IoM/Channel Isles business aircraft..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: edge of reality
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IoM/Channel Isles business aircraft..
Anyone have experience of operating IoM or Channel Isles registered business aircraft in Europe ? My current contract is coming to an end and I'd like to return to the UK.. my UK licence expired some years back while working around the world.. now only using my FAA ATP which I can convert to IoM or similar.. I've not seen any vacancies advertised in recent years for pilots for IoM/Channel Isles reg business aircraft..maybe I've not been searching the right places.. any advice appreciated..
MungoP
MungoP
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: gashbag
Age: 52
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a look at the IOM website regarding non EASA licences and the overflight of EASA airspace.
Sorry to say you might be looking at an expensive conversion if you want to operate in europe.
Sorry to say you might be looking at an expensive conversion if you want to operate in europe.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: in the pub
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MungoP,
Jobs are generally NOT advertised through country of registration. It soon becomes entertaining when you are taken on to fly an M-reg, to find out it's now G-reg because the owner is going to charter it out. (And perhaps gain some tax advantages
)
If you are EU based however, as of April 2015, you will need a current EASA licence to go with your FAA one flying an N-reg based in the EU. However the Channel Islands are non-EU! (Ideal if based there)
Word of mouth is probably best job wise, which may be a little unhelpful to you. CI jobs don't appear very frequently.
There are a selection of registrations within the CI, of which a max of 50% are G-reg, because they are chartered out!
Best of luck.
SKP
Jobs are generally NOT advertised through country of registration. It soon becomes entertaining when you are taken on to fly an M-reg, to find out it's now G-reg because the owner is going to charter it out. (And perhaps gain some tax advantages
) If you are EU based however, as of April 2015, you will need a current EASA licence to go with your FAA one flying an N-reg based in the EU. However the Channel Islands are non-EU! (Ideal if based there)
Word of mouth is probably best job wise, which may be a little unhelpful to you. CI jobs don't appear very frequently.
There are a selection of registrations within the CI, of which a max of 50% are G-reg, because they are chartered out!
Best of luck.
SKP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Groland
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guernsey (2-....) and Jersey (ZJ-...) will both have their own registries going forward.
2-REG
Jersey Aircraft Registry
2-REG
Jersey Aircraft Registry
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are EU based however, as of April 2015, you will need a current EASA licence to go with your FAA one flying an N-reg based in the EU.
EU 216/2008, the reference I presume Steak and Kidney Pie alludes to, certainly does not refer to the residence of the pilot, or even where [B]he or she[B] is "based." The legislative text is very clear and makes reference to the residence of the OPERATOR. The word "base" does not feature in the text of the legislation.
Also, you cannot "convert" your FAA license to an IOM one. IOM do not issue licenses, they merely validate ICAO licenses.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: edge of reality
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks for that...
I certainly don't wish to undertake the european licence.. the UK version was enough of a pain 30 yrs ago..still smarting from that experience ! Maybe I'll just go quietly into the night flying an Aeronca Chief around the countryside for pure pleasure :>)
Thanks again.. MungoP
I certainly don't wish to undertake the european licence.. the UK version was enough of a pain 30 yrs ago..still smarting from that experience ! Maybe I'll just go quietly into the night flying an Aeronca Chief around the countryside for pure pleasure :>)
Thanks again.. MungoP
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: in the middle of nowhere
Age: 45
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IoM
If you are EU based however, as of April 2015, you will need a current EASA licence to go with your FAA one flying an N-reg based in the EU. However the Channel Islands are non-EU! (Ideal if based there)
Same for the Switzerland. In our company we operate several M-registered aircraft,and most of the pilots fly with FAA Licenses. So far no one has been put into the process of getting an EASA license, but maybe its because the company is registered in Switzerland.
I'd be eager to see how the Swiss will solve this issue.
Last year EASA prolonged the new implementation for April,2015. Rumor has it they will just keep delaying this procedure.
I guess we all going to find out pretty soon.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mungo, your FAA license is an ICAO licence so you can fly M reg using it - once the IOM validate it. (Approx 120 quid and two days). No need to retire just yet! Good luck.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: someplace between FAF & MAPt
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just going into bat here.
From the CAA FCL point of view they would appear very adamant that come April 8th 2015 the regulation will come into force. According to EU law it will be mandatory for any aircrew flying any aircraft who's operator is based within the EU to hold a Part-FCL licence as well as their "third-country" licence. At the moment there is no scope for this to budge, be delayed or altered in anyway. It is what it is.
you need to apply for a validation or conversion from the NAA of the country in which you reside. In the case of the UK you have to dance with the CAA.
Should you not be in possession of a validation issued your NAA, besides turning into a pumpkin you're also grounded if your operator is EU based on April 8th 2015.
Adding to the above, the guys and girls at Pilot Validation are starting to get busy again... If you want your validation issued in time, don't leave it too late in the hope there's changes.
Unless someone else has more update information or is in touch with someone 'in the know' that really is the outlook according to the CAA at this present moment in time.
Good luck to everyone who this affects.
From the CAA FCL point of view they would appear very adamant that come April 8th 2015 the regulation will come into force. According to EU law it will be mandatory for any aircrew flying any aircraft who's operator is based within the EU to hold a Part-FCL licence as well as their "third-country" licence. At the moment there is no scope for this to budge, be delayed or altered in anyway. It is what it is.
you need to apply for a validation or conversion from the NAA of the country in which you reside. In the case of the UK you have to dance with the CAA.
Should you not be in possession of a validation issued your NAA, besides turning into a pumpkin you're also grounded if your operator is EU based on April 8th 2015.
Adding to the above, the guys and girls at Pilot Validation are starting to get busy again... If you want your validation issued in time, don't leave it too late in the hope there's changes.
Unless someone else has more update information or is in touch with someone 'in the know' that really is the outlook according to the CAA at this present moment in time.
Good luck to everyone who this affects.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only assume that the CAA have not actually read the legislation. As I stated previously the word BASE does not even appear in the wording of 216/2008, which, after all is said and done, is the legislative text.
The UK CAA have, and will continue, to form opinions. They are entitled to do so, but the test comes IF they decide to prosecute. They rarely do this if there is any doubt that they will secure a prosecution. The IOM have already stated in writing on their web site that they believe otherwise. So do I.
The regulation 216/2008 (referred to as the basic regulation) seems to me to be VERY clear in it's wording. Even a CAA employee could understand it - if he or she wanted to. The fact is that they no longer make the rules.
There are other threads here that explain the detail of 216/2008 if you care to read.
The UK CAA have, and will continue, to form opinions. They are entitled to do so, but the test comes IF they decide to prosecute. They rarely do this if there is any doubt that they will secure a prosecution. The IOM have already stated in writing on their web site that they believe otherwise. So do I.
The regulation 216/2008 (referred to as the basic regulation) seems to me to be VERY clear in it's wording. Even a CAA employee could understand it - if he or she wanted to. The fact is that they no longer make the rules.
There are other threads here that explain the detail of 216/2008 if you care to read.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And another thought....
So all UPS and FedEx crews BASED in Europe, but employed by an American OPERATOR, will, according to the CAA's logic, need to get EASA licenses? What about American Airlines, Cathay Pacific and tens of other non European Airlines that have crews BASED in Europe.....will they now also need to re train their crews?
Get real.
So all UPS and FedEx crews BASED in Europe, but employed by an American OPERATOR, will, according to the CAA's logic, need to get EASA licenses? What about American Airlines, Cathay Pacific and tens of other non European Airlines that have crews BASED in Europe.....will they now also need to re train their crews?
Get real.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: someplace between FAF & MAPt
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may be missing the point slightly.
For the time being the regulators don't care where a crew lives, where they are based or who they pay their taxes to.
What they do care about is the location of the operator who they work for.
The case of UPS, Fedex, AA etc, these operators are the other side if the Atlantic, their pay checks come from the other side of the Atlantic. It's irrelevant.
However, if you fly a CJ or even a King Air on a non EU reg and the operator is based within the EU and you fly within European Airspace. Then you face a problem.
For the time being the regulators don't care where a crew lives, where they are based or who they pay their taxes to.
What they do care about is the location of the operator who they work for.
The case of UPS, Fedex, AA etc, these operators are the other side if the Atlantic, their pay checks come from the other side of the Atlantic. It's irrelevant.
However, if you fly a CJ or even a King Air on a non EU reg and the operator is based within the EU and you fly within European Airspace. Then you face a problem.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: edge of reality
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Deefer dog.. there may be hope yet..The very thought of dealing with the UK CAA still raises the hair on the back of my head.. My understanding is that an IoM validation relates to a specific operator/tail number so I'll need to find a position before putting this to the test.. which brings me back to my original query.. where to find a web-site likely to be listing vacancies for M reg or CI reg a/c.. My usual haunt is Climbto350 but I can't ever remember seeing an ad in there.. but then it's mostly US based..
Again everyone.. thanks for that..
MungoP
Again everyone.. thanks for that..
MungoP
Downloadable list's here;
Isle of Man Aircraft Register - Registered Aircraft - Isle of Man Government DED
Isle of Man Aircraft Register - Registered Aircraft - Isle of Man Government DED
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][moonym20
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: someplace between FAF & MAPt
Posts: 92
You may be missing the point slightly.
For the time being the regulators don't care where a crew lives, where they are based or who they pay their taxes to.
What they do care about is the location of the operator who they work for.
The case of UPS, Fedex, AA etc, these operators are the other side if the Atlantic, their pay checks come from the other side of the Atlantic. It's irrelevant.
However, if you fly a CJ or even a King Air on a non EU reg and the operator is based within the EU and you fly within European Airspace. Then you face a problem.
/QUOTE]
With respect your post is a little muddled. You start by stating that the regulators care about the location of the operator which is almost correct. (The legislation actually refers to the residence of the operator). However, you then go on to state in your last paragraph that the base matters.
Sorry, but the base of an aircraft matters not one jot. I have pointed out twice already that the word base (or indeed location) is not a word included in the legislative text. Change the word base for residence of the operator and we are in agreement with each other.
FedEx, AA, UPS etc do operate in Europe. They use FAA licensed pilots to fly N reg airplanes and these pilots may indeed be resident in Europe, and legally so because the OPERATOR is resident outside of the EU. It is the residence of the operator that matters. The residence of the crew, or indeed the base of the aircraft, for the purpose of EU 216/2008, is of absolutely zero significance.*
Please read the text of the legislation. If the UK CAA tell you otherwise get them to state their position in writing.
*Subsequent legislation, not related to crew licensing, is addressing the base of the aircraft but this is a different matter entirely.
Back to the OP's question. Private Jets post is a good source of info. Also, you are correct...to obtain a validation a tail number and letter of request from the operator is required so you will need a job offer first.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: someplace between FAF & MAPt
Posts: 92
You may be missing the point slightly.
For the time being the regulators don't care where a crew lives, where they are based or who they pay their taxes to.
What they do care about is the location of the operator who they work for.
The case of UPS, Fedex, AA etc, these operators are the other side if the Atlantic, their pay checks come from the other side of the Atlantic. It's irrelevant.
However, if you fly a CJ or even a King Air on a non EU reg and the operator is based within the EU and you fly within European Airspace. Then you face a problem.
/QUOTE]
With respect your post is a little muddled. You start by stating that the regulators care about the location of the operator which is almost correct. (The legislation actually refers to the residence of the operator). However, you then go on to state in your last paragraph that the base matters.
Sorry, but the base of an aircraft matters not one jot. I have pointed out twice already that the word base (or indeed location) is not a word included in the legislative text. Change the word base for residence of the operator and we are in agreement with each other.
FedEx, AA, UPS etc do operate in Europe. They use FAA licensed pilots to fly N reg airplanes and these pilots may indeed be resident in Europe, and legally so because the OPERATOR is resident outside of the EU. It is the residence of the operator that matters. The residence of the crew, or indeed the base of the aircraft, for the purpose of EU 216/2008, is of absolutely zero significance.*
Please read the text of the legislation. If the UK CAA tell you otherwise get them to state their position in writing.
*Subsequent legislation, not related to crew licensing, is addressing the base of the aircraft but this is a different matter entirely.
Back to the OP's question. Private Jets post is a good source of info. Also, you are correct...to obtain a validation a tail number and letter of request from the operator is required so you will need a job offer first.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Poland
Age: 69
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing is the M register is becoming less attractive for private operators at the present time
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in the wild blue yonder
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing is the M register is becoming less attractive for private operators at the present time, I'm not sure if there has been a change in management but the risk for someone in your position is that the operator flips over to the G reg and all of a sudden you find yourself not being able to fly the aircraft.
This is the most developed, most accepted and most efficient registry currently..and with a host of advantages over an EU registration as long as you are not seeking to charter the aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Poland
Age: 69
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree 100% with HiFlyer.
Windypops, could it not be the case that the operators you make note of did not actually understand the requirements in the first place? For those who may not, feel free to call the team in Douglas - they won't make you feel like an idiot, or try to bust you for what you may have misunderstood - they are there to help.
Yes there has been a change at the top. Hartley Elder has left the registry, and Brian Johnson has taken up the post of Director of Civil Aviation; both of whom are in the top of any league.
I doubt very much that any register could compete with the M in terms of customer service, a common sense approach and a practical understanding of the difficulties that operators potentially face from time to time. If you have a question or request these guys are there to help - no need to kiss arse and bend over - if you play by their rules (which are simple, straight forward and very well explained) they will help solve any problem or operational issue and you can be assured that they are not out to get you. These guys make it easy to comply!
This is a register that is expanding (third most popular private register in the World) not one in decline. Anyone operating an aircraft for private purposes in Europe who does not register on the M must be deranged!
Windypops, could it not be the case that the operators you make note of did not actually understand the requirements in the first place? For those who may not, feel free to call the team in Douglas - they won't make you feel like an idiot, or try to bust you for what you may have misunderstood - they are there to help.
Yes there has been a change at the top. Hartley Elder has left the registry, and Brian Johnson has taken up the post of Director of Civil Aviation; both of whom are in the top of any league.
I doubt very much that any register could compete with the M in terms of customer service, a common sense approach and a practical understanding of the difficulties that operators potentially face from time to time. If you have a question or request these guys are there to help - no need to kiss arse and bend over - if you play by their rules (which are simple, straight forward and very well explained) they will help solve any problem or operational issue and you can be assured that they are not out to get you. These guys make it easy to comply!
This is a register that is expanding (third most popular private register in the World) not one in decline. Anyone operating an aircraft for private purposes in Europe who does not register on the M must be deranged!
