N register and the UK

[Mike Flynn]

I suspect I am going to get some flak for asking this question.

In view of the Sala case is it time the CAA clamped down on UK based N registered aircraft operations by non resident and non American pilots ?

The majority of these are in the upper echelons of private light aircraft operations. Most countries in the world impose a time limit on how long a foreign based aircraft can operate internally. Many are pilots flying on a piggyback US licence.

Apart from pilot licensing and maintenance these aircraft are usually operating behind trusts therefore disguising the beneficial owners.

I have written to my MP to raise this matter in the Commons.

[wiggy]

I suspect I am going to get some flak for asking this question.

In view of the Sala case is it time the CAA clamped down on UK based N registered aircraft operations by non resident and non American pilots ?

The majority of these are in the upper echelons of private light aircraft operations. Most countries in the world impose a time limit on how long a foreign based aircraft can operate internally. Many are pilots flying on a piggyback US licence.

Apart from pilot licensing and maintenance these aircraft are usually operating behind trusts therefore disguising the beneficial owners.

I have written to my MP to raise this matter in the Commons..

At the risk of being slightly mischievous can I ask if you have also written to the Secretary of State for Transport?

[Fl1ingfrog]

From my own experience the vast majority of 'N' reg owners act responsibly and keep their aircraft and their own competence as they should. Cowboys have been around for decades and to them it matters little whether the aeroplane and/or the pilot has FAA oversight or EASA or the UK CAA. It is not possible to comment on the Sala case.

Murder, robbery and fraud have been rife for thousands of years and so has the law against them but ................ Criminals and cheats always find a way to bend and break the rules and always will. Nation states, subject to ICAO, find it almost impossible to ban or restrict foreign registered aeroplanes and crews in the way you suggest Mike. EASA tried to limit U.S. aeroplanes, pilots and engineers some years ago and they fell flat on their face, under FAA pressure. In many ways this attempt by EASA's two left feet simply opened the doors.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Isn't it about time to reconsider the Chicago agreements that laid the foundation for ICAO rulings? The world has changed a bit since 1944.

[MrAverage]

Try taking a G reg to the USA. Shortly after 6 months, I'm pretty sure you'll be told to get it on the N reg or take it home!

[Fl1ingfrog]

Jan, the Chicago Convention is primarily a set of principles. First amongst them is the international freedom of movement.

ICAO,the International Civil Aviation Organization, an arm of the United Nations, was formed by 26 countries to manage how this is achieved and maintained: setting minimum standards of aircraft design and construction, the training and qualification of pilots, navigators, engineers, air traffic controllers and the air traffic system. ICAO membership is now 193 states so covering most of the world. Only by having these agreed minimum standards, which are continuously revised and new ones created, can we freely operate internationally. ICAO doesn't involve itself in national operations.

Each member nation manages it's own internal affairs as it sees fit So we have national permit to fly aircraft and unlicensed aerodromes. Because these standards may vary enormously there is no fixed international agreement and each state may limit international flight of these aircraft to short visits or not at all.

[763 jock]

How many EU registered aircraft are permanently based in the UK and being operated solely by EASA licence holders on EASA AOC's? The CAA don't have any oversight of them either.

[C172Navigator]

I suspect I am going to get some flak for asking this question.

In view of the Sala case is it time the CAA clamped down on UK based N registered aircraft operations by non resident and non American pilots ?

The majority of these are in the upper echelons of private light aircraft operations. Most countries in the world impose a time limit on how long a foreign based aircraft can operate internally. Many are pilots flying on a piggyback US licence.

Apart from pilot licensing and maintenance these aircraft are usually operating behind trusts therefore disguising the beneficial owners.

I have written to my MP to raise this matter in the Commons.

Mike - you sound the like the kind of person who grassed on their neighbour during lockdown for leaving the house more than once each day.

[Mike Flynn]

Try taking a G reg to the USA. Shortly after 6 months, I'm pretty sure you'll be told to get it on the N reg or take it home!
That’s pretty much the scenario with most first world countries. The UK appears to circumvent these rules in the case of US trust registered aircraft.

The Sala aircraft was registered to trust operating out of a small office in Norfolk.

See companies house register https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/0fApjP07PIpUx-VuaEDPr8M6hJA/appointments


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1975x1452/cf67ae60_b07d_4fa7_8e8d_14bf2c0146bb_ff492050bc1f14f73cb6323 0de6eb24ddfc08141.jpeg

[biscuit74]

Contrary to the experience of the earlier poster, mine has been that a common reason for an aircraft in the UK remaining on the N register was reduction of cost and avoidance of the maintenance rules which h the rest of us have to follow. In fact one owner of an N registered aeroplane openly said as much - and he was the MD of a small air charter company (though its aircraft were properly UK and maintained) Eventually he landed his machine wheels up due to a failure.

Well done for bringing the matter to the attention of your MP; I would suggest a gentle nudge to the CAA as well. Far from 'grassing up', the lax approach to N registration encourages behaviours which reflect poorly on all owners and pilots in the minds of the general public. Arguably we all may suffer - the odds are depressingly good that rather than deal with the root problem 'the authorities' would prefer to use an easy popular option even if costs us all.

[763 jock]

The Sala case is currently at trial in the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59010670

The whole business of what can/does go on with private aircraft has been very shady for as long as I can remember. Certain websites freely advertise "cost sharing" flights which are about as close to hire and reward as one can get. Pilots that claim to be "professional" when their credentials are nothing more than a recently gained PPL. Nothing will ever change. People always try to find a way around the rules and couldn't care less about the consequences.

[Tay Cough]

Well done for bringing the matter to the attention of your MP…

Perhaps your MP can ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he still keeps his Saratoga on the N-reg?

[Fl1ingfrog]

a common reason for an aircraft in the UK remaining on the N register was reduction of cost and avoidance of the maintenance rules

That's very true but I'm sure you don't mean all "maintenance rules" are avoided. What do you suggest is wrong with the FAA regulations? The FAA rules are very strict also but perhaps are more pragmatic. The rules being different from the UK or EASA doesn't mean they are inferior. The pragmatism of the FAA regulations is the attraction and most owners tell me that the ongoing maintenance is only marginally cheaper maybe but probably not in practice. Another major attraction for owning an FAA registered aeroplane is the ability to obtain an FAA IR and continue to maintain it, also in a very pragmatic way.

Aircraft are commonly held outside of the country of registration throughout the world, there are many here in France although owned by french nationals who are resident here. The ones I know are extremely well maintained and the pilots conscientious and responsible. The claim that you can do all this only in the UK is wrong.

Whether an aeroplane is owned by a trust and where it is registered is irrelevant. Aeroplanes that are operated legally and safely are not a problem. If the aircraft is not maintained properly and the pilot operates outside of their competence then that is the issue. I believe it is correct to say that all those involved in the 'Sala' flight are British and French and so no other countries regulations can be blamed for their misdemeanors. I don't understand Mike why you think it should.

[Mike Flynn]

Perhaps the best way to describe the scenario is comparing the black cabs in London with private hire and latterly Uber operations. Anyone can drive an Uber vehicle but black cab drivers have to pass the knowledge exam which requires a lot of hard work driving the streets until they fully know the city. The regulation of UK based N reg aircraft is really in the hands of the insurance companies.

I am not sure how Grant Shapps gets away with this.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1361/7620c892_fa97_455b_a2e5_4b34224091bc_0ecf32e4a19283b2e8cd8bd b3180b042b84462b1.jpeg

[C172Navigator]

The Sala case is not a reflection on N reg aircraft in the UK but the pilot flying a flight for which he wasn't qualified. If the aircraft was G reg or F reg it wouldn't have changed the fact that the pilot was flying beyond his ability and training.

I fly an N reg privately and it is maintained to the FAA rules and is perfectly legal. I fly VFR only on my CAA ATPL / SEP rating. There are several N reg aircraft at my club and everything is above board.

Do you have any figures to suggest N reg aircraft within the UK are more dangerous or likely to have an accident than G reg aircraft?

[Seaflying]

Well said C172Navigator
You will not get any facts that N reg are not as safe as G reg or any other EU reg,
Because there are no such figures, this old debate pops up now and then, i am so tired of that.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The accident rate for GA aircraft is similar, or even slightly better in the US over the UK. This is done with a much more practical pilot licensing regime and aircraft maintenance requirements. The ridiculous level of over the top regulatory requirements in the UK has done nothing but force UK based aircraft onto the N register.

Mike Flyn

I would suggest you should be careful with what you wish for as you may get it. Getting rid of UK based N registered aircraft will reduce the already low level of UK GA hours to a level that may make many parts of the UK GA infrastructure unsustainable

[Genghis the Engineer]

The Sala case is not a reflection on N reg aircraft in the UK but the pilot flying a flight for which he wasn't qualified. ?

I lost track of the number of occasions I've seen the CAA (or other UK government bodies) tighten up rules THAT WERE NOT FOLLOWED, after something awful has happened. It's a ridiculous kneejerk response that happens over and over again.

And clearly, if the existing rules weren't followed, tightening up rules already being ignored, is unlikely to change much!

G

[Mike Flynn]

I lost track of the number of occasions I've seen the CAA (or other UK government bodies) tighten up rules THAT WERE NOT FOLLOWED, after something awful has happened. It's a ridiculous kneejerk response that happens over and over again.

And clearly, if the existing rules weren't followed, tightening up rules already being ignored, is unlikely to change much!

G
If the American register and rules are better why bother having the CAA and the British register?

Is the UK awash with FAA approved engineering inspectors and flying instructors?

[Big Pistons Forever]

If the American register and rules are better why bother having the CAA and the British register?

I?

An excellent question. The UK could have the same accident record with a much more practical and fit for purpose regulatory regime,

[Brian Abraham]

Does not the UK authority have the ability to surveil maintenance and licensing of N registered aircraft?

[Fl1ingfrog]

No, but the UK can obviously ground an aeroplane or refuse it from it's airspace. Should the UK CAA have any concerns about an aircraft then normal protocol would be to report this to the NAA responsible for its oversight. The FAA have staff based at the American Embassy in London and cover the whole of Europe. I understand that they are active in inspecting 'N' aircraft and operators when necessary.

[Jonzarno]

An excellent question. The UK could have the same accident record with a much more practical and fit for purpose regulatory regime,

Beat me to it: the reply I would have made verbatim! :)

[biscuit74]

"I fly an N reg privately and it is maintained to the FAA rules and is perfectly legal. I fly VFR only on my CAA ATPL / SEP rating." (by C172 navigator)

Fine. I am delighted that you maintain it legally, of course. Why do you keep it on the N register, if it is kept here in the UK? If the US system is so much better, as others have suggested, why not agitate for a change in our rules? I have no doubt that many N register owners and operators act sensibly ,and legally; it does seem however that some clearly are less rigorous, let's say.

[Dave Gittins]

My understanding is that one reason is because it allows IFR flight on an FAA license and the FAA IR is much easier to obtain than a UK PPL IR.

[Jonzarno]

"I fly an N reg privately and it is maintained to the FAA rules and is perfectly legal. I fly VFR only on my CAA ATPL / SEP rating." (by C172 navigator)

Fine. I am delighted that you maintain it legally, of course. Why do you keep it on the N register, if it is kept here in the UK? If the US system is so much better, as others have suggested, why not agitate for a change in our rules? I have no doubt that many N register owners and operators act sensibly ,and legally; it does seem however that some clearly are less rigorous, let's say.

But surely you could make exactly the same allegation against people with aircraft on the G, or for that matter any other register?

[ak7274]

I don't believe N reg aircraft are any more or less safe than those on a G reg. I do know of one aircraft put onto 'N' due to wing spar inspection requirements in the UK.
The vast majority of all owner/pilots on any reg are completely above board, but I do think the 'N' reg in the UK using a company in Delaware/Norfolk can be used as smoke and mirrors for the bent charter business, which costs professional companies and decreases safety. All this crap about "I rent the Aircraft out and the renter provides the pilot (who I recommend) is one way of circumventing the rules and should/must be stopped.

[S-Works]

I suspect I am going to get some flak for asking this question.

In view of the Sala case is it time the CAA clamped down on UK based N registered aircraft operations by non resident and non American pilots ?

The majority of these are in the upper echelons of private light aircraft operations. Most countries in the world impose a time limit on how long a foreign based aircraft can operate internally. Many are pilots flying on a piggyback US licence.

Apart from pilot licensing and maintenance these aircraft are usually operating behind trusts therefore disguising the beneficial owners.

I have written to my MP to raise this matter in the Commons.

I can't wait see bow the Transport minister who is a PPL operating an N reg aircraft in the Uk will respond......

[megan]

From the following accident report I can see the N issue relevance, folk operating without any oversight at all, that's not to say there are not those who play with a straight bat. One bad penny can stuff it for all.

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

[Fl1ingfrog]

This kind of tragic report can be found in the UK AAIB records over and over again. It reflects, no doubt in my mind, the extent to which humans will take risk and be careless in doing so. The pilot's car door was left open: the keys left in the ignition and likely still switched to on, the very short number of minutes after parking before the helicopter was started, the engine could not have been warmed after start in the very few following minutes before the take off into atrocious weather. The pilot was very experienced, he had being flying various helicopters over 28 years but there is no evidence of formal training at night or in IMC. No mechanical failure was found. The report makes the point that the journey home in his car was only 30 minutes.

The above has NOTHING to do with the country of registration but rather the personality of the individual. Sadly the same disdain for the rules and safety is replicated throughout the UK by UK licenced pilots flying UK registered aeroplanes within UK airspace. This is an issue that HF education and TEM training is attempting to tackle but, in GA at least, it is an uphill battle within the current aviation establishment. They just don't get it.

[Three Mile Final]

It is very sad that there are people around who do not observe the rules or even use common sense. The aircraft they fly is irrelevant because they would manage the same result in anything.

I sit on the Local Airspace Infringement Committee and am exasperated that well qualified and respected flying instructors infringe airspace because they don't/won't use moving map devices and then become so busy teaching their student and (presumably) looking out for other aircraft that they lose geographic awareness.

[C172Navigator]

"Fine. I am delighted that you maintain it legally, of course. Why do you keep it on the N register, if it is kept here in the UK? If the US system is so much better, as others have suggested, why not agitate for a change in our rules? I have no doubt that many N register owners and operators act sensibly ,and legally; it does seem however that some clearly are less rigorous, let's say."

Well, the aircraft isn't owned by me, it's a non equity share. The aircraft was purchased on the N reg and I don't suppose there has been a reason for the owner to change it. The aircraft is maintained by an FAA engineer based at a UK maintenance company, the same guys that look after G reg aircraft. Now there might be cowboys out there but that doesn't mean everyone flying an N reg is disregarding the rules nor does it make all G reg pilots whiter than white.

[Maoraigh1]

"I sit on the Local Airspace Infringement Committee and am exasperated that well qualified and respected flying instructors infringe airspace because they don't/won't use moving map devices and then become so busy teaching their student and (presumably) looking out for other aircraft that they lose geographic awareness."
(https://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11133027)I can remember when the UK CAA and Safety Organisations were warning against using moving maps or any GPS aid in UK Airspace. Are the students allowed to use these devices? If not, the instructors may be trying not to set a bad example to the students.

[biscuit74]

Me too 'Maoraigh1'. In fact, given that for the COP26 shambles GPS jamming is planned all over the Central Belt, it seems that still isn't wanted. Mind you, that is probably 'left hand - right hand' as ever !

'C172Navigator' -Thanks for that. We in the UK do seem to be an oddity in allowing long term use of aircraft here on someone else's register.
I am sure there are plenty well maintained aircraft around, and because of this oddity we do have FAA rated engineers. There are cowboys of all sorts, I agree, at all levels but it does seem that the N registration route helps or at least doesn't put any clear obstacles in the way of those who want to do things on the cheap, especially in a pseudo-commercial sense. That does none of us any good - as an airline pilot no doubt you hold high standards and expect/hope for that from others, as I do, and as my wife, also a commercial pilot does.

[Big Pistons Forever]

N registration route helps or at least doesn't put any clear obstacles in the way of those who want to do things on the cheap..

I would suggest wanting to avoid the no value added, unnecessary, or completely inappropriate regulatory requirements that are so prevalent in the UK system doesn't mean you are cheap, just sensible. Maintaining an airplane to a safe standard and maintaining the appropriate level of flying skills is not registry dependent it is a personal choice.

[n5296s]

We in the UK do seem to be an oddity in allowing long term use of aircraft here on someone else's register.
Nonsense. Most (all afaik despite the best/worst efforts of some) countries in Europe allow it too. it's very hard not to, given ICAO rules - you have to be able to fly an XXX-registered aircraft with an XXX-issued license, otherwise life would be fairly tricky for the airlines.

[ShyTorque]

Registration and pilot licensing apart, how many non-AOC, N reg aircraft (such as the one in question) are maintained to CAA/EASA public transport standards?

[Fl1ingfrog]

Aircraft registered to the FAA (N reg) are maintained in accordance with the FAA regulations as appropriate.

[Mike Flynn]

Nonsense. Most (all afaik despite the best/worst efforts of some) countries in Europe allow it too. it's very hard not to, given ICAO rules - you have to be able to fly an XXX-registered aircraft with an XXX-issued license, otherwise life would be fairly tricky for the airlines.
There is a big difference between visiting aircraft and those based here. We are talking about US registered aircraft owned and operated in the UK by non US citizens.

[Maoraigh1]

"Registration and pilot licensing apart, how many non-AOC, N reg aircraft (such as the one in question) are maintained to CAA/EASA public transport standards?"
Why would a non-AOC aircraft of any registry be maintained to any XAA public transport standard? Unless for renting to an AOC holder?


Quote (https://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11133619)
#36 (https://www.pprune.org/11133609-post36.html) (permalink (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying/643345-n-register-uk.html#post11133609))

[WHBM]

I used to skydive from a Ukrainian-registered aircraft based here in the UK (Let 410 as it happens). It had Ukrainian pilots and (I believe) engineer. It was here for years. The Let 410 type is unknown to the CAA, it was never offered for certification here. Nobody from the Ukrainian oversight, of course, ever turned up, nor from the CAA (in contrast to at my flying club on lighter aircraft). All the manuals and documentation were in Cyrillic anyway. So I guess foreign-registered aircraft based here are effectively unregulated.

One wonders in the Sala case how a chartering passenger would even know - the registration of the Malibu N264DB was applied such that the "N" bit was on the lower part of the passenger entrance, which hinges down to form the steps into the aircraft, so the passenger being taken by the pilot out to the prepared aircraft, even if informed about aircraft markings, would never even see where it was registered.

[Mike Flynn]

That would no doubt be the one that was based at Sibson. It has always struck me as strange that parachute aircraft operations are loosely regulated. I understand that most of the deceased pilots hours were on paradropping despite only holding a PPL.

[ohmygodnotmorework]

"Fine. I am delighted that you maintain it legally, of course. Why do you keep it on the N register, if it is kept here in the UK? If the US system is so much better, as others have suggested, why not agitate for a change in our rules? I have no doubt that many N register owners and operators act sensibly ,and legally; it does seem however that some clearly are less rigorous, let's say."

Well, the aircraft isn't owned by me, it's a non equity share. The aircraft was purchased on the N reg and I don't suppose there has been a reason for the owner to change it. The aircraft is maintained by an FAA engineer based at a UK maintenance company, the same guys that look after G reg aircraft. Now there might be cowboys out there but that doesn't mean everyone flying an N reg is disregarding the rules nor does it make all G reg pilots whiter than white.

Perhaps my American colleagues could help, in the UK a non equity group is viewed as a private flying type arrangement as the service is not available to the general public. I believe I have read that the US system describes this as a commercial type operation? Is this correct and what implication would that have on its maintenance and operation?

[MrAverage]

My understanding of non-equity is that it's just rental with a higher yearly or monthly "membership" fee, making it not allowed for N reg. I'd need solid references to prove this understanding is wrong, as I know at least one operator who tried it and was told to stop.

[MrAverage]

It's possible true equity shares are ok.

[IO540]

Mike Flynn - you surprise me. What happened to your N-reg A36 which was permanently based in the UK? This is quite a "change of mind" on your part :)

[ShyTorque]

"Registration and pilot licensing apart, how many non-AOC, N reg aircraft (such as the one in question) are maintained to CAA/EASA public transport standards?"


Why would a non-AOC aircraft of any registry be maintained to any XAA public transport standard? Unless for renting to an AOC holder?


Precisely….and the aircraft operated and flown by the Henderson/Ibbotson team?

[Fl1ingfrog]

My understanding of non-equity is that it's just rental with a higher yearly or monthly "membership" fee, making it not allowed for N reg.

A non equity share is known as a 'beneficial share'. This is very common in UK law. When you lease a flat or a house then you do not own it someone else does. But, you have bought the right to use it say, for 99 years or just one year and you will be the beneficial owner. Should you lease a car, then you will be issued the V5 (Registered owner) document in your name but again you do not own the the vehicle as such because you are only the 'beneficial owner' The lessor actually owns the equity and only they can sell it.

Similarly the registration regulations of the UK CAA recognizes 'beneficial owners' who can be registered with them but who not hold any equity. Until recently the number of registered owners' was limited to a maximum of 20 but this limit has been removed. It is very common in the UK for an outright aircraft owner to offer beneficial shares for which a returnable lump sum is paid as security. Rental charges cannot be charged but the running costs at a fixed hourly figure, the figure doesn't have to be fixed, is common.

[Maoraigh1]

"When you lease a flat or a house then you do not own it someone else does. But, you have bought the right to use it say, for 99 years or just one year and you will be the beneficial owner."
Very different from renting the house or flat, which is common.
I have been a member of an equity share Group for over 30 years. Each member has liability for unexpected expenses not covered by funds. The limit on number of members was (is?) 20.
The equity Group's aircraft might be leased.
The non-equity shareholder has just his prepaid "rental" at stake.

[Mike Flynn]

Mike Flynn - you surprise me. What happened to your N-reg A36 which was permanently based in the UK? This is quite a "change of mind" on your part :)

It certainly is as I have owned a number of aircraft over the years but have never had an N reg in the UK let alone a Bonanza.😀👍.

I like the IO540 and confess to owning a PA32 powered by one in the USA and Australia.

[ak7274]

Quote:
Originally Posted by IO540
Mike Flynn - you surprise me. What happened to your N-reg A36 which was permanently based in the UK? This is quite a "change of mind" on your part https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif
It certainly is as I have owned a number of aircraft over the years but have never had an N reg in the UK let alone a Bonanza.😀👍.

I like the IO540 and confess to owning a PA32 powered by one in the USA and Australia.

That's funny.....

[IO540]

Two people on here with exactly the same name :)

[MrAverage]

The returnable lump sum is considered as a share in the aircraft thus making it an equity group, not non-equity.

[Fl1ingfrog]

The returnable lump sum is considered as a share in the aircraft thus making it an equity group, not non-equity.

What I suspect you have is a Beneficial Share. You can only expect your money back on demand if you haven't bought anything. If you have bought a percentage of the aircraft's value, then you must sell it back or give it back if your feeling generous. If you own a percentage of the value then the value of your share varies with the value of the aeroplane. It can go up or down. If you have secured a beneficial share then your share value remains fixed and you wouldn't share in any increase in value nor a loss.

This difference only matters, other than your money of course, if the aircraft is not maintained according to commercial use regulations when it can be rented out. If the aircraft is maintained only for private use it cannot therefore be rented for hire and reward and so you must hold a percentage of the value (equity) or a beneficial share to use it.

[off watch]

Anyone like to share their thoughts on why the same rules that apply to foreign registered cars used in the UK can't be applied to aircraft ?
As a UK citizen, if I import a foreign reg car, I can only use it for a maximum of 12 months (or in many cases 6) before I must reregister it here.
If it works for motor vehicles, why not aircraft ?

[BEagle]

Ask Mr. Green - aka Shapps the N-reg owner!

[WHBM]

Anyone like to share their thoughts on why the same rules that apply to foreign registered cars used in the UK can't be applied to aircraft ?
As a UK citizen, if I import a foreign reg car, I can only use it for a maximum of 12 months (or in many cases 6) before I must reregister it here.
If it works for motor vehicles, why not aircraft ?
Having had one, the foreign registered car period is from when it comes in to the country. If you take it out, then bring it back, the period resets. This is a bit tedious for motor vehicles, so is generally not done. But aircraft can leave the country and then return quite readily. So much so that it's not worth keeping up with. The Sala plane, of course, wasn't even in UK territory when it was lost.

[Midlifec]

Perhaps your MP can ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he still keeps his Saratoga on the N-reg?
or indeed reported his accident in that aircraft to the AAIB or FAA a few years ago☝️

[biscuit74]

or indeed reported his accident in that aircraft to the AAIB or FAA a few years ago☝️


Do tell - I presume a fairly minor one ?

[mikehallam]

If only you could read afresh what you guys post here !

It looks like a bunch of trouble making old women prattling on.
Leave the bloke alone - and what does it matter if a few folk stay legal using the N register, so what. ?
You of course have never had a minor prang, and if so have always written fulsomely to every agency, inc. the CAA and the LAA and your local Rag - Naturally !

[Midlifec]

Do tell - I presume a fairly minor one ?

No injuries but significant structural, landing gear, engine and prop damage- quickly whisked away for extensive repairs- not a minor ‘prang’ , a serious and reportable landing accident that wasn’t.

[biscuit74]

'mikehallam' - the whole point of reporting an accident, or significant incident, to the relevant authorities is to try to help prevent others making the same mistakes. Also to hep build up a picture of where problems lie. If you don't report, things are lass likely to improve. People may get hurt or killed who might otherwise have learned and lived.
This was also a major part of the purpose behind the CHIRP process, and the attempts to move away from a blame culture.

So hiding 'minor prangs' really is not clever..