Transfering of registration between airframes

[The Flying Stool]

Something odd has happened which I had always presumed wasn't possible under the UK CAA but here goes.

Titan airways provide an Airbus A321 NEO to the UK government for VIP duties and was most recently used on King Charles III's state visit to France last week.

Here's where it gets interesting.

Titan Airways operate 3 A321 NEOs:

G-XATW Serial Number 10150 which is painted in Four Seasons colours and operates around the world tour charters in a VIP configuration.
G-GBNI Serial number 10238 which was used for the UK Government and Royal duties.
G-POWT Serial Number 8830 which was painted all white and used for ACMI duties and charters for various airlines such as WizzAir and British Airways.

Over the past couple of days, the identities of 10238 and 8830 have been swapped. No 10238 has been registered G-OATW (nothing too unusual in that) but weirdly No 8830 had been re registered as G-GBNI!

Whilst I appreciate that specialist airlines such as Titan often re register, repaint and reconfigure aircraft depending on various contracts, it's the first time I've ever known a registration be reused on a G- registered airframe. It does happen in other countries such as the USA and Germany but never the UK.

Can anyone shed any light on the situation?

[SWBKCB]

It isn't unique (check out G-BJCB for example) and can be done by requesting dispensation from the CAA

[DaveReidUK]

There have been several dozen examples over the years of G- registrations being re-used.

[treadigraph]

Hard pressed to think of others than G-BJCB and G-EDCA, though a number of "not taken up" registrations have been reused, particularly by period types.

Technically at least G-ARUL and G-ACDC are not the same aircraft as originally registered, 'UL even has a PFA c/n rather the original Le Vier one. I expect some parts in both aircraft are from the originals. The wreckage of 'UL was used by Paul Bannister as a pattern to build the new aircraft, the original fluted control surfaces were replaced by redesigned smooth skinned items, I think additional internal ribs were used, possibly for ease of manufacture! Bannister didn't have Lockheed style facilities at his disposal I imagine!

[chevvron]

I think it's happened with some microlights too.

[DaveReidUK]

I think it's happened with some microlights too.

Microlights (specifically flexwings) are a special case.

Obviously the buggy and the wing are easily separated and interchanged. That wouldn't cause any problem (the identity and registration ought to stay with the buggy and its MSN), except for the fact that the wing typically has the registration sewn on and can't readily be re-used with a different buggy as the reg would need to be unpicked and a new one sewn on.

So the CAA takes a practical approach and in effect permits a different buggy to re-use the registration that's on the wing.

[treadigraph]

Same with balloons, several baskets and burners have flown below a new canopy I believe!

[eckhard]

I think that Cherokee Six G-BAGG had its registration reused on another Cherokee Six after an accident?

[Dave Gittins]

Well, I never knew that. Is this dispensation only allowed to re-register an identical or similar aircraft ? Strikes me that next time BA ask for a set of in-sequence registrations they could use G-ARPA - Z.

[sandringham1]

Microlights (specifically flexwings) are a special case.

Obviously the buggy and the wing are easily separated and interchanged. That wouldn't cause any problem (the identity and registration ought to stay with the buggy and its MSN), except for the fact that the wing typically has the registration sewn on and can't readily be re-used with a different buggy as the reg would need to be unpicked and a new one sewn on.

So the CAA takes a practical approach and in effect permits a different buggy to re-use the registration that's on the wing.
The reg isn't sewn on, just stuck, and I believe with a little gentle heat it can be peeled off.
All the examples I know of have retained the registration with the trike, even when the off-coming wing has gone to another aircraft.

[treadigraph]

I think that Cherokee Six G-BAGG had its registration reused on another Cherokee Six after an accident?
So it did, still active too. Apparently rebuilt with a replacement fuselage, wonder what the nature of the accident was.

[DaveReidUK]

The reg isn't sewn on, just stuck, and I believe with a little gentle heat it can be peeled off.

I stand corrected re the attachment of the letters, I hope the seamstresses aren't too disappointed. :O

All the examples I know of have retained the registration with the trike, even when the off-coming wing has gone to another aircraft.

There have certainly been a number of examples in the opposite sense as well - where a new trike is registered with an existing wing, and inherits the registration attached to the wing.

[SLXOwft]

The Times reported in January that Titan would be replacing the existing A321 leased to HMG by the end of 2023, "the aircraft will also feature an 'increased VIP wardrobe', extra partitions and two conference tables." presumably Rish! has influence with the CAA.:) so G-GBNI could be reused on aircraft representing Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

From personal experioence I know TUI (and Thomson) deregister(ed) and reregister(ed) airframes from the UK register depending on where they were being used.but they were always returned to their former UK reg.

[DaveReidUK]

From personal experioence I know TUI (and Thomson) deregister(ed) and reregister(ed) airframes from the UK register depending on where they were being used.but they were always returned to their former UK reg.

There is no prohibition against wearing successive, different G- registrations on the same aircraft - that's a very common occurrence.

It's allocating the same registration to two different aircraft that's the (relatively) unusual aspect in the case that's the subject of the thread.

[treadigraph]

Apparently the Cherokee Six G-BAGG force landed at St Michel L'Aigle, about 90 miles west of Paris, on 13 May 1973 just seven months after it was registered, hence the subsequent rebuild with a new fuselage - presume it must have dinked the nose into a stone wall or something like that.

[SLXOwft]

There is no prohibition against wearing successive, different G- registrations on the same aircraft - that's a very common occurrence.

It's allocating the same registration to two different aircraft that's the (relatively) unusual aspect in the case that's the subject of the thread.

Thanks, I understood that, in the TUI case it was a throwaway comment highlighting they went off UK register e.g to C- and then reverted to the prexisting one rather than a new one - it was a side comment / thread drift.

As the CAA website states:

Any UK registration marks that are currently in use or have been registered in the past are not re-issued to a second aircraft to avoid any confusion. An individual airframe may have more than one registration mark in its lifetime, but a particular registration mark can only apply to one airframe.

Treaders - the original G-BAGG's (S/n 32-7340007) registration document states "Destroyed" 7-12-73 and is annotated "marks G-BAGG reissued 7/12/73 Piper PA32 Series 300 32-7340186 the new a/c's document 'marks previously Piper 32 Series 300 32-7340007' the aircraft's previous ID is stated as NEW USA. Were the rules different in the 70s?

Both the original BJCB and BAGG come up on G-INFO with a suffixed X e.g. G-BJCBX

[DaveReidUK]

Both the original BJCB and BAGG come up on G-INFO with a suffixed X e.g. G-BJCBX

Yes, that's the convention the CAA have used for the 50 or so instances of registration re-use that are visible on G-INFO.

[treadigraph]

One of my books is definite that G-BAGG#2 had a replacement fuselage which suggests wings, interior, etc were undamaged in the crash. Presumably a bare fuselage and maybe a prop/engine was a cheaper insurance prospect than a replacement aeroplane. Sadly my A J Jackson Volume III predates the accident! Haven't got any of my Air Britain registers any more which probably would have had more info.

[roger4]

Thanks, I understood that, in the TUI case it was a throwaway comment highlighting they went off UK register e.g to C- and then reverted to the prexisting one rather than a new one - it was a side comment / thread drift.

As the CAA website states:



Treaders - the original G-BAGG's (S/n 32-7340007) registration document states "Destroyed" 7-12-73 and is annotated "marks G-BAGG reissued 7/12/73 Piper PA32 Series 300 32-7340186 the new a/c's document 'marks previously Piper 32 Series 300 32-7340007' the aircraft's previous ID is stated as NEW USA. Were the rules different in the 70s?

Both the original BJCB and BAGG come up on G-INFO with a suffixed X e.g. G-BJCBX

The CAA date of "Destroyed 7-12-73" for G-BAGG#1 is presumably the date the paperwork was dealt with by the CAA, and Treaders has the correct accident date. It sounds like the replacement fuselage was a new one off Piper's line.

Interesting that what the CAA has done is at variance with what their website says they can't do!

[DaveReidUK]

It sounds like the replacement fuselage was a new one off Piper's line.

Yes, one of the last half-dozen -300s in the 1973 MSN sequence.

[Liffy 1M]

The online register G-INFO now shows the "old" G-GBNI as G-GBNIX, to distinguish it from the current one.

[DaveReidUK]

The online register G-INFO now shows the "old" G-GBNI as G-GBNIX, to distinguish it from the current one.

Yes, that's SOP, see previous posts.

[SLXOwft]

Slightly ironic that the current G-GBNI's former Bermuda reg VP-BTNP was previously allocated to an A319. Presumably G-GBNI had this temporarily when DVB Bank hadn't got a lease customer for it.

[Liffy 1M]

Slightly ironic that the current G-GBNI's former Bermuda reg VP-BTN was previously allocated to an A319. Presumably G-GBNI had this temporarily when DVB Bank hadn't got a lease customer for it.

This source (https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/airbus-a321neo-g-gbni-government-of-the-united-kingdom/ro1zml) shows VP-BTP as a previous registration, VP-BTN currently being worn by an Azerbaijan A320N. Bermudan registrations are re-used anyway, so I'm not sure where the irony lies.

[pax britanica]

Liffy-being very picky but the people on the island are like that -its BermudIan with a letter 'I' and said Bermudjan by most of them.

They had a mass cyber attack /ransome ware incident there last week could that impact their aviation registration business at. Also considering its a tiny place the airport is about 10% of the entire country, is registering aircraft in places like that just a financial device . Surely a G- reg gets more oversight than VP does?

[chevvron]

Liffy-being very picky but the people on the island are like that -its BermudIan with a letter 'I' and said Bermudjan by most of them.

They had a mass cyber attack /ransome ware incident there last week could that impact their aviation registration business at. Also considering its a tiny place the airport is about 10% of the entire country, is registering aircraft in places like that just a financial device . Surely a G- reg gets more oversight than VP does?
Happens closer to home; 'M' reg are registered in the Isle of Man but only for 'private' aircraft some of which are not small; likewise a 'ZJ' reg is Jersey and following on, a '2' is Guernsey. Some of these are transferred from 'G' reg aircraft but some have been transferred from Bermuda or Bahamas reg. and both tend to be based in the UK rather than IoM or Jersey eg VPBLS (itself originally VRBLS), a PC12 owned by Mr B Schroder/Schroders Bank was based at Fairoaks and when 'M' registrations were introduced it was changed to MYBLS.
Corrected version

[SLXOwft]

This source (https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/airbus-a321neo-g-gbni-government-of-the-united-kingdom/ro1zml) shows VP-BTP as a previous registration, VP-BTN currently being worn by an Azerbaijan A320N. Bermudan registrations are re-used anyway, so I'm not sure where the irony lies.

Mea culpa. BTN was a typo, BTP was also used by an S7 Siberia A319. irony was probably the wrong word, I was mildly amused this was the second time the airframe has had a reused reg.

[SLXOwft]

Chevvron you have got your Iles Anglo Normands confused 2- is Guernsey. Jersey's register used ZJ- but closed in 2022 I believe only four aircraft were ever registered.

[chevvron]

Chevvron you have got your Iles Anglo Normands confused 2- is Guernsey. Jersey's register used ZJ- but closed in 2022 I believe only four aircraft were ever registered.
Thanks, I'll change the above.

[Mach Jump]

Wasn't G-OCAA on more than one aircraft?

I guess it's one rule for us and another for them!


MJ:ok:

[treadigraph]

Not according to G-INFO... owned by Lynton Aviation for 10 years between 1992 and 2002.

[UV]

Wasn't G-OCAA on more than one aircraft?

I guess it's one rule for us and another for them!


MJ:ok:

You may be thinking of G-CCAA which was registered to the CAA from December 1982 until September 1987.

[pilotmike]

I stand corrected re the attachment of the letters, I hope the seamstresses aren't too disappointed. :O
Wrong thread.

[treadigraph]

Took me a moment to cotton on to that...

[DaveReidUK]

Don't let it needle you ...

[Jerbourg]

I recall G-EASI being used on an Eastern Airways Shorts 330, the marks had previously been worn by a Vickers Vimy!
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/669x338/g_easi_75f93819159649d785ec3ecc550ab76586be25e2.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x765/gettyimages_90747953_1024x1024_149d2ec6ed20851623425bd18e17d e7546a0c40b.jpg

[treadigraph]

I see G-EAGL was also reused. Alliance P2 Seabird, then a Cessna 421 (naturally!).

[champair79]

Seems the old G-GBNI (G-GBNIX) was involved in a serious incident departing Stansted post-government conversion back to regular Titan use. Current reg is G-OATW.

https://avherald.com/h?article=50faa50b&opt=0