N register - CAA Rumour
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I recall the case correctly, the Swazi authority had not taken a "sensible approach", they had acted contrary to international requirements and the CofA's were not valid under the Air Navigation Order. It therefore does not seem to be a case of the CAA "choosing not to recognise them". If it had been an arbitrary decision it would not doubt have been challenged successfully in the courts.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WestWind1950
That rumour is definitely incorrect - the FAA does not require N-reg planes, held by a US citizen or a US Trust, to spend any time in the USA.
Cathar
What evidence can you offer that a G-reg does more "for the good of the population of the UK" than an N-reg?
As a purely revenue raising measure, I can understand it. Not for any other reason though.
Regarding Canada grounding planes after 90 days, I wonder whether they also validate the FAA IR..... ??
That rumour is definitely incorrect - the FAA does not require N-reg planes, held by a US citizen or a US Trust, to spend any time in the USA.
Cathar
By keeping and operating a foreign registered aircraft in the UK the provisions established by Parliament for the good of the population of the UK as a whole are being bypassed and responsibility is in effect being delegated to the authorities of another country.
As a purely revenue raising measure, I can understand it. Not for any other reason though.
Regarding Canada grounding planes after 90 days, I wonder whether they also validate the FAA IR..... ??
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point I was making is that in establishing the CAA and passing the Air Navigation Order, Parliament takes account of wider interests not just interests of those flying aircraft in the UK. If aircraft are being permanently based and operated in the UK other than under the system established by Parliament this seems to thwart Parliament's intent in establishing the regulatory system. Obviously it is to the good of the aircraft owners to have N registered aircraft otherwise they would not do it. Whether it is or is not in the wider public interest is an entirely different matter and not one on which I have offered an opinion. However, it is an issue which could bring private flying into disrupte in the UK.
I think that your response to Westwind 1950 is a little disingenous. The FAR does prohibit non US citizens from owning N registered aircraft if they are operated outside the US for more than a certain number of day a year. It is to circumvent US legal requirements that people have resort to having an aircraft they have paid for owned and registered by a trust.
I think that your response to Westwind 1950 is a little disingenous. The FAR does prohibit non US citizens from owning N registered aircraft if they are operated outside the US for more than a certain number of day a year. It is to circumvent US legal requirements that people have resort to having an aircraft they have paid for owned and registered by a trust.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathar
Am I to understand that you have now watered-down your views on what the DfT intend to do to N-reg operators? You seemed rather more certain that the end of the world was nigh when this last raised its ugly head a couple of weeks ago.
2D
Am I to understand that you have now watered-down your views on what the DfT intend to do to N-reg operators? You seemed rather more certain that the end of the world was nigh when this last raised its ugly head a couple of weeks ago.
2D
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathar
How could it bring private flying into disrepute, when UK-based N-reg planes are, on average, maintained to higher standards and flown by more current and higher rated pilots, than UK-based G-reg planes?
Anyone wondering where I get the above from only needs to look at the average UK airfield, where they will see a pile of ancient G-reg Cessnas and Pipers and assorted other WW2-era spamcans, in variously advanced stages of decrepitness (but used for PPL training, and VERY IMPORTANTLY paying the CAA regular sums of money every 3 years), and they will see a much smaller number of N-reg planes, usually privately/business owned, well looked after, and used for more serious stuff e.g. business, and mostly by instrument rated pilots.
If anything is going to bring private flying into disrepute, it has to be the sight of the UK fleet (nearly all G-reg) gradually falling to bits. Nearly all the people attracted into GA in the UK are skint, the schools are mostly skint, and this is reflected in the state of the planes and the very low currency of most PPL pilots. It is evident from the state of the business that there is little scope indeed for bringing private flying into any more disrepute!
Re the US ownership bit, a Trust is legal and something which is legal is not illegal. Certainly that's the case in the USA; may not be that way for much longer in the UK
How could it bring private flying into disrepute, when UK-based N-reg planes are, on average, maintained to higher standards and flown by more current and higher rated pilots, than UK-based G-reg planes?
Anyone wondering where I get the above from only needs to look at the average UK airfield, where they will see a pile of ancient G-reg Cessnas and Pipers and assorted other WW2-era spamcans, in variously advanced stages of decrepitness (but used for PPL training, and VERY IMPORTANTLY paying the CAA regular sums of money every 3 years), and they will see a much smaller number of N-reg planes, usually privately/business owned, well looked after, and used for more serious stuff e.g. business, and mostly by instrument rated pilots.
If anything is going to bring private flying into disrepute, it has to be the sight of the UK fleet (nearly all G-reg) gradually falling to bits. Nearly all the people attracted into GA in the UK are skint, the schools are mostly skint, and this is reflected in the state of the planes and the very low currency of most PPL pilots. It is evident from the state of the business that there is little scope indeed for bringing private flying into any more disrepute!
Re the US ownership bit, a Trust is legal and something which is legal is not illegal. Certainly that's the case in the USA; may not be that way for much longer in the UK
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Gone.........for good this time.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How could it bring private flying into disrepute, when UK-based N-reg planes are, on average, maintained to higher standards and flown by more current and higher rated pilots, than UK-based G-reg planes?
Higher standards of maintenance I can maybe understand, but higher currency? Surely that depends on how many hours one flies in an aircraft, not what register it's on?
And higher rated pilots??? For instance, surely the UK Instrument Rating is far more difficult to pass, in technical and intellectual content, than an FAA IR? Having held a UK IR for some years, it's irrelevant to me, but I have heard that one can obtain the answers for the FAA written exams in advance!!
Give me the stats, plleeeeeease!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zlin526
It wasn't meant to be a hook
I said "on average".
Very very few UK PPLs have a current IR. You can see the license stats on the CAA website. Most of those that do have it date back to the UK (not JAR) PPL; the JAR IRs issued to plain PPLs since JAR are miniscule.
The JAR IR has a lot more ground school than the FAA IR but most of the extra stuff is commercial stuff and is irrelevant in the PPL/GA context. The FAA flight test is by all accounts at least as hard.
It is simply that a pilot going to all the hassle of putting his plane (HIS plane usually, otherwise the N-reg option isn't available) on the N register and getting the FAA PPL/IR isn't going to be doing it to fly down the coast to Beachy Head, IFR. The aircraft registry won't determine the pilot currency but a pilot won't generally bother to do it unless he flies a lot.
I am also not saying an FAA PPL/IR does more hours than a JAR PPL/IR; just that the latter is almost extinct.
I know a fair number of people who fly regularly, long flights into Europe etc. Nearly all of them are N-reg, FAA PPL/IR.
It would take seriously perverse thinking on the CAA's part to believe that banning UK-resident N-reg planes is going to improve safety.
If they were going to do it and avoid looking ridiculous, they would need to a) offer an IR appropriate to GA flying, and b) enable an easy conversion to the new IR. They can't do a) without pan-European agreement... but of course they know all this anyway.
For larger N-reg operators, e.g. fractional schemes, there would be an obvious and trivial way around the regs: have a pool of planes and rotate them via the UK, so each one spends just under the max permitted time here. The CAA would then miss out on the really juicy CofA fees.
It doesn't look very attractive.
It wasn't meant to be a hook
I said "on average".
Very very few UK PPLs have a current IR. You can see the license stats on the CAA website. Most of those that do have it date back to the UK (not JAR) PPL; the JAR IRs issued to plain PPLs since JAR are miniscule.
The JAR IR has a lot more ground school than the FAA IR but most of the extra stuff is commercial stuff and is irrelevant in the PPL/GA context. The FAA flight test is by all accounts at least as hard.
It is simply that a pilot going to all the hassle of putting his plane (HIS plane usually, otherwise the N-reg option isn't available) on the N register and getting the FAA PPL/IR isn't going to be doing it to fly down the coast to Beachy Head, IFR. The aircraft registry won't determine the pilot currency but a pilot won't generally bother to do it unless he flies a lot.
I am also not saying an FAA PPL/IR does more hours than a JAR PPL/IR; just that the latter is almost extinct.
I know a fair number of people who fly regularly, long flights into Europe etc. Nearly all of them are N-reg, FAA PPL/IR.
It would take seriously perverse thinking on the CAA's part to believe that banning UK-resident N-reg planes is going to improve safety.
If they were going to do it and avoid looking ridiculous, they would need to a) offer an IR appropriate to GA flying, and b) enable an easy conversion to the new IR. They can't do a) without pan-European agreement... but of course they know all this anyway.
For larger N-reg operators, e.g. fractional schemes, there would be an obvious and trivial way around the regs: have a pool of planes and rotate them via the UK, so each one spends just under the max permitted time here. The CAA would then miss out on the really juicy CofA fees.
It doesn't look very attractive.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO
Since many owners look carefully at the potential savings to be made in maintenance costs by moving to N reg, including reduced propellor inspections amongst others, it does not follow that N reg are better maintained in the UK than G reg.
It may well be that UK requirements are over pedantic, but that can only make them safer.
The arguement that perhaps the skills of many maintenance engineers are somewhat lacking applies no doubt equally to FAA licenced UK based engineers.
Your posts are often used to slag aircraft which are not at the end of their design life, and which have had all relavent AD's dealt with, and which the owners are maintaining regardless of the costs caused partially by poor standards of quality controll in their country of manufacture, often the same country that issues N regs.
Since many owners look carefully at the potential savings to be made in maintenance costs by moving to N reg, including reduced propellor inspections amongst others, it does not follow that N reg are better maintained in the UK than G reg.
It may well be that UK requirements are over pedantic, but that can only make them safer.
The arguement that perhaps the skills of many maintenance engineers are somewhat lacking applies no doubt equally to FAA licenced UK based engineers.
Your posts are often used to slag aircraft which are not at the end of their design life, and which have had all relavent AD's dealt with, and which the owners are maintaining regardless of the costs caused partially by poor standards of quality controll in their country of manufacture, often the same country that issues N regs.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since many owners look carefully at the potential savings to be made in maintenance costs by moving to N reg, including reduced propellor inspections amongst others, it does not follow that N reg are better maintained in the UK than G reg.
Neither does it follow that because something is inspected more frequently, it fails less. Indeed many failures occur to aircraft of all nationalities shortly after a visit to the maintenance shop.
This thread seems to have lost its way though focusing on personal digs rather than the larger picture.
Various unsubstantiated rumours are always popping up on these forums and others. The instigators are never authoritative themselves but invariably have "a friend" who is "well placed" to know what is going on. This thread is a fine example, and you only have to look back two weeks or so, when it was Cathar who had "good information" that the DfT were going to be dealing with this "problem".
Some things are certain. The FAA is concerned about the volume of work being generated by (in particular) its large overseas fleet of light aircraft. It must be true, although I don't have a friend "in the know", that the CAA is concerned by the number of pilots who are electing to take themselves out of the system. The IR is the tip of the iceberg. Nobody who has thought hard about the NPPL would actually follow that route if they were aware that for similar money and similar effort, they can obtain an ICAO recognised FAA PPL which permits unrestricted flying in G-reg aircraft. FAA Medicals meet ICAO standards (with a couple of small caveats that are easily avoided), and will often certifcate somebody who by reason of medical history may feel more inclined towards the HGV style approach adopted by the NPPL.
The answer is to sort out the mess that is JAA FCL - not to hamper the international recognition of another country's ICAO-compliant licences and the free operation of another state's aircraft.
IMHO of course
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Farnham
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bluski
Anyone wishing to switch from CAA to FAA with a primary aim of saving on maintenance cost, are at best dillusional. True, some savings can be made but what with the recent changes in the notice 75 rule, the savings are not all that great. It is just as easy to cut corners on the G reg if you are so inclined.
The point is that that the majority of operators using the N reg tend to be serious IR type users, flying more expensive kit that wouldn't skimp on maintenance anyway.
Amongst the many reasons for changing to the N reg is to cut down on unecessary bureaucracy and the hoops that the CAA / JAR make us jump through. Not forgetting the ability to simplify the IR process.
GG
Anyone wishing to switch from CAA to FAA with a primary aim of saving on maintenance cost, are at best dillusional. True, some savings can be made but what with the recent changes in the notice 75 rule, the savings are not all that great. It is just as easy to cut corners on the G reg if you are so inclined.
The point is that that the majority of operators using the N reg tend to be serious IR type users, flying more expensive kit that wouldn't skimp on maintenance anyway.
Amongst the many reasons for changing to the N reg is to cut down on unecessary bureaucracy and the hoops that the CAA / JAR make us jump through. Not forgetting the ability to simplify the IR process.
GG
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact is its far easier to *own* an N reg, and fly it as a means of transport. US PPLs tend to be *better rated* in that I mean that a far higher percentage of them hold an IR than a UK PPL. This is thorugh no fault of the UK pilot, but the stupid ridiculous level of the JAA IR for the PPL. You *don't need* to be at such a level to fly IFR in a SEP aircraft, you don't need to know about 737 FMS's to operate your Arrow in airways. Interestingly, although some JAR tolerances are higher than FAA tolerances, its all irrelevant after the test. If you use your IR you get better, if you don't, you loose your skills anyway....ok enough of that
Me, I can go onto the web and check a tail number. No doubt the CAA can too.
Funny that, isn't Bermuda governed by the ANO (Overseas Territories)?
Anyway, no doubt if the powers that be decide this is the best course of action, then some loophole will open up, like getting your aircraft serviced in the Channel Islands or Luxemburg or somewhere....
EA
Who's to know if it's actually registered apart from the FAA
I have heard suggestions that getting on for 10% of privately operated aircraft based in the UK are on foreign registers, mainly the US, Bermuda and Cayman
Anyway, no doubt if the powers that be decide this is the best course of action, then some loophole will open up, like getting your aircraft serviced in the Channel Islands or Luxemburg or somewhere....
EA
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bluskis
As I have already mentioned, the maintenance cost savings under N-reg are similar to the G-reg Private CofA.
The only real difference is that you can rent out an N-reg whereas you can't rent out a Private CofA G-reg, but that doesn't affect most N-reg owners who are the sole pilots, or syndicate members.
The statistics from the USA (where the majority of the earth's GA flying takes place) show there is NO reduction in safety from the FAA maintenance regime, and NO reduction in safety from the FAA Class 3 medical (compared to JAR). The "G-reg is safer because there is more maintenance" argument is so completely dead that if the CAA closed its GA department and let the FAA do it all, there would be no loss of safety.
As 2D says, these rumours surface regularly but are never backed up. I have just spoken to a "well placed contact" in the U.S. aviation scene and he tells me that he's never heard of any FAA moves in this area. Like the others, this piece of info is worth exactly what you've paid for it
As I have already mentioned, the maintenance cost savings under N-reg are similar to the G-reg Private CofA.
The only real difference is that you can rent out an N-reg whereas you can't rent out a Private CofA G-reg, but that doesn't affect most N-reg owners who are the sole pilots, or syndicate members.
The statistics from the USA (where the majority of the earth's GA flying takes place) show there is NO reduction in safety from the FAA maintenance regime, and NO reduction in safety from the FAA Class 3 medical (compared to JAR). The "G-reg is safer because there is more maintenance" argument is so completely dead that if the CAA closed its GA department and let the FAA do it all, there would be no loss of safety.
As 2D says, these rumours surface regularly but are never backed up. I have just spoken to a "well placed contact" in the U.S. aviation scene and he tells me that he's never heard of any FAA moves in this area. Like the others, this piece of info is worth exactly what you've paid for it
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Various unsubstantiated rumours are always popping up on these forums and others. The instigators are never authoritative themselves but invariably have "a friend" who is "well placed" to know what is going on. This thread is a fine example, and you only have to look back two weeks or so, when it was Cathar who had "good information" that the DfT were going to be dealing with this "problem".
2D - I was not aware of Cathar's post, but as this is the Private pilot's rumour network
, I felt it duty bound to share it with you all.
You know who I am and the fact that I rarely contribute to the rumour-mill must mean that I took said "little birdy's" comments quite seriously.
I have no axe to grind, I have a UK PPL with no current additional ratings and fly 90% of my 100 hrs a year in G reg aircraft. My source is suitably placed to be in the know.
Stik
2D - I was not aware of Cathar's post, but as this is the Private pilot's rumour network
, I felt it duty bound to share it with you all. You know who I am and the fact that I rarely contribute to the rumour-mill must mean that I took said "little birdy's" comments quite seriously.
I have no axe to grind, I have a UK PPL with no current additional ratings and fly 90% of my 100 hrs a year in G reg aircraft. My source is suitably placed to be in the know.
Stik
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know who I am and the fact that I rarely contribute to the rumour-mill must mean that I took said "little birdy's" comments quite seriously.
We do need to look at these rumours with a critical eye.
We don't need to know "somebody in the CAA" to be able to predict that the CAA is not happy about the massed arrival of N-reg aircraft on their doorstep.
However when that "somebody in the CAA" suggests that there is the thought that N-reg aircraft should be obliged to return to the US for an annual, we can apply our critical faculties.
The sole authority on where N-reg aircraft may be maintained and who may do the maintenance is the FAA. The CAA has no authority to vary this no matter how much it might wish to. So anybody spreading that rumour, is demonstrably mistaken and we can dispense with the detail of the rumour very quickly.
The sort of rumour we should be worried about are rumours implying the sort of changes that the CAA or Executive is entitled to make.
Compelling UK-resident aircraft to swap to the G after 6 months, would be one such change well within their powers. Powers prohibiting UK Citizens from owning overseas assets by trust might be another.
Fortunately, both of those come with such massive difficulties attached that I doubt either will see the light of day.
I am looking forward to hearing a really compelling rumour with a proper punchline.
Any idiot can write "My friend at the CAA says they are not happy with all these N-regs". It takes a much better rumour-mongerer to come up with a credible "... and so the CAA is going to..." bit. No offence intended at all to you Stik.
2D
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed. There are numerous perfectly reasonable rumours that you could spread if you were of that persuasion, and I deliberately avoided listing some of the most credible. Even your own has some obvious issues associated with it.
For the most part the rumours that these threads revolve around contain such basic mistakes that you can spot them a mile off.
2D
For the most part the rumours that these threads revolve around contain such basic mistakes that you can spot them a mile off.
2D
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Northolt
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I own a G registered plane that is about to be re-registered back onto the US register. I chose this as I want to complete my FAA IR rating so I can fly in Europe.
After reading all the comments here about this topic I called the company who is setting up my FAA trust. Yes I know he has interest to register N reg a/c as this is his job but I needed another view on this rumour. He says that this topic comes up every so often and should be treated as a rumour. It starts with the French getting pisssed off with the number of N registered a/c coming over and then they complain to the CAA.
As I understand it there is something in the 1941 (?) Chicago Conference allowing foreign planes to operate in other countries airspace and as long as there are FAA licensed engineers to do the inspections and remedial work as necessary. So to alter this, doesn’t this need a changed by both parties?
The nice chap at the US Trust company spoke to the FAA a few weeks ago about this and they didn’t know anything about this change to policy and stated is legal to own and operate an N registered plane in any country as long as it is serviced to FAR requirements.
I’ll keep going for the moment so we will have to see.
Gruntos
After reading all the comments here about this topic I called the company who is setting up my FAA trust. Yes I know he has interest to register N reg a/c as this is his job but I needed another view on this rumour. He says that this topic comes up every so often and should be treated as a rumour. It starts with the French getting pisssed off with the number of N registered a/c coming over and then they complain to the CAA.
As I understand it there is something in the 1941 (?) Chicago Conference allowing foreign planes to operate in other countries airspace and as long as there are FAA licensed engineers to do the inspections and remedial work as necessary. So to alter this, doesn’t this need a changed by both parties?
The nice chap at the US Trust company spoke to the FAA a few weeks ago about this and they didn’t know anything about this change to policy and stated is legal to own and operate an N registered plane in any country as long as it is serviced to FAR requirements.
I’ll keep going for the moment so we will have to see.
Gruntos
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know what exactly were the DGAC going to do when they tried to ban resident N-reg - a proposal which they quickly abandoned.
Was it a time period on the plane's residency, and if so what were the exact limits, or was it limited to French nationals?
Was it a time period on the plane's residency, and if so what were the exact limits, or was it limited to French nationals?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French proposition was to force aircraft that were seen to be resident in France for more than 6 months to adopt an F registration.
Whilst it was claimed by the usual doom-merchants in the UK that this move in some way mirrored American action or was a specific move against FAA operators the truth was rather more mundane. It was a sweeping response by the DGAC in an attempt to deal with various issues surrounding Yaks (and similar) of many bizarre and ill-policed registrations that were flying in France on full Certificates of Airworthiness. The N-reg community was an incidental victim of the move.
In the end, commercial pressure placed (in particular) by EADS killed the proposed legislation, since it would effectively have grounded the many N-reg TBM700C2s that have been sold in France (they are only available on the N). Similar pressure was brought to bear by the operators of various Fractional Ownership schemes which are provided for under the FARs, but not under F-reg operations.
Grounding Yaks proved to be a more direct and less contravertial response to the original problem.
2D
Whilst it was claimed by the usual doom-merchants in the UK that this move in some way mirrored American action or was a specific move against FAA operators the truth was rather more mundane. It was a sweeping response by the DGAC in an attempt to deal with various issues surrounding Yaks (and similar) of many bizarre and ill-policed registrations that were flying in France on full Certificates of Airworthiness. The N-reg community was an incidental victim of the move.
In the end, commercial pressure placed (in particular) by EADS killed the proposed legislation, since it would effectively have grounded the many N-reg TBM700C2s that have been sold in France (they are only available on the N). Similar pressure was brought to bear by the operators of various Fractional Ownership schemes which are provided for under the FARs, but not under F-reg operations.
Grounding Yaks proved to be a more direct and less contravertial response to the original problem.
2D