'N' reg UK owners beware!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that some people are happy to debate anything but the matter at hand...
IO540 The issues relating to Bizjets might just save our bacon (by virtue of the people they upset) but are not relevant to a forum such as this so I avoided them in this discussion.
The issues relating to the acceptability or otherwise of the FAA IR for flight inside controlled airspace in a G-reg are what really make the difference. For a lesser number of souls, it relates to Regulatory Stability (conspicuous by its absence under JAR/EASA), and for others it relates to the desire to use the latest STCs.
These are the features which need to be brought to the DfT's attention - if it cares...
Voyages of mental masturbation relating to the nature of democracy and fairness are all very well, but won't achieve anything, I fear.
2D
IO540 The issues relating to Bizjets might just save our bacon (by virtue of the people they upset) but are not relevant to a forum such as this so I avoided them in this discussion.
The issues relating to the acceptability or otherwise of the FAA IR for flight inside controlled airspace in a G-reg are what really make the difference. For a lesser number of souls, it relates to Regulatory Stability (conspicuous by its absence under JAR/EASA), and for others it relates to the desire to use the latest STCs.
These are the features which need to be brought to the DfT's attention - if it cares...
Voyages of mental masturbation relating to the nature of democracy and fairness are all very well, but won't achieve anything, I fear.
2D
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*The issues relating to Bizjets might just save our bacon (by virtue of the people they upset) but are not relevant to a forum such as this so I avoided them in this discussion. *
Yet this is why these debates pointlessly go round and round in circles - because nobody takes in the whole picture. The N-reg Arrows, Senecas, Aztecs, TB20s, SR22s, etc, plus various assorted helicopters, in the UK make up a tiny (and politically insignificant) part of the picture.
Which is NOT to say that the "little people" cannot make a useful and effective representation to the DfT. They can and should.
*The issues relating to the acceptability or otherwise of the FAA IR for flight inside controlled airspace in a G-reg are what really make the difference. *
If an FAA PPL/IR could fly IFR anywhere in Europe, in a G, in any airspace where IFR is allowed, that would be brilliant. But is there any prospect whatsoever of this happening? The flight training business (European protectionism) will make sure it doesn't - even if it doesn't do them any good.
*For a lesser number of souls, it relates to Regulatory Stability (conspicuous by its absence under JAR/EASA), and for others it relates to the desire to use the latest STCs.*
If you count a whole aircraft that is not certified in Europe as "a latest STC" then yes
Not a lot of people will go N just to fit some piece of kit.
*Voyages of mental masturbation relating to the nature of democracy and fairness are all very well, but won't achieve anything, I fear.*
I agree.
Yet this is why these debates pointlessly go round and round in circles - because nobody takes in the whole picture. The N-reg Arrows, Senecas, Aztecs, TB20s, SR22s, etc, plus various assorted helicopters, in the UK make up a tiny (and politically insignificant) part of the picture.
Which is NOT to say that the "little people" cannot make a useful and effective representation to the DfT. They can and should.
*The issues relating to the acceptability or otherwise of the FAA IR for flight inside controlled airspace in a G-reg are what really make the difference. *
If an FAA PPL/IR could fly IFR anywhere in Europe, in a G, in any airspace where IFR is allowed, that would be brilliant. But is there any prospect whatsoever of this happening? The flight training business (European protectionism) will make sure it doesn't - even if it doesn't do them any good.
*For a lesser number of souls, it relates to Regulatory Stability (conspicuous by its absence under JAR/EASA), and for others it relates to the desire to use the latest STCs.*
If you count a whole aircraft that is not certified in Europe as "a latest STC" then yes
Not a lot of people will go N just to fit some piece of kit.*Voyages of mental masturbation relating to the nature of democracy and fairness are all very well, but won't achieve anything, I fear.*
I agree.
Last edited by IO540; 9th Aug 2005 at 08:38.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Is this a coincidence?
News that the Isle of Man Govt is planning to set up its own aircraft register using the prefix M.
Apparently their scheme for ships has been an outstanding sucess and they see aircraft as a logical progression.
Presumably all we need to do is get their DCA to write an ANO(IoM) along the lines of the FAA regs and Bob is one's uncle!
Sir George Cayley
Apparently their scheme for ships has been an outstanding sucess and they see aircraft as a logical progression.
Presumably all we need to do is get their DCA to write an ANO(IoM) along the lines of the FAA regs and Bob is one's uncle!
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that Isle of Man Government needs the approval of the UK Government (ie DfT) to establish a register. As I understand it, an Isle of Man ANO also has to be agreed with DfT. It appears that the section of DfT discussing this issue with the Isle of Man is also responsible for the current consultation exercise.
If the Isle of Man were to adopt FAA standards, aircraft on an Isle of Man register could not be based in the UK under the DfT proposal. While aircraft could be based at Ronaldsway I suspect that space will be somewhat limited.
If the Isle of Man were to adopt FAA standards, aircraft on an Isle of Man register could not be based in the UK under the DfT proposal. While aircraft could be based at Ronaldsway I suspect that space will be somewhat limited.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe you can also make a point to your goverment that the CAA / DFT is failing.
The inspections they should use for foreign aircraft, ( SAFA - teams , safety of foreign aicraft ) are not up to standards / failing, and the can't even estimate how many foreign aircraft there are.
Something like; all foreigners from outside europe should apply for citizenship after 90 days, cause the visa system does not work...
S.
p.s. the Dutch CAA; IVW/DL seems to be heading the same way.
The inspections they should use for foreign aircraft, ( SAFA - teams , safety of foreign aicraft ) are not up to standards / failing, and the can't even estimate how many foreign aircraft there are.
Something like; all foreigners from outside europe should apply for citizenship after 90 days, cause the visa system does not work...
S.
p.s. the Dutch CAA; IVW/DL seems to be heading the same way.
Last edited by SR20flyDoc; 9th Aug 2005 at 17:18.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathar
I don't think anyone suggests they adopt FAA standards, where aircraft (which is the main DfT thrust at the moment) are concerned.
A hypothesis for you:
IOM registry adopts EASA standards, thereby allowing aircraft to be kept in the UK.
IOM issues licence validations based on ICAO licenses - which would include FAA certificates and ratings. (the main reason people go 'N' reg - IR privileges)
DfT is happy
Owners happy
Life continues as before.
If the Isle of Man were to adopt FAA standards, aircraft on an Isle of Man register could not be based in the UK under the DfT proposal.
A hypothesis for you:
IOM registry adopts EASA standards, thereby allowing aircraft to be kept in the UK.
IOM issues licence validations based on ICAO licenses - which would include FAA certificates and ratings. (the main reason people go 'N' reg - IR privileges)
DfT is happy
Owners happy
Life continues as before.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In that case the IOM would be doing exactly what the Caymans (e.g.) do; accepting FAA licenses ratings.
This would be a move forward for people unable to do the JAA IR but would not address the proposed residence limit for N-reg planes. Moving UK's N fleet to G (or to any EASA member state CofA regime such as M) would be a hugely expensive and complicated task in most cases, and impossible in many cases.
I am not sure how one can maintain an aircraft to EASA requirements if the aircraft or any part of it is not EASA approved.
Therefore I don't see how any registry that requires EASA maintenance would help - except to future FAA IR holders. And to be honest the DfT's objective of scaring the living daylights out of anyone wishing to do the FAA IR and go N in the UK is certainly working already!
It would also mean that anyone on the M register would need the same CAA medical as a JAA IR (PPL/IR or CPL/IR) requires e.g. the same pointless JAA audiogram requirement even for a privately flying PPL.
Funnily enough, the people that put a plane on the Cayman register are CAA-employed inspectors... Do they inspect to FAA standards, or CAA standards? Can you put a SR22 or TBM700C2 on the Cayman reg? (forgetting for now that the Cayman reg doesn't want SEPs)
This would be a move forward for people unable to do the JAA IR but would not address the proposed residence limit for N-reg planes. Moving UK's N fleet to G (or to any EASA member state CofA regime such as M) would be a hugely expensive and complicated task in most cases, and impossible in many cases.
I am not sure how one can maintain an aircraft to EASA requirements if the aircraft or any part of it is not EASA approved.
Therefore I don't see how any registry that requires EASA maintenance would help - except to future FAA IR holders. And to be honest the DfT's objective of scaring the living daylights out of anyone wishing to do the FAA IR and go N in the UK is certainly working already!
It would also mean that anyone on the M register would need the same CAA medical as a JAA IR (PPL/IR or CPL/IR) requires e.g. the same pointless JAA audiogram requirement even for a privately flying PPL.
Funnily enough, the people that put a plane on the Cayman register are CAA-employed inspectors... Do they inspect to FAA standards, or CAA standards? Can you put a SR22 or TBM700C2 on the Cayman reg? (forgetting for now that the Cayman reg doesn't want SEPs)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would also mean that anyone on the M register would need the same CAA medical as a JAA IR (PPL/IR or CPL/IR) requires e.g. the same pointless JAA audiogram requirement even for a privately flying PPL.
Do not confuse the DfT's actions against aircraft of foreign registry, with what is required when a licence is validated by another country. The two are totally separate issues and my hypothetical solution above contains what are both, in effect, totally separate issues and solutions.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree; I was wrong on the medical side.
However it still leaves us with the need to move the foreign-reg planes to the registry of an EASA member state, which involves certification on that registry.
Incidentally I think that EASA will ultimately have no choice but to accept FAA certification completely (*). Otherwise, their published proposal to subject all EU-based planes to the EASA maintenance regime will not be possible. But that is yet another obstacle which is at least a few years further down the road after the DfT has finished over here
(*) The national certification authorities (CAA in the UK) will really hate that because they won't have anything to do; they will just have a man sitting there issuing an AAN for every STC that comes in the post.
However it still leaves us with the need to move the foreign-reg planes to the registry of an EASA member state, which involves certification on that registry.
Incidentally I think that EASA will ultimately have no choice but to accept FAA certification completely (*). Otherwise, their published proposal to subject all EU-based planes to the EASA maintenance regime will not be possible. But that is yet another obstacle which is at least a few years further down the road after the DfT has finished over here
(*) The national certification authorities (CAA in the UK) will really hate that because they won't have anything to do; they will just have a man sitting there issuing an AAN for every STC that comes in the post.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A hypothesis for you:
IOM registry adopts EASA standards, thereby allowing aircraft to be kept in the UK.
IOM issues licence validations based on ICAO licenses - which would include FAA certificates and ratings. (the main reason people go 'N' reg - IR privileges)
DfT is happy
Owners happy
IOM registry adopts EASA standards, thereby allowing aircraft to be kept in the UK.
IOM issues licence validations based on ICAO licenses - which would include FAA certificates and ratings. (the main reason people go 'N' reg - IR privileges)
DfT is happy
Owners happy
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's it... I give up. I'm off to the live in the USA...but knowing my luck, the DfT would throw a spanner in the works for me there too!
It's a farce...somebody has looked at the increased revenue that can be sucked out of all the N reg operators by making them switch reg's and thought (in a Homer Simpson tone) "Hmmmm Revenue!". N reg for owner/operators tends to be done for the FCL issue.... and plenty of other pilots!
I know several FAA CPL/IR's flying N reg aircraft for individuals/companies, who are in a position whereby they need to take considerable time off work to wade through the 14 JAA ATPL exams. This is because there's no point just doing the JAA CPL/IR..because if you decide to change to JAA ATPL later on...you have to sit ALL the exams again, even the ones that you've already sat to get the JAA CPL/IR!!!!! Why is this? Why make it difficult for good pilots to get into flying jobs? I'd rather sit in the back of an Airbus with a guy in the right seat who has a few thousand hours flying BizJets/large twins/fast complex singles..than with a 21 year old, 250 hr number cruncher who can't fly for toffee. Doing what i do, I've flown with CAAFU examiners, BA training Captains, RAF display pilots right across the board to Joe Bloggs fresh PPL. Believe me....having a JAA pro licence doesn't neccessarily make you a good pilot!!! One guy I know has 12000 hours on BBJ's for Gawd's sake and flies his N reg "toy" at weekends. He's a cracking pilot...but....he needs to sit 14 exams to fly the same aircraft on a different reg? Madness...it really is utterly stupid!
Knitting...that's it....take up knitting!
It's a farce...somebody has looked at the increased revenue that can be sucked out of all the N reg operators by making them switch reg's and thought (in a Homer Simpson tone) "Hmmmm Revenue!". N reg for owner/operators tends to be done for the FCL issue.... and plenty of other pilots!
I know several FAA CPL/IR's flying N reg aircraft for individuals/companies, who are in a position whereby they need to take considerable time off work to wade through the 14 JAA ATPL exams. This is because there's no point just doing the JAA CPL/IR..because if you decide to change to JAA ATPL later on...you have to sit ALL the exams again, even the ones that you've already sat to get the JAA CPL/IR!!!!! Why is this? Why make it difficult for good pilots to get into flying jobs? I'd rather sit in the back of an Airbus with a guy in the right seat who has a few thousand hours flying BizJets/large twins/fast complex singles..than with a 21 year old, 250 hr number cruncher who can't fly for toffee. Doing what i do, I've flown with CAAFU examiners, BA training Captains, RAF display pilots right across the board to Joe Bloggs fresh PPL. Believe me....having a JAA pro licence doesn't neccessarily make you a good pilot!!! One guy I know has 12000 hours on BBJ's for Gawd's sake and flies his N reg "toy" at weekends. He's a cracking pilot...but....he needs to sit 14 exams to fly the same aircraft on a different reg? Madness...it really is utterly stupid!
Knitting...that's it....take up knitting!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's it... I give up. I'm off to the live in the USA
I can then own a plane without it bankrupting me, fly a plane as its meant to be flown without all the b*llsh*t, own a decent sized house without paying stupid prices, own a ski boat which costs me half the prices, pay $2 per gallon of petrol, not £0.95 per litre....Oh yea, and get paid to fly
Now so long as I can ignore the bible bashing mormons........
