N register - CAA Rumour
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
Most airfields in the UK don't have what could be described as a fence, so walking in would be a lot easier and cheaper than flying in
Actually you can drive a car in the UK, with false plates, no road tax and no insurance, for as long as you can, so long as you don't get into any incidents and only ever park in a garage.
All these "security risks" are irrelevant when one considers that somebody who wants to commit a crime isn't going to worry about having FM immune avionics, for example.
Flap40
If you have 10 planes that fly IFR, and another 100 that only ever fly on really nice sunny days, most CFITs would be in the former group. Apart from a CFIT, it is hard to get killed in a plane - most landing accidents for example are not fatal.
Most airfields in the UK don't have what could be described as a fence, so walking in would be a lot easier and cheaper than flying in
Actually you can drive a car in the UK, with false plates, no road tax and no insurance, for as long as you can, so long as you don't get into any incidents and only ever park in a garage.
All these "security risks" are irrelevant when one considers that somebody who wants to commit a crime isn't going to worry about having FM immune avionics, for example.
Flap40
If you have 10 planes that fly IFR, and another 100 that only ever fly on really nice sunny days, most CFITs would be in the former group. Apart from a CFIT, it is hard to get killed in a plane - most landing accidents for example are not fatal.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC,
Your arguement is a crock of s*ite I'm afraid. As IO points out, anyone interested in committing crime can and will do so regardless, and arguements like yours simply f*ck it up for the rest of us. This happened at a south coast airfield, where some d*ck head made some flippant remark about security to some wannabe journalist, and how easy it was to fly in from abroad, and what we saw next was the introduction of some arse pain procedures, which are totally un-nescessary. I'm sure these forums are browsed by the press / CAA etc.
Airside access is no big deal, infact its as much of a big deal as walking amongst a bunch of parked cars in a multi storey car park. You won't get far if you start tinkering with the engine of a 737 parked on the ramp, regardless whether you hold a pilots licence.
How do you know that an Afgan pilot is a) intent of committing crime and b) an inferior pilot to yourself? In fact if the CAA recognise the licence and ALLOW the holder to fly on it, then I don't think that you can say that the pilot is inferior. If it is indeed a forgery, then this person is breaking the law, and we go back to square 1. Incidentally, if I was going to forge a licence, I'd forge a CAA issued one, for the fact that a) I can print an exact copy on my lazer printer here, now, today, and no one will be able to tell the difference, and b) Its less likely to be questioned by the CFI in you example. For REAL security the UK licence should be like the UK driving licence, with a photo on it, but I guess thats too hard for the CAA to print on a lazer printer and would probably raise the fee several hundred pounds.
You comment about the UK driving licence is flawed on several grounds. 1) You CAN drive on your foreign licence for more than a year. Not legally, but if you get pulled by the police, who is to know how long you have been in the country? If you come and go in and out of the UK, you could in theory drive on a foreign licence forever legally and 2) you DO need to take the UK driving test to be issued an EU/UK driving licence.
What I would call a "Gaping security hole" is the fact that armed Air marshals are allowed onboard aircraft. How long is it going to be before Al Quieda or whoever manage to get a trainee AM through the candidate selection process and onboard an aircraft. Now there is no need to smuggle weapons onboard a passenger jet, they are already there!
Rgds
EA
Your arguement is a crock of s*ite I'm afraid. As IO points out, anyone interested in committing crime can and will do so regardless, and arguements like yours simply f*ck it up for the rest of us. This happened at a south coast airfield, where some d*ck head made some flippant remark about security to some wannabe journalist, and how easy it was to fly in from abroad, and what we saw next was the introduction of some arse pain procedures, which are totally un-nescessary. I'm sure these forums are browsed by the press / CAA etc.
Airside access is no big deal, infact its as much of a big deal as walking amongst a bunch of parked cars in a multi storey car park. You won't get far if you start tinkering with the engine of a 737 parked on the ramp, regardless whether you hold a pilots licence.
How do you know that an Afgan pilot is a) intent of committing crime and b) an inferior pilot to yourself? In fact if the CAA recognise the licence and ALLOW the holder to fly on it, then I don't think that you can say that the pilot is inferior. If it is indeed a forgery, then this person is breaking the law, and we go back to square 1. Incidentally, if I was going to forge a licence, I'd forge a CAA issued one, for the fact that a) I can print an exact copy on my lazer printer here, now, today, and no one will be able to tell the difference, and b) Its less likely to be questioned by the CFI in you example. For REAL security the UK licence should be like the UK driving licence, with a photo on it, but I guess thats too hard for the CAA to print on a lazer printer and would probably raise the fee several hundred pounds.
You comment about the UK driving licence is flawed on several grounds. 1) You CAN drive on your foreign licence for more than a year. Not legally, but if you get pulled by the police, who is to know how long you have been in the country? If you come and go in and out of the UK, you could in theory drive on a foreign licence forever legally and 2) you DO need to take the UK driving test to be issued an EU/UK driving licence.
What I would call a "Gaping security hole" is the fact that armed Air marshals are allowed onboard aircraft. How long is it going to be before Al Quieda or whoever manage to get a trainee AM through the candidate selection process and onboard an aircraft. Now there is no need to smuggle weapons onboard a passenger jet, they are already there!
Rgds
EA
Guest
Posts: n/a
DFC,
Using your argument can you explain why crime in the UK involving handguns has gone up since they were banned from being owned by private individuals a few years ago?
Surely we should be living in a crime free Nirvana by now, shouldn't we
WF.
Using your argument can you explain why crime in the UK involving handguns has gone up since they were banned from being owned by private individuals a few years ago?
Surely we should be living in a crime free Nirvana by now, shouldn't we
WF.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 points.
1. If Cathar says the CAA are thinking of doing something I for one take it seriously. He always knows the rules and regs, always thinks their right, always takes the CAA side and always makes out how reasonable the CAA is. He's got to be CAA or retired from the CAA.
2. Why is it we think any rumours about things the CAA is planning to do or thinking about doing are always going to make things worse for us?
OK. I know the answer to that question but isn't it awful we have to fly under such a regime? If only the CAA was more like the FAA.
1. If Cathar says the CAA are thinking of doing something I for one take it seriously. He always knows the rules and regs, always thinks their right, always takes the CAA side and always makes out how reasonable the CAA is. He's got to be CAA or retired from the CAA.
2. Why is it we think any rumours about things the CAA is planning to do or thinking about doing are always going to make things worse for us?
OK. I know the answer to that question but isn't it awful we have to fly under such a regime? If only the CAA was more like the FAA.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm
I have no practicak experience of Danish legislation. However, I have been told by the Danish CAA that it is impractical to base N registered aircraft in Denmark as the Danish Air Navigation Act requires such aircraft to obtain permission from the Danish CAA to make internal flights. (NB section is the term for a paragraph in UK Acts of Parliament which is why I used it in this case)
The Chicago Convention is the Convention on International Civil Aviation and as the name suggest it is not designed to cover strictly domestic issues. According to the ICAO Council (as reported in Shawcross and Beaumont Air Law) there are three types of flight covered by the right given by Article 5 these are;
- entry into and flight over a State's territory without a stop;
- entry into and flight over a State's territory with a stop for non-traffic purposes; and
- entry into a State's territory and final stop there for non-traffic purposes.
Presumably this includes the return flight but there is no absolutely mention of flights within a States territory. This is consistent with all other interpretations I have seen.
IO540
On what basis do you suggest that "The biggest driver in the CAA is probably money" The CAA is not a business and does not make a profit. It is a statutory corporation which undertakes regulatory functions assigned to it by Parliament. CAA charges can only ever cover costs (including a marginal return on capital employed if I remember rightly).
I don't think this would be a political issue between the UK and US because, if I understand the situation correctly, the FAA would be quite happy to be relieved of the responsibility for offshore based aircraft.
It would be interesting to know how many multi-aircraft N-reg operators based in the UK and to what extent it would be practicable for the rotating planes through the UK with other based elsewhere in Europe.
Phil Rigg
EASA's responsibility (as defined in EC legislation) is solely for aircraft registered in the EU Member States. While this of course could be changed by further legisaltion I have heard no suggestion that there are any proposals in this direction. The next things on the agenda for EASA appear to be operational standards and personnel licensing. This should keep the Bureaucrats busy for quite a few years.
Datcon
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not now, nor have I ever been employed by the CAA. It's all right to ignore me.
I have no practicak experience of Danish legislation. However, I have been told by the Danish CAA that it is impractical to base N registered aircraft in Denmark as the Danish Air Navigation Act requires such aircraft to obtain permission from the Danish CAA to make internal flights. (NB section is the term for a paragraph in UK Acts of Parliament which is why I used it in this case)
The Chicago Convention is the Convention on International Civil Aviation and as the name suggest it is not designed to cover strictly domestic issues. According to the ICAO Council (as reported in Shawcross and Beaumont Air Law) there are three types of flight covered by the right given by Article 5 these are;
- entry into and flight over a State's territory without a stop;
- entry into and flight over a State's territory with a stop for non-traffic purposes; and
- entry into a State's territory and final stop there for non-traffic purposes.
Presumably this includes the return flight but there is no absolutely mention of flights within a States territory. This is consistent with all other interpretations I have seen.
IO540
On what basis do you suggest that "The biggest driver in the CAA is probably money" The CAA is not a business and does not make a profit. It is a statutory corporation which undertakes regulatory functions assigned to it by Parliament. CAA charges can only ever cover costs (including a marginal return on capital employed if I remember rightly).
I don't think this would be a political issue between the UK and US because, if I understand the situation correctly, the FAA would be quite happy to be relieved of the responsibility for offshore based aircraft.
It would be interesting to know how many multi-aircraft N-reg operators based in the UK and to what extent it would be practicable for the rotating planes through the UK with other based elsewhere in Europe.
Phil Rigg
EASA's responsibility (as defined in EC legislation) is solely for aircraft registered in the EU Member States. While this of course could be changed by further legisaltion I have heard no suggestion that there are any proposals in this direction. The next things on the agenda for EASA appear to be operational standards and personnel licensing. This should keep the Bureaucrats busy for quite a few years.
Datcon
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not now, nor have I ever been employed by the CAA. It's all right to ignore me.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I said that I am not making comments about N registered aircraft or FAA licensed pilots. However the comment from Englishal of;
is hardly about the other coupple of hundred ICAO countries who could be grouped with the US in any system change.
The problem with the current system is that the CAA has lost control of an ever growing portion of the UK general aviation system.
If the CAA is unable to fully enforce the UK legislation on UK based operators then why bother having a CAA at all.
The question of limiting the time non-European registered aircraft can reside in the UK causes all sorts of fuss among UK GA pilots purely because that closes off a system that they have used to circumvent UK legislation (and expense). I don't hear much fuss from pilots here on visits from the ICAO countries that would be affected by such action.
Of course FM immune and Mode S apply regardless of registration.
Cathar is overall correct;
An ICAO registered aircraft operating outside it's home country is in every case under iCAO requirements.
Under the ICAO standards for such flights, it is possible having arrived in a country to make internal private flights without further permission provided that only the same passengers use the aircraft
i.e. there is nothing wrong with arriving in the UK at Glasgow in an 7Y reg aircraft with Mr Big and Madam Big and after a stopover, flying them to Manchester and then say flying them to Bournemouth etc. What would be wrong is to leave them in Glasgow while different passengers fly from Glasgow to Manchester in the aircraft.
Of course we are talking passengers and cargo here so strictly speaking, there is no problem when only the crew are carried on the aircraft. However, I suspect that many UK based operators of non-European registred aircraft carry different pasengers to those that arrived from the State of regsitry from time to time.
As for the security point of view, I am concerned that the CAA has passed the buck to the Club CFI (or owner) with regard to the validation of non-European licenses.
Englishal said;
I would say otherwise - the CFI will also check the logbook and will seek evidence of experience to match the licence. If the CFI has any doubt then a quick on-line check can put registrations to types and owners. If futher doubt then the CAA is at hand to confirm or deny the validity of the licence.
If you are presented with a piece of paper which the holder calls a PPL from Outer Mongolia then what facilities are at your disposal for the validation of such a licence - None. If you refuse to let the pilot fly then if the licence is valid you are quite rightly accused of discrimination.
Get it wrong and who knows what you may have been a party to when the police come knocking. We have already had instructors arrested for providing flight training to certain individuals.
There is also the current and growing problem that certain operators are providing training in N registered aircraft in the UK which can be used to circumvent US security arrangements with regard to flight training State side.........does anyone think that the US is happy with people cutting up their security procedures?
Of course the USA will not have any problem with the UK kicking out all N reg aircraft after 6 months since that is what the US does to G reg aircraft.
It isn't about breaking the law which as everyone rightly says can be done by anyone. It is about maintaining control and having in place a system that meets the public's requirements.
To put it simply;
Driving on false number plates and licence is illegal. Same applies to flying.
Driving on a Foreign licence for more than the maximum period is illegal. Currently, one can fly a UK aircraft on any foreign licence without ever having any check by the UK Authorities
Keeping a Foreign Car in the UK for more than the maximum period is illegal as is driving it without a UK MOT once the visiting period has expired. However, one can fly a Foreign registered aircraft forever legally without any checks or UK MOT.
Thus currently, there are lower requirements for aviation than for driving.
Is that correct? or more importantly,
Can the public have confidence in the system that is supposed to protect them?
Regards,
DFC
and arguements like yours simply f*ck it up for the rest of us
The problem with the current system is that the CAA has lost control of an ever growing portion of the UK general aviation system.
If the CAA is unable to fully enforce the UK legislation on UK based operators then why bother having a CAA at all.
The question of limiting the time non-European registered aircraft can reside in the UK causes all sorts of fuss among UK GA pilots purely because that closes off a system that they have used to circumvent UK legislation (and expense). I don't hear much fuss from pilots here on visits from the ICAO countries that would be affected by such action.
Of course FM immune and Mode S apply regardless of registration.
Cathar is overall correct;
An ICAO registered aircraft operating outside it's home country is in every case under iCAO requirements.
Under the ICAO standards for such flights, it is possible having arrived in a country to make internal private flights without further permission provided that only the same passengers use the aircraft
i.e. there is nothing wrong with arriving in the UK at Glasgow in an 7Y reg aircraft with Mr Big and Madam Big and after a stopover, flying them to Manchester and then say flying them to Bournemouth etc. What would be wrong is to leave them in Glasgow while different passengers fly from Glasgow to Manchester in the aircraft.
Of course we are talking passengers and cargo here so strictly speaking, there is no problem when only the crew are carried on the aircraft. However, I suspect that many UK based operators of non-European registred aircraft carry different pasengers to those that arrived from the State of regsitry from time to time.
As for the security point of view, I am concerned that the CAA has passed the buck to the Club CFI (or owner) with regard to the validation of non-European licenses.
Englishal said;
Incidentally, if I was going to forge a licence, I'd forge a CAA issued one, for the fact that a) I can print an exact copy on my lazer printer here, now, today, and no one will be able to tell the difference, and b) Its less likely to be questioned by the CFI in you example
If you are presented with a piece of paper which the holder calls a PPL from Outer Mongolia then what facilities are at your disposal for the validation of such a licence - None. If you refuse to let the pilot fly then if the licence is valid you are quite rightly accused of discrimination.
Get it wrong and who knows what you may have been a party to when the police come knocking. We have already had instructors arrested for providing flight training to certain individuals.
There is also the current and growing problem that certain operators are providing training in N registered aircraft in the UK which can be used to circumvent US security arrangements with regard to flight training State side.........does anyone think that the US is happy with people cutting up their security procedures?
Of course the USA will not have any problem with the UK kicking out all N reg aircraft after 6 months since that is what the US does to G reg aircraft.
It isn't about breaking the law which as everyone rightly says can be done by anyone. It is about maintaining control and having in place a system that meets the public's requirements.
To put it simply;
Driving on false number plates and licence is illegal. Same applies to flying.
Driving on a Foreign licence for more than the maximum period is illegal. Currently, one can fly a UK aircraft on any foreign licence without ever having any check by the UK Authorities
Keeping a Foreign Car in the UK for more than the maximum period is illegal as is driving it without a UK MOT once the visiting period has expired. However, one can fly a Foreign registered aircraft forever legally without any checks or UK MOT.
Thus currently, there are lower requirements for aviation than for driving.
Is that correct? or more importantly,
Can the public have confidence in the system that is supposed to protect them?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
Other than nebulous arguments like "public confidence" (let's face it, Joe Public cannot spell "Certificate of Airworthiness" let alone tell you what it is) or "why bother having the CAA", can you offer some examples of HARM that resident N-reg does?
In GA, the number of N-reg planes is always going to be very small - because commercial/training work has to be G-reg, and for non-IR private owners the Private CofA has a comparable maintenance regime. Anyway, practically nobody goes N-reg to save money on maintenance.
So why bring in restrictions?
Make a case, objectively.
Other than nebulous arguments like "public confidence" (let's face it, Joe Public cannot spell "Certificate of Airworthiness" let alone tell you what it is) or "why bother having the CAA", can you offer some examples of HARM that resident N-reg does?
In GA, the number of N-reg planes is always going to be very small - because commercial/training work has to be G-reg, and for non-IR private owners the Private CofA has a comparable maintenance regime. Anyway, practically nobody goes N-reg to save money on maintenance.
So why bring in restrictions?
Make a case, objectively.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540,
Why mention N reg?
Why do you wish to restrict debate about a law that applies to almost every registration you can think of to one particular registration?
Very true. My bicycle riding child has no idea what an MOT is or why certain cars are requird to have one. That does not change the fact that the MOT is designed to provide them with some small protection from unroadworthy vehicles. A vehicle imported into the country which never undergoes a UK MOT may be perfectly safe or it may not.
Why do you think we need draconian restrictions?
Can we not simply have a system whereby the CAA;
a) Requires all non European registered aircraft based in the UK to register that fact with them; and
b) To continue the current system of permitting ICAO licence holders to fly G registered aircraft bu to require them to obtain a validation first.
If for nothing eles, the CAA can tell when the number of non-European PPLs exceed the number of UK licensed pilots and they can transfer the phones over to Tehran since I bet pleant of the licence holder will be licensed there...PPL for US$1000 anyone?
I always laugh when I see the British Gent who supports the British Motor industry by purchasing an expensive car at a greatly inflated price from a UK dealer despite a big saving on the same car available elsewhere in Europe but then drives to the airfield where they use their non UK pilot licence to fly a non-UK aircraft on business for which they claim against their UK tax!!
They are the one who will moan about asylum seekers, and jonny foreigner taking UK jobs. They support the clamping shut of the borders.......but not so tight that they can't get their foreign registered, foreign licensed and foreign maintained aircraft to and from the UK with their foreign licence.
Love it!
DFC
Why mention N reg?
Why do you wish to restrict debate about a law that applies to almost every registration you can think of to one particular registration?
(let's face it, Joe Public cannot spell "Certificate of Airworthiness" let alone tell you what it is)
Why do you think we need draconian restrictions?
Can we not simply have a system whereby the CAA;
a) Requires all non European registered aircraft based in the UK to register that fact with them; and
b) To continue the current system of permitting ICAO licence holders to fly G registered aircraft bu to require them to obtain a validation first.
If for nothing eles, the CAA can tell when the number of non-European PPLs exceed the number of UK licensed pilots and they can transfer the phones over to Tehran since I bet pleant of the licence holder will be licensed there...PPL for US$1000 anyone?
I always laugh when I see the British Gent who supports the British Motor industry by purchasing an expensive car at a greatly inflated price from a UK dealer despite a big saving on the same car available elsewhere in Europe but then drives to the airfield where they use their non UK pilot licence to fly a non-UK aircraft on business for which they claim against their UK tax!!
They are the one who will moan about asylum seekers, and jonny foreigner taking UK jobs. They support the clamping shut of the borders.......but not so tight that they can't get their foreign registered, foreign licensed and foreign maintained aircraft to and from the UK with their foreign licence.
Love it!
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
Your a) and b) represent a substantial climbdown from your previous pronouncements on the subject, and I don't suppose many owners of foreign reg planes would mind - unless the CAA wants £600 every 3 years for "processing" the registration, which of course they will. I wonder what they would do to earn the fee?
You are trying hard to make a case for some sort of higher maintenance standard, but the N-reg regime is little different from the CAA Private CofA regime, and you can do unlimited flying in just about any GA plane under the latter. So what does that leave us? It leaves us with revenue generation.
Cars aren't relevant to this. Only a miniscule % of car accidents are caused by mech failure. The strict MOT is there mainly to protect the public from cowboy car dealers. The strict registration is there to ensure that if you are photographed speeding or whatever, they know where to send the summons to. With planes, Mode S will take care of that.
As for the rest, it may be a bait but I don't see the relevance to GA.
Your a) and b) represent a substantial climbdown from your previous pronouncements on the subject, and I don't suppose many owners of foreign reg planes would mind - unless the CAA wants £600 every 3 years for "processing" the registration, which of course they will. I wonder what they would do to earn the fee?
You are trying hard to make a case for some sort of higher maintenance standard, but the N-reg regime is little different from the CAA Private CofA regime, and you can do unlimited flying in just about any GA plane under the latter. So what does that leave us? It leaves us with revenue generation.
Cars aren't relevant to this. Only a miniscule % of car accidents are caused by mech failure. The strict MOT is there mainly to protect the public from cowboy car dealers. The strict registration is there to ensure that if you are photographed speeding or whatever, they know where to send the summons to. With planes, Mode S will take care of that.
As for the rest, it may be a bait but I don't see the relevance to GA.
Last edited by IO540; 3rd Apr 2004 at 16:02.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
The MOT test was introduced to protect the public from vehicle owners who were not maintaining their vehicles correctly and keeping them roadworthy. It had nothing to do with protecting the public from cowboy car dealers.
I do not know why you are so hung up on the idea that the only reason that action might be taken against foreign aircraft based in the UK is revenue generation. The CAA are not a profit making private sector company, they are a statutory regulator. Their charges may only cover their costs. They have no incentive to generate revenue. However, if they were to take action it could be to the benefit of UK aircraft owners and licence holders. If it resulted in an increase in the number of UK licence holders, aircraft owners, etc, the CAA might have scope to lower individual charges.
The MOT test was introduced to protect the public from vehicle owners who were not maintaining their vehicles correctly and keeping them roadworthy. It had nothing to do with protecting the public from cowboy car dealers.
I do not know why you are so hung up on the idea that the only reason that action might be taken against foreign aircraft based in the UK is revenue generation. The CAA are not a profit making private sector company, they are a statutory regulator. Their charges may only cover their costs. They have no incentive to generate revenue. However, if they were to take action it could be to the benefit of UK aircraft owners and licence holders. If it resulted in an increase in the number of UK licence holders, aircraft owners, etc, the CAA might have scope to lower individual charges.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it resulted in an increase in the number of UK licence holders, aircraft owners, etc, the CAA might have scope to lower individual charges.
More staff needed to handle the increased paper work generated by increased personnel and aircraft licensing.
This CAA headcount increase would, with a bit of luck, cost exactly the same as the increased revenues generated - if not more
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle
The cost of licences, certificates etc does not only cover the cost of processing applications and issuing the licence. If I understand CAA charging arrangements correctly, the CAA charges for licences etc also covers the cost of developing, monitoring and reviewing requirements under which they are issued, associated activities, and an approriate contribution to general running costs such personnel management, building security etc. These costs are unlikely to be affected by even if one or two extra admin staff are needed to process licence applications etc.
The cost of licences, certificates etc does not only cover the cost of processing applications and issuing the licence. If I understand CAA charging arrangements correctly, the CAA charges for licences etc also covers the cost of developing, monitoring and reviewing requirements under which they are issued, associated activities, and an approriate contribution to general running costs such personnel management, building security etc. These costs are unlikely to be affected by even if one or two extra admin staff are needed to process licence applications etc.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathar/DFC
Putting every UK-based N-reg GA plane onto G-reg would screw up a lot of experienced pilots who fly all over Europe, while raising a miniscule percentage extra money for the CAA.
But let's get back to some basics. Both of you might have a stronger case if (just taking a few examples that come to mind right away, not in any particular order):
Why does the CAA not offer a PPL/IR which is appropriate to a PPL and not an ATPL?
Why does the CAA not approve the Cirrus parachute system; the FAA, responsible for at least an order of magnitude more planes than the CAA, and probably having lots more Cirrus planes flying than the total of similarly aged GA planes in the whole of the UK, has no problems with it. Why?
Why does the CAA not allow one to have a PPL/IR with the Class 2 medical, without the additional Class 1 audiogram. If the pilot can demonstrate he can fly a plane and do the radio just fine, why have these bizzare requirements?
Why does the CAA not accept any FAA STC automatically? The FAA is satisfied with them.
The CAA wanted to charge me about £2000 for the paperwork approving the fitting of a very simple panel-mounted instrument (with no safety implications), whereas with an N-reg the dealer can just put it in and sign it off.... why?
The CAA will not approve the fitting of decent (I mean post-WW2 technology) landing/taxi lights which enable you to actually see the road, when they are available for an N-reg. Not strictly true; for perhaps £10,000 I could get a one-off approval done. Why?
and I am sure others can add far more stuff like this. And that is just from the PPL / IFR point of view.
Objective arguments please.
Putting every UK-based N-reg GA plane onto G-reg would screw up a lot of experienced pilots who fly all over Europe, while raising a miniscule percentage extra money for the CAA.
But let's get back to some basics. Both of you might have a stronger case if (just taking a few examples that come to mind right away, not in any particular order):
Why does the CAA not offer a PPL/IR which is appropriate to a PPL and not an ATPL?
Why does the CAA not approve the Cirrus parachute system; the FAA, responsible for at least an order of magnitude more planes than the CAA, and probably having lots more Cirrus planes flying than the total of similarly aged GA planes in the whole of the UK, has no problems with it. Why?
Why does the CAA not allow one to have a PPL/IR with the Class 2 medical, without the additional Class 1 audiogram. If the pilot can demonstrate he can fly a plane and do the radio just fine, why have these bizzare requirements?
Why does the CAA not accept any FAA STC automatically? The FAA is satisfied with them.
The CAA wanted to charge me about £2000 for the paperwork approving the fitting of a very simple panel-mounted instrument (with no safety implications), whereas with an N-reg the dealer can just put it in and sign it off.... why?
The CAA will not approve the fitting of decent (I mean post-WW2 technology) landing/taxi lights which enable you to actually see the road, when they are available for an N-reg. Not strictly true; for perhaps £10,000 I could get a one-off approval done. Why?
and I am sure others can add far more stuff like this. And that is just from the PPL / IFR point of view.
Objective arguments please.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540,
Why limit the topic to N reg aircraft. The debate about non-European registered aircraft applies to Lybian, Iraqi, Iranian, Outer Mongolian and every other ICAO country. So this is not a N register issue (unless you would like some discrimination).
The CAA does off er an IR appropriate to the PPL. It is a qualification that enables the pilot to operate safely under IFR in Europe and the rest of the world. It meets the same minimum standards as every other user of the International IFR system. It is the minimum standard that is accepted by other states. If you want to simply fly IFR within the UK and outside the airway system then operate using an IMC rating.
Can't comment on the BRS debate.
An audiogram is required to fly IFR because if you can't hear the radios, you can't hear the idents or can't hear clearances then you can't fly safely under IFR. The only medical that includes an audiogram is the Class 1. The alternative is to make an audiogram part of the Class 2 medical but I expect that there would be plenty of objections to that.
The CAA does not accept an initial Type Certificate for a new type automatically. The JARs wre designed to make roads towards comonality but progress takes time. It follows then that the CAA would not automatically accept a Suplementary Type Certificate.
I agree that the CAA's system for dealing with minor mods has problems. The problems however are not simply that you need to put time, effort and money into obtaining approval for a mod that has already been approved by the FAA, but that (unlike the US system) having spent that time and money, any other person can then have a free ride on your effort and do the same to their aircraft at considerable less expense.
None of the above answers the only compelling reason for a change in the system that applies to resident non-European aircraft - security.
If as previously said, people don't do it to save money, don't do it to cut corners on maintenance and don't do it to avoid safety requirements. Then why pay for something that legally you will never own.
Mr Big pays a shed load to purchase an expensive item that they will never legally own.......wouldn't the local police take an interest in what seems to be an "unusual" way of disposing of a large wad of cash?
Furthermore, the press would have a field day with GA if they found one pilot that had beed refused a UK medical but continued to fly in the UK using an FAA license. GA does not need coverage like that.
Regards,
DFC
Why limit the topic to N reg aircraft. The debate about non-European registered aircraft applies to Lybian, Iraqi, Iranian, Outer Mongolian and every other ICAO country. So this is not a N register issue (unless you would like some discrimination).
The CAA does off er an IR appropriate to the PPL. It is a qualification that enables the pilot to operate safely under IFR in Europe and the rest of the world. It meets the same minimum standards as every other user of the International IFR system. It is the minimum standard that is accepted by other states. If you want to simply fly IFR within the UK and outside the airway system then operate using an IMC rating.
Can't comment on the BRS debate.
An audiogram is required to fly IFR because if you can't hear the radios, you can't hear the idents or can't hear clearances then you can't fly safely under IFR. The only medical that includes an audiogram is the Class 1. The alternative is to make an audiogram part of the Class 2 medical but I expect that there would be plenty of objections to that.
The CAA does not accept an initial Type Certificate for a new type automatically. The JARs wre designed to make roads towards comonality but progress takes time. It follows then that the CAA would not automatically accept a Suplementary Type Certificate.
I agree that the CAA's system for dealing with minor mods has problems. The problems however are not simply that you need to put time, effort and money into obtaining approval for a mod that has already been approved by the FAA, but that (unlike the US system) having spent that time and money, any other person can then have a free ride on your effort and do the same to their aircraft at considerable less expense.
None of the above answers the only compelling reason for a change in the system that applies to resident non-European aircraft - security.
If as previously said, people don't do it to save money, don't do it to cut corners on maintenance and don't do it to avoid safety requirements. Then why pay for something that legally you will never own.
Mr Big pays a shed load to purchase an expensive item that they will never legally own.......wouldn't the local police take an interest in what seems to be an "unusual" way of disposing of a large wad of cash?
Furthermore, the press would have a field day with GA if they found one pilot that had beed refused a UK medical but continued to fly in the UK using an FAA license. GA does not need coverage like that.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jesus DFC you are full of bunk at times!
Pray tell what is sub standard about an FAA IR? There is no way that the JAR IR is appropriate for the average PPL. Having been through the FAA and the JAR systems there is little to choose between the 2 as far flying is concerned. The difference in JAR world is the vast cost and the unreasonable and mostly useless amount of theory required to do the same job.
Your views on security being a reason for banning foreign aircraft is beyond reason, I don't even have the energy to shoot holes in that one.
Pray tell what is sub standard about an FAA IR? There is no way that the JAR IR is appropriate for the average PPL. Having been through the FAA and the JAR systems there is little to choose between the 2 as far flying is concerned. The difference in JAR world is the vast cost and the unreasonable and mostly useless amount of theory required to do the same job.
Your views on security being a reason for banning foreign aircraft is beyond reason, I don't even have the energy to shoot holes in that one.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done DFC!
You've got some great ones here.
How many "Lybian, Iraqi, Iranian, Outer Mongolian " planes are in the UK?
Your money laundering argument is even better. I am sure a foreign reg plane would be suitable for importing a certain type of porno material, too. But, anyway, one would deal with ML in the same way as everybody else in the relevant business has to: ask for a couple of utility bills etc
The rest of it is plain daft.
You've got some great ones here.
How many "Lybian, Iraqi, Iranian, Outer Mongolian " planes are in the UK?
Your money laundering argument is even better. I am sure a foreign reg plane would be suitable for importing a certain type of porno material, too. But, anyway, one would deal with ML in the same way as everybody else in the relevant business has to: ask for a couple of utility bills etc
The rest of it is plain daft.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread ran its natural course some time ago. It has been fun to watch how the ramblings have shifted ground from "which agency is going to legislate against the N-reg (and Libyan )aircraft population", to "what paranoid basis is going to be used as an excuse".
Always good to see DFC back stirring whenever something of this sort pops up too.
Let me make an offer DFC. Drop me a PM including your real name and a location of your choice, and the interested parties on this thread (and some of its predecessors) can meet up for an evening of beer and discussion related to N-reg matters. Its funny how meeting people in the flesh often helps.
2D
)aircraft population", to "what paranoid basis is going to be used as an excuse".Always good to see DFC back stirring whenever something of this sort pops up too.
Let me make an offer DFC. Drop me a PM including your real name and a location of your choice, and the interested parties on this thread (and some of its predecessors) can meet up for an evening of beer and discussion related to N-reg matters. Its funny how meeting people in the flesh often helps.
2D
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
I have never suggested that CAA revenue would be a driving force, that is your hang up.
I cannot answer your questions about the CAA's policy on various issues. However, they suggest that the N register used to avoid CAA requirements; N reg owners want to base and fly aircraft in the UK but they don't want to play by the UK's rules. However, DFC is correct when he points out that this not really an N register issue. It is the question of who should be the responsible authority for civil aviation in the UK. You also have to realise that flagging out could easily move to a less scrupulous register of convenience.
There appear to be two reasons why this issue may be getting more attention at the moment. The first is EC legislation soon to be enacted on the safety of third country aircraft using Community airports. This applies to large privately operated aircraft as well as commercial aircraft. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/..._0664en01.pdf. The second is the possibility of an aircraft register in the Isle of Man http://www.mbc.org.im/artman/publish/article_162.shtml
Putting every UK-based N-reg GA plane onto G-reg would screw up a lot of experienced pilots who fly all over Europe, while raising a minuscule percentage extra money for the CAA.
I cannot answer your questions about the CAA's policy on various issues. However, they suggest that the N register used to avoid CAA requirements; N reg owners want to base and fly aircraft in the UK but they don't want to play by the UK's rules. However, DFC is correct when he points out that this not really an N register issue. It is the question of who should be the responsible authority for civil aviation in the UK. You also have to realise that flagging out could easily move to a less scrupulous register of convenience.
There appear to be two reasons why this issue may be getting more attention at the moment. The first is EC legislation soon to be enacted on the safety of third country aircraft using Community airports. This applies to large privately operated aircraft as well as commercial aircraft. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/..._0664en01.pdf. The second is the possibility of an aircraft register in the Isle of Man http://www.mbc.org.im/artman/publish/article_162.shtml
