Windypops

I'll have to call you on that too. Interesting to see you name tail numbers you categorically know switched to the G registry due to admin issues with the Manx registry. You can PM them if you like.

A quick glance through shows any de registered aircraft generally went overseas. Bermuda and US being the favourites. Then there's the ones which were placed on the registry during a change of ownership. Of the ones which transferred to the UK the majority seem to be light piston aircraft. Which makes sense given the rules on sub 5700kg aircraft.

Anyone who feels the Manx authority is difficult to deal with must be approaching them in the wrong way. Almost 750 aircraft can't be wrong. And try dealing with the UK CAA:ugh:

Windy,

The IOM publish their rules and regs on their web site. Everything can be downloaded. If operators don't know how to read plain ICAO English they have only themselves to blame.

Every operator irrespective of which flag they fly on needs to keep abreast of the regs as they change. IOM make them easy to read, and easy to find.

You cannot say that about EASA as is evidenced by 28 countries not being on the same page when it comes to a COMMON set of rules!

What do your "unhappy" operators expect? Personalised letters to each absolving them all from their regulatory responsibilities?

Of course you can expect more changes as they come into line with the latest ICAO requirements. In the specific case of RNAV approaches the only reason the CAA have not brought in the requirement for G reg aircraft is that is is covered by the EASA Part-NCC rules that come into force (on the latest timetable revision) in 2016.
As for notifying all operators of changes, I think in most peoples' book publicising it on their website meets that definition. It is not the regulator's job to go and hold the hand of everyone who wants to play with aeroplanes. Part of the job of the manager of a flight department is exactly to read through changes in regulations, or make sure somebody does. If you want to play with the big boys, you need to expect to do some work...:eek:

I think you have unintentionally hit the nail on the head. Far too many flight departments have no-one managing them properly. It doesn't need to be a separate person, one of the pilots or in some cases an engineer can do it. But if it's not done then you get sloppy and often unintentionally illegal operations usually because the pilots think that all there is to operating aeroplanes is flying.
It is precisely because of this that the bureaucrats have seen fit to bring in lots of new requirements to try and make people sit up and do things properly. Note that this applies equally to many small airlines and most charter companies, not just corporate flight departments. Unfortunately, all this achieves is more work for people doing things properly while rarely stopping the cowboys.

Windy, did your authority send you a personalized letter recently.....maybe along the lines of;

Dear Windy, Just a reminder to let you know that Part NCC is on its way, so you'll soon need to get busy. Give us a call if you have any questions old boy and our knowledgeable staff here at the Belgrano will be pleased to assist in figuring out all of the anomalies and contradictions. Just in case you don't receive our letter we'll give you a call anyway...we know you are probably too busy flying too keep abreast of the sh1t that EASA keeps sending our way.

Happy landings Windy, from the UK CAA.

Well did they?

And, in respect of the IOM, they have been banging on for more than two years about changes to the ANO. There were even drafts available on their web site that I used when adding an aircraft to the register so that everything would be in compliance when the rules change.

April 2018
 

Is anyone able to validate the rumors about the mandate to gain a Part-FCL validation has been pushed back to 2018? (other rumors suggest 2016). If so, then great... but WTF to EASA and the CAA who are/were adamant no further delay will take place....


:ugh:

Sorry Gents, for the off topic:
If a M-registered airplane is scheduled to departs from Hong Kong to LA which regulations apply for selecting alternate airport? Isle of Man ANO doesn't say much.

Depends on your country of operation that you operating the IoM aircraft under. Are you regulated under FAA, rules, CAA, etc.... They will be the same as the country you operate under.

What do you mean by "country of operation" or "regulated by" when we are talking about an IOM registered aircraft? Could you expand on your answer, or were you just guessing? :=

You have to consider the regs for the country of registration and the airspace you are flying in and adopt the most restrictive.

DD,

I was not guessing... I operate 2 IoM Aircraft and we (because we are a USA operator) fall under FAA rules for Flight (i.e. how to select an alternate for flight planing purposes) along with IoM.

So if you are a Europen operator you would fall under EASA rules of Flight...

Does this make better since to you?

That is completely wrong

The IOM are looking to amend their ANO to incorporate ICAO Annex 6, which requires better regulation of GA through use of ops manuals, SMS, FRMS etc. If you are operating on the M- an amended ops manual should satisfy authorities outside of the EU, however if '[the OPRs] principle place of business' is within the EU then EASA have directed that they must - irrespective of registration - operate to the conditions of Air Operations Part-NCC, which are regarded as more prescriptive than the core ICAO Annex.

Where this is a little controversial is EASA are prescribing operating procedures to aircraft registered outside of their jurisdiction, and there is some discussion as to the legal basis. I am assuming (as I know little about FCL) that EASA has used the same bully boy tactics for licensing.

If anyone wants a steer on the rules, please PM

Beaver,

Maybe you care to enlighten me as to how I am wrong.

Being that I operate 2 M reg aircraft as well as 2 N reg. Both of which we bought new and I went through conformity with the IoM and the manufacturer. As well have an IS-BAO approved SMS manual..

Dallas, IoM have already published their amended ANO and you can download it directly from their web site. IoM registered aircraft have always been operated iaw Annex 6 Pt 2 ops anyway. The latest ANO is nothing to get alarmed about and all quite straightforward.

Noneya might well operate two IoM registered aircraft, as indeed do many of us. I too have been operating their aircraft since 2007 and have been an NATR since then (no big deal, hundred of pilots get approved for this, as well as a/c managers), but I have never heard of "going through conformity" with them, unless he means he checked that the aircraft spec would meet the IoM equipment requirements, or he completed the registration and CofA applications.

In respect of cskafan123's question I'm afraid the given answer is not entirely correct, and is rather misleading. Take fuel requirements as a good example. An IoM registered aircraft when departing on an IFR flight from a USA airport is most certainly NOT required to plan using NBAA or FAR IFR reserves. IAW the IoM ANO Part 8 the commander is however required to;

(carry, ensure that) sufficient fuel, oil and engine coolant (if required) are carried for the intended flight, and that a safe margin has been allowed for contingencies;




There is no specific mention of departure alternates in the ANO, but Part 8 nevertheless covers just about every eventuality under the title pre-flight actions of the commander, and these are the rules that must be followed wherever the IoM registered aircraft flies.

In respect of State rules though Noneya is again partly correct. In USA for example 200 kts is the speed limit below Class B airspace, and when operating in the US any IoM registered aircraft must comply with this limit, even though in Europe we don't have to fly at such a leisurely pace in such circumstances. He is of course incorrect to imply that a USA operator of an IOM registered aircraft must limit himself to the 200 knots when flying in European airspace because he is subject to US regulations. The U.S. operator of an IOM registered aircraft, when flying in Europe can fly at any speeds that EU regulations and ATC clear him to, even if it MUCH faster than FAR's permit.

Well said Deefer !!!

Also, the IOM isn't part of the EU. EASA are on extremely thin ice !!!