China requires provenance of all foreign aircraft

[Maisk Rotum]

Several media outlets reporting that all foreign carriers are required to prove aircraft ownership and other details to the Chinese authorities.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that a lot of landing permits are being delayed for weeks as carriers scramble to provide the mountains of paperwork for EACH aircraft- and the Chinese bureaucracy takes it's (diligent?!) time.

This is in response to China barring Russia from flying foreign owned aircraft into their airspace. It has naturally applied this burden of proof to ALL foreign carriers.

Some may say this action only favours the Chinese carriers, particularly the freight carriers- as they are virtually the only aircraft operating into and out of China.

On the other hand it is good the Chinese stood up the the Russians.

The cynic in me says the motive lies in the deep rooted psyche of the CCP to leverage any event globally to gain a strategic and economic advantage

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-politics-european-union-c71b3bbdabb01adcce34b19e3d524c33

[BoeingDriver99]

I think what Russia did amounts to piracy in many ways and China seems to be doing the right thing in asking them to provide provenance and if they can't then don't enter their airspace. Seems reasonable to me.

However to apply that rule to only Russia and no other country/carrier is partisan and is taking sides. It would be hypocritical. It should be reasonably easy to provide up to date ownership records asap for assets that cost in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.....and if not.... why not?

[DaveReidUK]

I think what Russia did amounts to piracy in many ways and China seems to be doing the right thing in asking them to provide provenance and if they can't then don't enter their airspace. Seems reasonable to me.

However to apply that rule to only Russia and no other country/carrier is partisan and is taking sides. It would be hypocritical. It should be reasonably easy to provide up to date ownership records asap for assets that cost in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.....and if not.... why not?

The way I read the article, it's simply putting the onus on airlines to prove that their aircraft are legitimately registered with the marks they are carrying. The only time an airline is likely to have a problem in supplying that evidence is if its aircraft have been moved from one country's register to another without being officially de-registered from the former.

For example a leased aircraft transferred from the Bermuda register to the Russian register without the involvement of the lessor ...

[hoistop]

The way I read the article, it's simply putting the onus on airlines to prove that their aircraft are legitimately registered with the marks they are carrying. The only time an airline is likely to have a problem in supplying that evidence is if its aircraft have been moved from one country's register to another without being officially de-registered from the former.

For example a leased aircraft transferred from the Bermuda register to the Russian register without the involvement of the lessor ...

Honestly, I don`t get it. Every airplane that I had flown/inspected/released to flight had a Certificate of Registration on board, where it was clearly stated who is the owner of that particular aircraft. If that document is forged, any other document, supporting that (false) claim, can be forged too.

[KAPAC]

Honestly, I don`t get it. Every airplane that I had flown/inspected/released to flight had a Certificate of Registration on board, where it was clearly stated who is the owner of that particular aircraft. If that document is forged, any other document, supporting that (false) claim, can be forged too.

The Chinese I’m guessing understand things can be copied and forged and in the name of fairness they probably want independent verification from agencies , banks , leasing companies of ownership .

[DaveReidUK]

Honestly, I don`t get it. Every airplane that I had flown/inspected/released to flight had a Certificate of Registration on board, where it was clearly stated who is the owner of that particular aircraft. If that document is forged, any other document, supporting that (false) claim, can be forged too.

I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of the Chinese to ascertain which Russian-operated aircraft are still officially on the Bermudan register, and to hire a tame reggie-spotter to confirm what RA- marks, if any, are now being worn by them. The Russians' ability to forge a CofR or other documents is irrelevant.

[Magplug]

China has been cash rich for a few years now looking for investment opportunities around the world. Perhaps they are significant investors in AER Cap Holdings, Chapman Freeborn, GECAS, Nordic Aviation Capital or one of the other global leasing companies who are now whistling for their money after Putin grabbed their aircraft. If one of those aircraft lands outside Russia it will promptly get a seizure notice nailed to the mast and not be permitted to leave.... That includes in China.

Follow the money!

[fdr]

Honestly, I don`t get it. Every airplane that I had flown/inspected/released to flight had a Certificate of Registration on board, where it was clearly stated who is the owner of that particular aircraft. If that document is forged, any other document, supporting that (false) claim, can be forged too.

A "Certificate of Registration" , CoR generally does not indicate who is the beneficial owner of an aircraft. Under the FAA's regs, it is an express statement that it does not indicate ownership, same for most CAA's Part 47. The CoR provides evidence of the party that is the contact point for the CAA for administrative matters.

Jurisdictionally dependent, the ICAO definition of operator is applied to the CoR, that is, whoever has the right to control the aircraft for 28 days or more will be recorded on the CoR, however that is CAA dependent, some note the 28 day period, but do not require notification to the CAA of parties with rights to control of the aircraft.

China is not necessarily acting unreasonably with their action, it is consistent with taking some care with not getting crosswise with the US led sanctions series, but it is a pain for many. The beneficial owner of a leased aircraft is not the operator as recorded on the CoR. It will become problematic for many FAR 91K operations, as there is a complex ownership requirement for such programs, but they are recorded so can be provided. For leased aircraft, the same applies, the documents of ownership and lease may differ from the CoR in fact generally must be different.

good work for lawyers.

[blue up]

The Chinese I’m guessing understand things can be copied and forged .

Did anyone else chuckle at that bit? Rolax and Brightlong watches spring to mind.

[swh]

Honestly, I don`t get it. Every airplane that I had flown/inspected/released to flight had a Certificate of Registration on board, where it was clearly stated who is the owner of that particular aircraft. If that document is forged, any other document, supporting that (false) claim, can be forged too.

The certificate of registration is there for the legal entity that the bills for landing, overflight, ATC get sent to. It represents in most cases the operator, not the owner.

Some time ago there was an international convention called the Captetown Convention in which we all agreed to setup a centralized registry of ownership for aircraft and engines ( https://www.internationalregistry.aero/ir-web/ ) for about US$40 any member of the public can lookup the the ownership details of aircraft and engines.

Then came along the Russian fruit loop that gave the middle finger to the convention, they were a signatory.

Under the convention every change of ownership goes via the international registry, what Russia is doing is not going via the registry, the original owners are still listed in the registry.

What amount to a US$40 certificate that legitimate operators can obtain from the registry seems like a small price tp pay for the piracy being done in Russia. As a result of their actions every aircraft operated costs more, it is industry that is paying for the Russian piracy, not the Russians and not the Bankers.

[FlightDetent]

Despite the clear and simple explanation above, I am now looking at EASA NAA issued Certificate of Registration saying:

4) Name of the Owner
5) Address of the Owner

But hold on...

Note 1: This Aircraft is Operated by... (different entity)

Note 2: This Certificate is issued for registration purposes only and is not a certificate of title. DG CAA does not determine rights of ownership as between private persons.

After a closer look, not confusing at all.

[DaveReidUK]

Under the convention every change of ownership goes via the international registry, what Russia is doing is not going via the registry, the original owners are still listed in the registry.

Are the aircraft concerned not still owned by the (non-Russian) lessors ?

[Spunky Monkey]

Surely the Chinese are checking all aircraft so that when this nonsense has played through they can say to the Russians - "see we played fair, we did it to everyone."

[fdr]

Are the aircraft concerned not still owned by the (non-Russian) lessors ?

the leased aircraft that have been stolen by Russia are almost without doubt still registered with a full interest of the ownership with the Capetown Convention, the registry being in Ireland. Where the terms of the lease have been breached, then the owner has to revert to civil action for the breaches. The curiosity in this case is the state is acting illegally, the aircraft had registration, and then the state is complicit with the breach of the lease agreements, and further now disregards airworthiness matters to which the state has an obligation as a signatory to ICAO.

The response by Russia to sanctions may have been expedient at the time but the long term damage is substantial. It will be a brave owner that rents or leases or allows any asset to enter, overfly or otherwise have any exposure to Russia for the future. Money talks, but the loading out the front end for any future involvement with Russia would be higher than outright purchase price...

There are some odd ICAO conventions that act to prohibit a state from enforcing liens on an aircraft in a 3rd state... local judgements can be enforced by the state, so a visiting aircraft that is in breach of a contract from another country could have say, Chinese court judgements enforced. The states of manufacture could also raise ADs based on reported non compliance with the AMMs grounding the aircraft. That would be disregarded by Russia, but the Chinese etc would probably happily ground those aircraft on entry to their territory, under their obligations to ICAO and state foreign aircraft safety oversight rules.

Where Russia disregards international law which seems to have been their historical intent, nationalising the assets works within their own boundary, but doesn't get a signature of release from the owner with the cape town convention.

China (excluding Hong Kong and Macau...) is a signatory state to the treaty and would be a party with obligations under Article 43 to enforce court orders issued in compliance with Chapter III Default remedies:

Article 8 — Remedies of chargee
Article 12 — Additional remedies
Article 13 — Relief pending final determination

China seems to be obliged to take action on this matter, and they are heading it off at the pass by their request for provenance, it locks those assets inside Russia which also happens to be a treaty signatory is unlikely to meet any of their obligations.

Once again, the treaty doesn't make allowance for a lawless state, one that just cares less about their treaty obligations. There is a method of termination by a state, but there is no method to remove the state, although the Article 61 — Review Conferences, amendments and related matters permits amendment that can cure the Russia syndrome. Cynically, one can assume that a method of removal of a rogue,"Russia like state" is not needed, they are effectively removing themselves from future need of such treaties, they can continue playing with North Korea all by themselves. As Russia is a complicit party to the breaches of the treaty obligations, the lessors may have a ready fund to dig into in the bank accounts that have been frozen, lawyers are going to be the only winners of the criminal actions of Russia in Ukraine.

It's hard to imagine any manager in the future whetting the appetite of their board by using the term "lease", "JV", "loan" or similar in connection to the name "Russia". Normally, a return to "business as usual" would happen promptly, but the further confirmation that Russia disregards every convention that the rest of the world considers reasonable will make it difficult to regain any trust in their word. The immediate damage to Russia by the ego of Putin is just beginning. Peter Zeihan may well be correct that Russia will not survive as the RF, disintegration may be coming along sooner than later.

[compressor stall]

There are some odd ICAO conventions that act to prohibit a stat

reports a day or so ago are of Sri Lanka impounding a Russian 330 in CMB.

[DaveReidUK]

Latest reports suggest that two of AFL's dozen A333s are grounded and enjoying Sri Lanka's hospitality. Looks like carelessness ...

[compressor stall]

Latest reports suggest that two of AFL's dozen A333s are grounded and enjoying Sri Lanka's hospitality. Looks like carelessness ...
two now?

was the second one of the rescue aircraft?
https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/russias-aeroflot-suspends-flights-to-sri-lanka-colombo-says-government-not-involved-in-aircraft-hold-up/articleshow/92005972.cms

[DaveReidUK]

The second aircraft has now returned to SVO; the original one, which arrived on 2nd June, is still grounded at CMB.

[WideScreen]

..... The curiosity in this case is the state is acting illegally, the aircraft had registration, and then the state is complicit with the breach of the lease agreements, and further now disregards airworthiness matters to which the state has an obligation as a signatory to ICAO.
These are nice words for "state-piracy", as we have seen from some of the poorest African countries.
......Where Russia disregards international law which seems to have been their historical intent, nationalising the assets works within their own boundary, but doesn't get a signature of release from the owner with the cape town convention.
Actually, I think, Russia will simply produce "court documents", with a legal binding confiscation of all these aircrafts, stating the new legal ownership of these aircrafts is in Russia. And, then, China will say: "OK, these are legally owned by a Russian company, etc". If there is an ownership dispute, please first go to court, before we take action on this. So, yeah, I do have some doubts, whether the China mandatory ownership proving is going to make much of a difference. The only difference is, that China can now state they did take action.

..... The immediate damage to Russia by the ego of Putin is just beginning. Peter Zeihan may well be correct that Russia will not survive as the RF, disintegration may be coming along sooner than later.
I completely agree on that and TBH, I think, the only real solution of this conflict, is indeed, when the RF gets dissolved into many individual and much smaller states. Otherwise, the aggression will keep coming again, the moment, Russia has rebuilt its armed forces.

[fdr]

These are nice words for "state-piracy", as we have seen from some of the poorest African countries.

Actually, I think, Russia will simply produce "court documents", with a legal binding confiscation of all these aircrafts, stating the new legal ownership of these aircrafts is in Russia. And, then, China will say: "OK, these are legally owned by a Russian company, etc". If there is an ownership dispute, please first go to court, before we take action on this. So, yeah, I do have some doubts, whether the China mandatory ownership proving is going to make much of a difference. The only difference is, that China can now state they did take action.

I completely agree on that and TBH, I think, the only real solution of this conflict, is indeed, when the RF gets dissolved into many individual and much smaller states. Otherwise, the aggression will keep coming again, the moment, Russia has rebuilt its armed forces.

Wasn't so long ago that one of those tin pot countries in Africa had their registration used for some Antonovs working UN support operations. Two of these aircraft were photographed at the same time in two airports over 2100nm apart, with the same registration number painted on the side. Oddly the twins were not a registration on the tin pot states registration list, nor was the type on the register anyway. At the same time, on another continent, the "not the North" one, a B737 was being leased from another not northern area on another continent. The lessor was in default on the lease and the lessee sent over a team to pick up the plane. They got a great photo of it parked beside another B737, both with the lessees registration painted on them. Another B737 was sitting at the same location, and that was on a lease to the same lessee.... it had left the other continent on a 21.193 SAWC for the purposes of ferrying to the not to not the north continent, to be broken up. It ended up doing 6 months of passenger flights for the lessee, and was then sent back to the not the not the north country and broken up, all on a SAWC... Same country, a full C Check on a B727 got falsified, the guys who did that didn't spend much on the rubber stamp, they spelt the CAA's name in spanglish wrongly, accent on wrong letters.. etc. The plane got itself impounded on return... and the feds had a heck of a laugh. Another series of planes were using the same registration in different countries, including one that was sold to an EU national, who was then told that in spite of buying the aircraft free n' clear, the aircraft actually wasn't able to be deregistered in the current country as the current country registration was in fact illegal, as the plane hadn't been deregistered in another country anyway, as there was still a lien on it for about the same amount as the EU guy had paid to purchase it. That seller wasn't from a rat infested, tin pot African state, yet it was only a tin pot African state that then part out an arrest warrant on the guy... for the following. The poor unfortunate seller had a DC3 that had the PT6's on it, and had one in an unhappy state. He asked another operator in the tin pot African state if he might have a spare so they could ferry their sorry Dak to the new world for work. The hapless tinpot state operator loaned a PT6 to the kindly old gentleman (not Rickover) who then flew away. Months passed, and then the tin pot state operator asked when he may get his engine back, it having been a considerable while since the loaner went out the door. The response was, "well, we parted the engine out, so you can't get it back.... " No wonder there was an arrest warrant out for the guy.

A physical inspection of data plates found it affixed to a 3rd B737. In the meantime, the lessee of this sad story planned a B737 into the weeds on an approach flown in competition with a thunderstorm. The plane in that accident that killed a few dozen punters was remarkably untainted by shenanigans, or at least none were reported.

Africa is not the only country with oddities that occur, not by a long shot.

Same guy spak filled a PC12 that had taken some serious flesh wounds from a hand grenade, which shredded the aft fuselage of the plane. It got painted in the not the not the north continent, with the repair more or less not being Pilatus's preference. The feds did get in on that one... If your late 90's PC12 looks a little worse for wear at the RH tail, then it would pay to see who did a 337 for that toy between 2006 and 2010.... It had a nice paint job in 2010....

Some of this is amusing, sometimes 4 people die when they are given a vacuum pump that is supposed to be overhauled and is not, and they get to try limited panel flight unsuccessfully, and it ends in tears and litigation, with one of the more sturdy regulators doing zip.

China is not unreasonable with their request for provenance.

Russia can provide all of the court documents they wish to the aircraft registry https://www.internationalregistry.aero/ir-web/ or [email protected] and I doubt that without a signatory from the recorded owner that the ownership will change hands. As no court cases on the matter are in the news, I would expect that Russia hasn't tried their luck in finding how far their reputation has been dragged by Putin, but it is not likely that any court direction coming out of a criminal state such as Russia will be accepted in Ireland under the treaty. (I certainly hope that is an overly optimistic expectation of jurisprudence)

[WideScreen]

..
Skipped a very interesting reading.
....

As no court cases on the matter are in the news, I would expect that Russia hasn't tried their luck in finding how far their reputation has been dragged by Putin, but it is not likely that any court direction coming out of a criminal state such as Russia will be accepted in Ireland under the treaty. (I certainly hope that is an overly optimistic expectation of jurisprudence)
Think: What, when China has to make a choice between a Russian court decision (granting Russian state-ownership to impounded aircrafts) and (for now non-existing public) Western court ruling around the same ownership ? TBH, I think, they just raise their hands to the sky and tell all parties to first resolve their court-issues and for now, China will not take action. At least, that's my guess. China's att covered against sanctions and Russia happy, they still can fly to China.

[FlightDetent]

, China will not take action. At least, that's my guess. . Dare I ask, how educated that guess is? There's people who spend 10+ years in the Mainland on these pages and none of them have such clear cut views. Neither the Fragrantly Harboured who might have a case even.

Although it's a pattern noticed repeatedly in your posts, WS, self proclaimed truths. 😳

[fdr]

Think: What, when China has to make a choice between a Russian court decision (granting Russian state-ownership to impounded aircrafts) and (for now non-existing public) Western court ruling around the same ownership ? TBH, I think, they just raise their hands to the sky and tell all parties to first resolve their court-issues and for now, China will not take action. At least, that's my guess. China's att covered against sanctions and Russia happy, they still can fly to China.

I do flights of my own aircraft into China frequently, and documentation for permits is a matter that takes care from all concerned, HKG, JPN, and SGP are particularly careful with documents. China may be coy on the matter but they have a lot more to lose than gain by permitting the breach that occurs with the Russian use of aircraft contrary to both lease breaches, which run close to grand theft, and a complete disregard by Russia of Annex 8. A majoritry of these aircraft will be illegal to operate into any signatory airspace either now or in the very near future. It certainly begs the question as to who is insuring them. Nowthere are short term ways to resolve those technicalities, but one of them will become seriously limiting in the near future. There is a way around that but I have no interest in assisting the kleptocracts resolve their impending quandary.

[WideScreen]

Dare I ask, how educated that guess is? There's people who spend 10+ years in the Mainland on these pages and none of them have such clear cut views. Neither the Fragrantly Harboured who might have a case even.

Although it's a pattern noticed repeatedly in your posts, WS, self proclaimed truths. 😳
Not sure, if I proclaim a "truth", my words are "My guess". Truths only exist in hard science (and even there it's disputed) or among liars.

Most people don't get any further than just "writing what they notice". The next step is to interpret these facts and what these facts imply. And that interpretation is often "soft", the facts aren't often that clear (or already interpreted), often the facts are conflicting, etc.

The challenge is to match these facts with other knowledge, more general principles, known goals/targets, try to find some "logic", etc, and from there "predict" what might happen. By doing this, you can be prepared in an early stage for what is coming and work on strategies to gain advantage compared to those, who don't get further than humbug complaining about the things they don't like. Once you get used to such an approach, it's even interesting and see, that your predictions indeed start to happen (of course, not always). Do this in business, and you can become very rich, like the new-tech people (I am personally not interested in more money, I have enough ;-) ).

Based on what was reported on CNN around the 2020 election, I "predicted" the steps Trump would take to try to revert the inevitable. I did predict he would try to falsify on the electors, I did predict, he would try to let the VP throw out the unwelcome election results, I did predict, he would initiate a violent insurrection attempt and some more of these things. And now, more and more of my predictions do surface to have been reality.

Of course, my predictions aren't always right, though often these do hit a nail. So, educated guesses, based on partial information.

[WideScreen]

I do flights of my own aircraft into China frequently, and documentation for permits is a matter that takes care from all concerned, HKG, JPN, and SGP are particularly careful with documents. China may be coy on the matter but they have a lot more to lose than gain by permitting the breach that occurs with the Russian use of aircraft contrary to both lease breaches, which run close to grand theft, and a complete disregard by Russia of Annex 8. A majoritry of these aircraft will be illegal to operate into any signatory airspace either now or in the very near future. It certainly begs the question as to who is insuring them. Nowthere are short term ways to resolve those technicalities, but one of them will become seriously limiting in the near future. There is a way around that but I have no interest in assisting the kleptocracts resolve their impending quandary.
China is a big Putin friend, though certainly doesn't want to get hit by (Western nor Russian) sanctions. As such, China does need "something" to be able to deal with both parties.

So, how to let the Russia confiscated aircraft enter China and don't get the US angry, etc. One option for that, is to take care, there are conflicting court-orders. For which China simply can say: "We don't want to take side, please resolve these among the conflicting parties". And in the meantime, we don't block any Russian aircraft with disputed ownership, access to China.

And, because these aircrafts are under Russian control, Russia can easily create the court-orders, making the aircraft paperwork "legal" again (despite this conflicting with the Western records). Russia is not interested in all the aircraft paperwork technicalities, many people here stumble over. Insurance will be from Russian companies (which probably won't pay, when things go haywire, etc).

Russia simply states: "The paperwork is correct" and when needed, will product court-orders for that. In the end, Russia is an extremely corrupt country, especially at the state level. Forget about honesty. It does not exist in Russia (nor China), otherwise, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine.......

We see the dishonest level in the extreme with the Russian army. It turns out to be "big", though completely incompetent, with from low level all the way to the top, just "Jay-sayers", not good for the reality of a strong and capable army.

Oh, and, once the Russia problem is dissolved, Western lease companies do have a big issue, to get all their aircraft back in an acceptable paperwork trail, an expensive challenge. Though, I think, in general, doable, since the Russian airlines flying the aircraft do have their procedures in place, etc, which will not suddenly be dropped, etc. So, there is a paper trail, it just needs investigation for quality and potential non-compliant repairs, etc.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I would suggest that the FAA will soon issue an AD saying that any maintenance by a Russian MRO on a Boeing airplane since the start of sanctions will render the C of A invalid. There are a lot more state responsibilities other than checking the airplane registration. I would be very surprised if China would be willing to risk their global access to airspace by allowing Russian owned stolen Western airplanes which are demonstrably not airworthy, to operate in their airspace.

China is Russia’s friend until there is a cost to them, then all bets are off

[fdr]

BPF, I think you have the right answer, and that would also work for EASAville. An AD would be appropriate, there is not much argument that continuing the aircraft without any OEM support is acceptable for a public safety aspect, and that is one of the primary reasons to put any AD out there.

How does the State of Manufacture have any means to ensure that their product is safe for function? It is similar to what would happen if an MRO is determined to be acting contrary to their authorizations, and while Russia can go do what they wish internally and they are a sovereign criminal state, as soon as they cross the border, then that is not the case, and no country would be able to accept an AD from the State of Manufacture that states a risk exists that precludes safe operation of the aircraft. The follow on is for the insurers to step down, and keep their paid up fees as an operator that may knowingly be breaching the requirements to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition would void the insurance, arguably AVN94 applies:

AVN 94 – Breach of Air Navigation Regulations Clause The cover afforded to each Insured by the Policy shall not be invalidated by any act or omission which results in a breach of any air navigation or airworthiness orders or requirements issued by any competent authority affecting the safe operation of the Aircraft provided that the Insured so protected has not caused, contributed to or knowingly condoned the said act or omission. Any Insured who has caused, contributed to or knowingly condoned the said act or omission shall not be entitled to indemnity under the Policy. Except as specifically varied by this clause, all other terms, conditions, limitations, warranties, exclusions and cancellation provisions of the Policy apply.

For punters flying with Aeroflot etc, it is your choice to do so, and that is with full expectation that even without vodka, a bad day out will not end up with a cheque unless it comes from Count Vlad's ruble account. For the NAA's that may permit the aircraft to overfly your cities, you are taking a bucketload of liability upon your head; an A330 or 777 plonking downtown Shanghai will look bad on the resume, and who is gonna pay the bills?

If the AMM system is anything like my planes nowdays, (its a while since I looked after any Boeings) there is probably multiple items that have come up on every aircraft in the last 3 months, like deep cycling of the ships batteries, emergency lighting system, standby AH/IFSD etc, and every one of those tests requires an active subscription to the OEM for the MPD/AMM etc. Now, Ruski planes can get Ruski IRAN MPDs for your MiG or Mi's but the lessor will not be amused and would have a great additive claim to the operator. I cannot see the Russian operators ever again getting a lease for a western-built bicycle let alone Boeing or 'bus for the actions under the sanctions, so hope the natives enjoy their rides in their national aircraft. As Antonov was mainly or completely made in Ukraine, that's at least one former CIS manufacturer off the options table.

Out of 187 aircraft or so, Aeroflot has 10 Russian-built aircraft, 10 Su-100's. They have:

Snecma JV on the engines...
Thales avionics
Messier-Bugatti-Dowty gear
Honeywell APU
Liebherr DFCS
Intertechnique for fuel
Parker-Hannifin Hydraulics
B/E interiors...

So after all of those are removed from the plane, should be good for chicken R&R.

There are some spares in the side of a hill in Mt Salak, south of Soekarno Hatta (APU is in the cockpit), some floating around Keflavik needing straightening, Yakutsk (not the gear), and some slightly sooty bits off the end of one of the runways at Sheremetyevo. Alternatively, they can remove the psycho in the castle, and get on with their lives. One fairly smart dude reportedly said:

The man asked, “What in particular?” Jesus said, “Don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, don’t lie, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as you do yourself.”

Would make a good new paradigm for Russia's Tzar, minions, and grunts.

Smart man, this Jesus guy, did some good, helped people, didn't end well; sad, oh well. :ugh:

[swh]

Actually, I think, Russia will simply produce "court documents", with a legal binding confiscation of all these aircrafts, stating the new legal ownership of these aircrafts is in Russia. And, then, China will say: "OK, these are legally owned by a Russian company, etc". If there is an ownership dispute, please first go to court, before we take action on this. So, yeah, I do have some doubts, whether the China mandatory ownership proving is going to make much of a difference. The only difference is, that China can now state they did take action.


Russia is a signatory state to the Capetown convention, if they have a Russian court order saying change of ownership, that still has to be registered on the international registry for it to be recognized. They wont get recognized as the previous owner and the international registry will not accept a Russian court document as a legal change of ownership as the binding lease contract states the only venue that matters relating to the contract will be heard is in London.

The Russians would need to apply to the London courts to recognize the Russian court order which will never happen.

[WideScreen]

Russia is a signatory state to the Capetown convention, if they have a Russian court order saying change of ownership, that still has to be registered on the international registry for it to be recognized. They wont get recognized as the previous owner and the international registry will not accept a Russian court document as a legal change of ownership as the binding lease contract states the only venue that matters relating to the contract will be heard is in London.

The Russians would need to apply to the London courts to recognize the Russian court order which will never happen.
That's a good one, though I doubt, China will go that far and just simply accepts the Russian court version, for "local China use", be it accepted throughout the world, or not. Hey, China did throw out / overruled the HK Basic Law, at the first opportunity they saw. China adheres only to Western "requests", when they have no other opportunity and/or it's going to cost China a significant amount of money.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Although I admit that the present thread has been comparatively light on deriding or derision of lawyers, regardless, this SLF/att'y wants to observe that legal acumen on Capetown Convention matters is not widespread in the profession. After all, it's pretty dry stuff.

I know one such attorney though, and he's been quite difficult to reach through his office coordinates, unusually so.

It's not part of the usual accumulation of agenda items and working papers and so on (as far as I've seen) but I still wonder how many side conversations among and with the "aviation diplomatic corps" will take place in the corridors during this fall's ICAO Assembly. "Whither the over-riding holy grail of 'standardization'?", I might ask perhaps a former ICAO SecGen.... I mean if I had representation and att'y-client privy with any entity in the "aviation diplomatic corps."

[Big Pistons Forever]

Allowing stolen Boeing aircraft to fly in Chinese airspace is a clear sanctions violation. I think there would be a significant negative response from the US government which will directly compromise Chinese global business interests. China is, like usual, playing both sides of the board but not to the extent that support for Russia has a significant cost to China. The proof of provenance requirements is IMO a quite elegant solution. It will in practice deny Russian aircraft entry into Chinese airspace, thus placating the US but without directly targeting Russia as they can tell the Russians it applies to everyone.

[Big Pistons Forever]

WillowRun

An attorney question. There are some huge insurance claims being made by various leasors to recover the value of the stolen airliners. The insurance companies are not surprisingly, try to wiggle out of paying. It would seem to me we are to some extent in legally uncharted territory.

What is your reading of the tea leaves ? Do you think the claims are going to be paid ?

[WideScreen]

Allowing stolen Boeing aircraft to fly in Chinese airspace is a clear sanctions violation. I think there would be a significant negative response from the US government which will directly compromise Chinese global business interests. China is, like usual, playing both sides of the board but not to the extent that support for Russia has a significant cost to China. The proof of provenance requirements is IMO a quite elegant solution. It will in practice deny Russian aircraft entry into Chinese airspace, thus placating the US but without directly targeting Russia as they can tell the Russians it applies to everyone.
Yep, that is when you follow the Western rules. However, neither China, nor Russia are following these rules. They have their own and when these match with the Western ones, OK, so be it, but without a match, they follow their own, using all kinds of bent logic to justify, etc. Think about the state wise organized doping programs in these countries, winning at all costs, adherence to Western ethics is just stupidity, a sign of weakness, for these countries. Think about the absurd reasoning Russia used to invade Ukraine, which by now got bent to just the Nazi's "Lebensraum" approach.=.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Yep, that is when you follow the Western rules. However, neither China, nor Russia are following these rules. They have their own and when these match with the Western ones, OK, so be it, but without a match, they follow their own, using all kinds of bent logic to justify, etc. Think about the state wise organized doping programs in these countries, winning at all costs, adherence to Western ethics is just stupidity, a sign of weakness, for these countries. Think about the absurd reasoning Russia used to invade Ukraine, which by now got bent to just the Nazi's "Lebensraum" approach.=.

The US has powerful weapons to punish China for flagrant sanctions violations. I don’t see any upside for China to get the US upset over this particular issue.

[WillowRun 6-3]

BPF

I couldn't quite think of a good witticism about tea leaves, tea, biscuits or no-biscuits.... and besides this situation is pretty much not one for levity.

As one would expect, the outcome of the various lawsuits will depend on interpretation as well as application of specific wording in policies of insurance and the aircraft lease (and related financing documents, such as letters of credit). A prime example likely is found in the "number of 'occurences' or trigger events involved in Russia's default"; that determination or ruling could "sway the value of settlements dramatically." (quoting article in Insurance Journal, May 11, 2022).

It won't come as either enlightening or surprising to say that the litigation could run on and on, and on, for quite a long time. For instance (as stated in an ariticle in the Globe and Mail, March 19), litigation involving Iraqi Airways arising from the 1990s sanctions resulting from the Kuwait conflict was in court on the order of nine years.

Glossing deliberately over one or more centrally important legal points here - because it isn't within my primary knowledge areas (and stuff about Cape Town and registration of aircraft can get pretty technical) - I'll venture to say the cases will be subject to pressure more or less at the "systemic level" to get settled. There is risk in litigating to final outcomes which result in very unfavorable terms or interpretations viewed from the standpoint of future deals and future growth and change in a given sector of an indursty or industry as a whole. And if one sees little risk, still there is uncertainty, which also is bad for future business. I hope it isn't controversial to say (at least I hope not controversial on this forum) that the re-registration of aircraft which still are carried on registers part of the lease agreements is not a valid or legal action by Russia. It undercuts so much of the "framework" - for lack of a more meaningful term - within which international civil aviation as a business has conducted itself with regard to these types of leases and financing arrangements. To press against settling, and to press hard, on the part of the insurance carriers would thus be like testimony against the future of this sub-sector of the industry worldwide. I haven't said the insurers should roll over, give me your paw, play dead, et cet'ra, just that litigating with "leg-biter legal counsel" snarling constantly and giving no quarter is probably not in the longer-term interests of the aviation insurance market and business.

One other factor, which isn't part of the thread yet but I think is quite important. Let us recall FR4978, as well as MH17. The problems that are confronting the lawyers, their clients and the related parties are direct consequeneces of imposition of sanctions. Unreasonable as well as reasonable minds can differ on all sorts of sub-issues about the Ukraine war. But drastic disregard of fundamentals of public international air law have occurred in the preliminary times of this war. To press litigation prostures to their ultimate ends while losing sight of how these issues became extant, how they occurred, is contradictory to fundamentals of how the civil aviation sector functions, globally. (Readers looking closely may see an effort to play off of "due regard" in the phrase "drastic disregard" - the academic versions of the applicable law tie together air law and space law, despite all sorts of objections).

[Big Pistons Forever]

WillowRun

Thanks for your contribution. It is, as always, cogent and provided an interesting perspective.

[WideScreen]

The US has powerful weapons to punish China for flagrant sanctions violations. I don’t see any upside for China to get the US upset over this particular issue.
Sanctions for flagrant sanctions violations, yep. Though not for the gray area situations.

As WR6-3 writes, about everything happening now in this area is a flagrant violation of WESTERN (initiated/based) international law. However, both China and Russia just consider these international laws nothing more than a nuisance. Easy to use, when it fits their need, and just ignore with strange reasoning, when it does not fit. For example, check how China manages to continuing ignoring Western ownership of intellectual property rights.

And, for this ownership situation, China will have the opportunity to just state: "Look, we do have 2 conflicting court judgments, first resolve that among the 2 of you, before we will take action". A gray situation, China deliberately created, just to avoid sanctions and of course "help" Autocrat friend Vladimir.

Though, let's see things on the bright side and assume, I am wrong being skeptical. History will tell how this develops. :ouch:

[WillowRun 6-3]

WideScreen

While there's no valid disputing the overall contention you've advanced - namely, the current government of mainland China does not start from the premise that the "rules-based international order" applies in the first instance to their country or its actions - in this particular case, there is an important qualification that IMO must be attached.

For six years, ICAO's Secretary General was a veteran aviation lawyer and diplomat from China (2015-2021). This SecGen possessed and applied great knowledge, insight, even charisma. And: the SecGen though not representing the PRC as a Member State, nonetheless was (again, IMO) highly representative, or symbolic at least, of the entirety of China's civil aviation sector, domestic as well as international. And would you guess what this SecGen's most consistent, and probably most forcefully if not also persuasively articulated theme was during her tenure?

Standardization. The critical importance of standardization. (This SLF was in the audience for several of the SecGen's addresses and appearances, in fact.) Not least, the SecGen had risen through other roles in the Secretariat, with distinguished service. After some long years at ICAO, her official pronouncements *should* have been consistent with China's policy.

So despite rhetoric to the contrary, and even, despite the linearity of the Western concept of precedent, by its current actions China has set a precedent the entire world civil aviation sector can see and recognize. Its participation at the highest level of ICAO was just an act - one performed with high fidelity by a wonderful and accomplished individual - but as far as national policy of PRC is concerned, just a dramatic imitation nevertheless.

[WideScreen]

WideScreen

While there's no valid disputing the overall contention you've advanced - namely, the current government of mainland China does not start from the premise that the "rules-based international order" applies in the first instance to their country or its actions - in this particular case, there is an important qualification that IMO must be attached.

For six years, ICAO's Secretary General was a veteran aviation lawyer and diplomat from China (2015-2021). This SecGen possessed and applied great knowledge, insight, even charisma. And: the SecGen though not representing the PRC as a Member State, nonetheless was (again, IMO) highly representative, or symbolic at least, of the entirety of China's civil aviation sector, domestic as well as international. And would you guess what this SecGen's most consistent, and probably most forcefully if not also persuasively articulated theme was during her tenure?

Standardization. The critical importance of standardization. (This SLF was in the audience for several of the SecGen's addresses and appearances, in fact.) Not least, the SecGen had risen through other roles in the Secretariat, with distinguished service. After some long years at ICAO, her official pronouncements *should* have been consistent with China's policy.

So despite rhetoric to the contrary, and even, despite the linearity of the Western concept of precedent, by its current actions China has set a precedent the entire world civil aviation sector can see and recognize. Its participation at the highest level of ICAO was just an act - one performed with high fidelity by a wonderful and accomplished individual - but as far as national policy of PRC is concerned, just a dramatic imitation nevertheless.
I didn't check your facts, though, we should not forget, your China hero did "leave" the China administration 7 years ago, and that the China hardliners only started to reach "the power" some 5 years ago. By the time, the Xi worshiping started to surface, so to say. So, yeah, I think, he is from a different generation of power, in China, not to say, he might have been pushed forward by China, assuming, he would be acceptable for the ROW (The same way Powell got pushed forward to present the fake-evidence to invade Iraq, simply because the ROW would swallow the obvious nonsense story, when Powell would present it). And in that position though maybe less adhering to the China government, ehhh, PRC, policies, though, he is still a Chinese, with all options for the government to enforce what he does, either by direct threats, or by threatening his family. And, yep, China does do so, at a large scale.

Anyway, let us see, what is going to happen. Maybe, I am wrong (apologies upfront), and I just do overestimate the China Strategic Chess playing capabilities, Go seems to be a much more difficult game than Chess, anyway.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Not taking issue with assertions that a perception of independence, or different power mindset, may exist with respect to the diplomat. Nevertheless, the inconsistency between what was advocated, and what is happening now, is worth noting.

And it indeed plays a long game strategically, significantly longer view than the West over the past few decades.

As for facts, ICAO's SecGen in those years was a female. I'll just take under advisement whether recognition of her strength of leadership, including but not limited to "administrative function" excellence, amounts to hero worship at all.