered under one of these trusts. As has been pointed out elsewhere, it is a requirement under US law that the aircraft be registered to a US entity and that is the only reason for this structure.

1. Shortly after my aircraft was ferry flown from the US to England, I received a letter to my home postal address from the Canadian Aviation Authority wanting payment of en route navigation charges.

2. A few months ago, I was involved in an airprox in Germany when a microlight pilot flew across the track of an ILS on which I was being vectored. Within a week, I had received an email to my personal email address from the German equivalent of the AAIB asking for my account of what happened and for copies of my relevant documents.

3. Depending on the routes in Europe that I fly, I occasionally receive invoices to my home address for navigation charges.

In all of these cases, the only possible source of this information is from my N number.

I hope this helps!

[ChickenHouse]

I seriously doubt N-registered aircraft flying abroad have increased in number. I rather suspect the effect is simply the other registrations genocide on Freedom and especially General Aviation. In my surrounding the N-regs were there for as long as I am flying and whoever had let trust-owned N-reg aircraft will always do again. No, the trust is solely a vehicule to adjust legally on foreign ownership and it does not protect any privacy, that is a myth.

[Mike Flynn]

@ Mike Flynn

I can do so by three examples relating to my own aircraft which is on the N register and is registered under one of these trusts. As has been pointed out elsewhere, it is a requirement under US law that the aircraft be registered to a US entity and that is the only reason for this structure.

1. Shortly after my aircraft was ferry flown from the US to England, I received a letter to my home postal address from the Canadian Aviation Authority wanting payment of en route navigation charges.

2. A few months ago, I was involved in an airprox in Germany when a microlight pilot flew across the track of an ILS on which I was being vectored. Within a week, I had received an email to my personal email address from the German equivalent of the AAIB asking for my account of what happened and for copies of my relevant documents.

3. Depending on the routes in Europe that I fly, I occasionally receive invoices to my home address for navigation charges.

In all of these cases, the only possible source of this information is from my N number.

I hope this helps!



I guess the answer is that pilots or the real owners can not hide behind the N trust address when it comes to air traffic services.

However their identity is hidden from public view.

I bought a PA32 in Ohio in 1989, flew it to Australia and later sold it on. It then went to the NZ register before crossing the Pacific again to end up in Arkansas.I can still track the ownership to this day.

Delaware Trusts prevent that.

They all appear to be registered in Wilmington which is by no stretch of the imagination a large city.

This from a site there.

All aircraft and yachts, under our administration are registered to individual owner trustee corporations. This is important because the Trust agreement which the beneficial owner of the aircraft or yacht will have to sign will include indemnities in the event that the trustee is sued. Where an individual or a Trust company which registers itself directly as the owner of the aircraft or yacht is sued then they will claim against you under its indemnity. Where the Trustee is a separate trustee corporation for your use only, then you get the added protection of being able to rely on its limited liability for your protection."

Lots of corporations (with international presences) are registered in Delaware. Lots of opportunity for corporate ownership.

In the case of the ill fated Malibu all we know is on google.

I guess ,as Murgatroyd demonstrated at Barton ,the criminal element will always ignore legislation.

[Jonzarno]

I guess the answer is that pilots or the real owners can not hide behind the N trust address when it comes to air traffic services.

Or accident investigators and, by extension, NAAs. So, for example, the true ownership of the aircraft in the Sala accident, which started this discussion, will be readily traceable.

[Mike Flynn]

The owner of the Sala aircraft (I understand ) played no part in this saga Jon.

When these arrangements get complicated where does responsibility rest for those who fly the aircraft and their passengers if disaster strikes.

How far down the line do you pass the buck?

The McKays were the agents in the transfer of the player and stood to make a considerable commission.

They appear to place the blame on David Harrison who has avoided answering the key questions as to how Ibbotson was flying the Malibu on what was clearly a charter.

The lawyers are now involved and Cardiff have stated they are not going to pay.

Cardiff will tell Fifa that Emiliano Sala’s move from Nantes (https://www.theguardian.com/football/nantes) was invalid when they respond to a complaint over their refusal to pay the Ligue 1 club his £15m transfer fee.

The 28-year-old Argentinian striker died in a plane crash in the Channel on 21 January, two days after the Premier League club had announced him as their record signing “subject to international clearance”.


It is understood that Cardiff will tell football’s world governing body that Sala was not eligible to play in the Premier League at the time of his death and was free to join another club had he so wished.

Fifa (https://www.theguardian.com/football/fifa) has given Cardiff until 3 April to respond after Nantes lodged a complaint over the Welsh club’s refusal to pay the first £5m instalment of the Sala transfer fee.

It is understood Sala’s Cardiff contract was rejected by the Premier League because it contravened signing-on fee rules. Sala died before a revised one could be signed and there is a dispute about whether he had agreed to do so.

Cardiff will also tell Fifa that the non-fulfilment of legally-binding clauses in the transfer agreement they struck with Nantes for the player made the deal invalid. Without these clauses being fulfilled, Cardiff will argue that Sala was entitled to join another club.

A Cardiff spokesperson said: “The club is aware of the Fifa request for response by 3 April and is processing that accordingly. We have nothing further to comment on it at this stage.”

Nantes’ lawyers wrote to Cardiff on 5 February asking for the first of three annual payments to be paid within 10 working days. The deadline was extended but, with no payment received, Nantes took the matter to Fifa’s dispute resolution chamber.

A club spokesperson was quoted in the Daily Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/03/24/exclusive-cardiff-city-plan-tell-fifa-deal-struck-buy-emiliano/) as saying: “FC Nantes has completed all the required paperwork to complete the Emiliano Sala transfer. Thus, Fifa registered the international transfer certificate on 21st January 2019 at 5.30pm. Nantes is fully compliant with Fifa rules.

“As for Emiliano Sala’s registration in the Premier League, FC Nantes has no information about it. And if it could be a problem for Cardiff, it is not a problem for Nantes.”

source https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/mar/25/cardiff-tell-fifa-emiliano-sala-transfer-invalid-nantes

[Jonzarno]

The owner of the Sala aircraft (I understand ) played no part in this saga Jon.

Mike: I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I would have thought that the owner of the aircraft certainly would at least be interviewed as part of an investigation into this accident given that the central allegation is that it was an illegal charter being carried out using the owner’s aircraft.

[Mike Flynn]

Agreed Jon and I equally don’t have a dog in this fight.

The primary outcome of this accident will be at least a year down the line.
The inquest cannot take place until the AAIB conclude their report. Any CAA legal charges etc will follow that as will civil litigation.

As for the N flag it is probably like the curates egg ,good in parts.

What the UK lacks is decent GA lobbyists at both CAA and parliamentary level.

This whole Euro thing is a mess so I understand anyone wanting to register elsewhere.

[India Four Two]

I seriously doubt N-registered aircraft flying abroad have increased in number.

ChickenHouse, I don't think that is correct. When I was hanging around airfields as a spotter in the early 60s and then as a PPL later in the decade, I don't remember seeing or even hearing of any N-registered light aircraft, with one exception. There was a Beaver at Booker that was used by a flying club that catered for USAF members stationed at RAF High Wycombe.

I would be interested to know how the UK-based N-reg fleet came about. Was there a change in legislation or was it a practice that just grew as more and more pilots realized the advantages?

[Ebbie 2003]

Mike - there ia a lot of comment about "hiding behind trusts".

For the record, there is no hiding.

The trusts are non-citizen trusts - if you are not a US citizen you cannot register a US airplane, so it must be registered by a trust.

The non-citizen trust most use around the world is SAC - got an issue you sue them and if the beneficial owner does not step up the SAC will sue them, not difficult to understand. Indeed it is no more complicated than a UK airplane held by a limited liability company, the paper work can be examined and the owner revealed.

It is my understanding that SAC were forthcomming about the beneficial owner of the Sala airplane; the trust documents are registered in OK City and a freedom of information request will get you a copy - there is no hiding.

There is no hiding of anything.

[Jonzarno]

Indeed it is no more complicated than a UK airplane held by a limited liability company

There is one difference: a limited liability company could have assets of £100 and that is all you can get out of suing it.

[Mike Flynn]

There is one difference: a limited liability company could have assets of £100 and that is all you can get out of suing it.








Not quite Jon.

There is the criminal offence of corporate manslaughter.(see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_manslaughter_in_English_law )

I am not sure how David Henderson structured his operation but clearly this will emerge with the legal matters as they unfold.

If he had an AOC then this defence would be in the public domain by now.
The AAIB suggest otherwise.

If he passed the transport of Sala to Ibbotson,as has been suggested by the agent, knowing it was an illegal charter and the pilot was not qualified to undertake the mission clearly he faces criminal charges.

A person who is convicted of corporate negligence or trading fraudulently is not protected from having their personal assests seized by a court despite the rules on limited liability companies.

Courts and prosecutors look at confiscation orders on the basis of the illegal gain.

[Jonzarno]

Mike

In the event of a criminal act, you are right in principle, and certainly the Sala case may well end up with criminal prosecutions as you say.

Given that this thread is about Nreg as a general flag of convenience: what I was trying to highlight was the difference between a trust which is effectively transparent in the event of a civil claim whereas a limited company isn’t.