Non Commercial UK based N regs to be banned?

[WestWind1950]

the same problem has been discussed in Germany for years now. Over here it doesn't seem to be a matter of having an IFR rating or not, but because of the "cheaper" insurance, the lesser inspection requirements, the noise certificate requirements, etc.

I read some time ago that it was the FAA that wanted US registered aircraft being in the USA at least every 6 months, not the LBA or any other European authority. But then, regs change so often... who can keep up?

Westy

[AlexL]

I think this concerns everyone - not just N reg owners, as I believe this is the thin end of a large wedge. In every other field - when this government have closed an 'evasion method' (think stamp duty, think IR 35 IT contractors etc), following the change in law a massive increase in charges or taxation has occured. currently if the CAA increase charges to people on the G-reg fleet, then moving to N reg is an option. Remove that option and the CAA can charge what they like - without limits, and this effects everone - not just N reg owners.
Fixing the 'IR issue' would still not prevent this possiblily.

[IO540]

The cost of moving to N is so high, and the maintenance cost savings are little and often negative, so that CAA charges don't really feature on the decision horizon.

At the bottom end of the GA scale (i.e. most people reading this) it is done for the FAA IR, to get European IFR privileges. Of the pilots who have a life and a job earning the money needed to buy a decent plane and to fly IFR with some currency, few are able to do the JAA IR.

Higher up (turboprops and above) it is done for all sorts of other reasons, some to do with certification, some to do with straight cost, but the UK govt will never be able to comprehensively hit that group, due to its international mobility.

[windy1]

IO540 said

As for UK AOPA, don't place too much hope in them. They do a worthwhile job on many fronts but their flying school membership is very substantial indeed, and flying schools have less than zero incentive to support N-reg!

*******

The logic of this is unclear to me. I assume the UK schools target IR market is 90% people who want to go commercial and only 10% privateers (my guess).

But if there was an IR lite or an FAA IR clone for Europe, then the market for privateers across Europe would surely expand considerably, witness the interest in the UK IMCR. If I ran a school, I might be interested in that target market, as well as the commercial all singing and dancing rating. I would not see it as a taking that market away.

Further, if the main difference between the UK and US IR's is the ground school element and the flying training hours are not that different, then it is only those establishments whose business is predominantly ground school teaching who might feel threatened. Are these the establishments who determine AOPA's policy?

[IO540]

The political reality within EASA (who will take over flight crew licensing from the JAA) is that is it practically impossible to get agreement from all member states for an IR replacement which makes any concession whatsoever relative to the present IR and its ground school.

If a replacement was agreed upon, there is a real risk that its privileges would be so crippled that few pilots would bother with it - when they can get worldwide IFR privileges with an FAA IR.

However, the flight training industry is as likely to support such a crippled IR as it is likely to support a useful IR.

[rjt194]

Have I missed something?

What about Article 32b of the Chicago Convention?

[2Donkeys]

32b (for those unable/unwilling) to look it up provides for an ICAO state not to recognise the licences of another ICAO state.

This is not really in the spirit of what has been released so far. This consultation is rather more likely to focus on the rights of aircraft of foreign registry to remain within the UK for more than a certain period of time.

That is covered by different articles within the Chicago Convention

2D

[IO540]

Are the ICAO docs online? Last time I saw their prices, the number of 'unable' is likely to far exceed the number of 'unwilling'.

Which CC article provides for a residence limitation?

[2Donkeys]

The CC has nothing to say on the subject.

There is nothing in the Convention that compels a country to accept aircraft registered in another as permanent residents.

2D

[Cathar]

The Convention can be downloaded from here

[MLS-12D]

The most likely move is one in which N-registered aircraft will be required to revert to G-registration if they reside in the UK for more than 180 days in the year. Proof of residence would be relatively easy to extract from airfield movement logs, hangarage/parking fees etc.

Sounds very plausible. The restriction that 2D describes is not dissimilar from section 202.42(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, which effectively prohibits Canadian citizens from keeping N-registered aircraft in Canada.

We've all got overflight permissions under ICAO - I can (if I could afford it, which sadly I can't) either go to the US, buy an N-reg aeroplane and fly it around the world on my FAA licence, or do the same from here in my G-reg PA28 on my UK/JAA licence. That right is, for all reasonable purposes, guaranteed to me by the Chicago convention. However, the actual agreements to use slots at international airports is largely subject to bilateral international agreements. So, for example, the UK and Canadian governments will agree roughly the same number of slots in either direction for their respective fleets, but neither has any incentive to agree to allow, say, Qantas to fly between London and Montreal. This "International Slottery" is the cause of much heated debate and negotiation - since it's clearly of great economic importance. In GA we don't worry about slots - we have the luxury of using pretty much any airfield we want.!

Well, it has been years since I was a serious student of international aviation law; but for what little it's worth, I believe the above is substantially incorrect.

The Chicago Convention protects the first two of the 'five freedoms' (see here or here), but not the last three. I.e., there is no right of commercial access to other signatory states' airspace: see Article 6 of the Convention. It is that important omission that makes bilateral agreements necessary ((limited availability of ‘slots’ is essentially a practical restriction, not a legal one). See generally Cooper, The Right to Fly (1947), and Cheng, The Law of International Air Transport (1962).

the UK has every right to insist that a G-registered aeroplane is based in the UK, and equally has the right to "lean on" the FAA to insist that no N-registered aeroplanes are based in the UK. But, if FAA won't play ball, or (more likely) just proclaim that they don't care, it's actually very hard for the UK/EU to enforce things without being in breach of the Chicago convention. And let's face it, the UK/EU, which rely enormously upon trade and tourism, cannot afford to jeapordise that!

To the best of my knowledge, 2D is entirely correct: there is nothing in the Chicago Convention about aircraft residency. But as rjt194 has already noted, Article 32(b) potentially provides the CAA with a big stick with which to hammer British subjects who rely upon FAA ‘certificates’ to operate N-registered aircraft within UK airspace.

[youngskywalker]

Will these same rules also prohibit using business jets in the Uk based on the N register? If so that will hit lots of British Pilots who only hold an FAA Commercial licence and rely on this work. 70% of the worlds corporate aircraft are registered on the 'N', and most of the biz jets in the Uk and Europe are also 'N' registered.

I hope this is not going to actually happen......