'N' reg UK owners beware!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'N' reg UK owners beware!
If you haven't already heard someone at the DfT has a bee in their bonnet about foreign registered aircraft being based out of the UK.
If you fly 'N' reg for the usual reasons (more attainable IR) then these proposals are going to screw you big time.
Read and respond folks
If you fly 'N' reg for the usual reasons (more attainable IR) then these proposals are going to screw you big time.
Read and respond folks
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I read through this stuff, and 'bee in the bonnet' seems about right, to me. They say they haven't a clue how many a/c there are operating in the UK on foreign reggies, which amazes me. Perhpas they should go to Stansted and count the 'EI' a/c there, or the TF elsewhere...
Surely the benchmark is safety. If, say, 20% of light a/c & bizjets were foreign registered (which I think is what they're suggesting) and there was a safety issue, then more than 20% of the UK-based aircraft in the AAIB reports every month would have foreign registrations. There ARE plenty of reports involving foreign-reg a/c but they are mainly visitors - B777 at Manchester with brake problems etc. You don't see too many Cayman Island reg G4 or N-reg Seneca III in the reports, or do you?
I guess the nub of the argument is that they feel they haven't any control over the activity. They should instead look at the reasons why people choose not to put a/c on the UK register. They cite the cost of a PPL and added ratings as £149 and £100 respectively. They do admit there are additional costs involved in obtaining these ratings. What they don't say is that the cost is many thousands of pounds. For porfessional licences, the differences are even larger.
If the DfT think that their subsidiary, the CAA, are losing revenue by people looking to the cheaper and more effective alternative of working on the N- or VP registers, then they perhaps should look at how they can drive down their own costs so that they can make the G- register just as attractive. Only then, I believe, do they have the right to require UK-based a/c to be on the G- register...
Cheers,
The Odd One
Surely the benchmark is safety. If, say, 20% of light a/c & bizjets were foreign registered (which I think is what they're suggesting) and there was a safety issue, then more than 20% of the UK-based aircraft in the AAIB reports every month would have foreign registrations. There ARE plenty of reports involving foreign-reg a/c but they are mainly visitors - B777 at Manchester with brake problems etc. You don't see too many Cayman Island reg G4 or N-reg Seneca III in the reports, or do you?
I guess the nub of the argument is that they feel they haven't any control over the activity. They should instead look at the reasons why people choose not to put a/c on the UK register. They cite the cost of a PPL and added ratings as £149 and £100 respectively. They do admit there are additional costs involved in obtaining these ratings. What they don't say is that the cost is many thousands of pounds. For porfessional licences, the differences are even larger.
If the DfT think that their subsidiary, the CAA, are losing revenue by people looking to the cheaper and more effective alternative of working on the N- or VP registers, then they perhaps should look at how they can drive down their own costs so that they can make the G- register just as attractive. Only then, I believe, do they have the right to require UK-based a/c to be on the G- register...
Cheers,
The Odd One
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porridge
It's got nothing to do with that at all - try reading the document instead of summising.
Yeah, yeah - we all know about that. So if you get the permission what the big deal? As long as the instructor is both FAA & JAA qualified there's no problem!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone talkes in terms of N reg, but what abouth the numerous Russian, Lithuanian and Hungarian registered Yaks and the like? If these countries are not (yet) part of EASA, what is to happen to them?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilli Monster is right, This has been going on for a long time and has nothing to do with instructing in foreign reged aircraft.
It's all about removing foreign reged aircraft from the UK.
The instructing side of things is a different matter. Porridge mentioned that it doesn't matter as long as the instructor is JAA and FAA rated. It does. It's not the instructors licence it's the aircraft they are in. If they are in a N-reg and instructing in UK airspace then unless the aircraft and student has a DfT waiver form they are instructing illegally in UK airspace no matter what licence they have.
AOPA are on the case with the DfT regarding the removal of the aircraft. If you read the General Aviation magazine for Aug 2005 they talk about a scheme for keeping them here and helping with safety information and distribution of it.
It's all about removing foreign reged aircraft from the UK.
The instructing side of things is a different matter. Porridge mentioned that it doesn't matter as long as the instructor is JAA and FAA rated. It does. It's not the instructors licence it's the aircraft they are in. If they are in a N-reg and instructing in UK airspace then unless the aircraft and student has a DfT waiver form they are instructing illegally in UK airspace no matter what licence they have.
AOPA are on the case with the DfT regarding the removal of the aircraft. If you read the General Aviation magazine for Aug 2005 they talk about a scheme for keeping them here and helping with safety information and distribution of it.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do AOPA propose to help with "safety" information (I don't get their magazine)?
There are NO safety issues with N. It's now well known that the DfT asked the CAA to come up with data showing that N have more accidents than G but the CAA reported there is no data showing that.
The DfT proposal was written by somebody who knows next to nothing about aeroplanes. There are so many factual errors in it, it's hard to know where to start. Their estimate of the economic cost of everything going back to G is low by (very roughly speaking, obviously, and taking into account all the non-AOC turboprops and non-AOC jets) a factor of about 1000 times.
Quite sad really.
There are NO safety issues with N. It's now well known that the DfT asked the CAA to come up with data showing that N have more accidents than G but the CAA reported there is no data showing that.
The DfT proposal was written by somebody who knows next to nothing about aeroplanes. There are so many factual errors in it, it's hard to know where to start. Their estimate of the economic cost of everything going back to G is low by (very roughly speaking, obviously, and taking into account all the non-AOC turboprops and non-AOC jets) a factor of about 1000 times.
Quite sad really.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In conclusion, while no significant safety issues have come to light in relation to aircraft registered on the US, Bermudan and Cayman Islands registers,
) Aircraft Registration. Currently the CAA charges £50 or £100
ii) Certificates of Airworthiness. The charge for a certificate of airworthiness varies according to the weight and type of the aircraft, for example a charge of £651
The scary thing is though, the people who write this document haven't got a clue what they're on about:
However, it seems unlikely that the total cost of reregistering the aircraft affected by the proposal will exceed £0.25m
Foreign licences may be used to fly UK registered aircraft on private flights in visual meteorological conditions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's not without precedence. Look at what happened to the IT contractors, with the IR35 legislation.
The government line was that they were avoiding paying the right amount of tax and I would see this initiative as being similar, "aircraft owners are avoiding European harmonization."
If you operate an aircraft off the G-reg, you have to accept the risk that government action may close your options. It's the same with most areas, where individuals seek (quite legally) to work around legislation. When that legislation is altered to close the loophole, perhaps you have to accept that times have changed and reassess your position.
The government line was that they were avoiding paying the right amount of tax and I would see this initiative as being similar, "aircraft owners are avoiding European harmonization."
If you operate an aircraft off the G-reg, you have to accept the risk that government action may close your options. It's the same with most areas, where individuals seek (quite legally) to work around legislation. When that legislation is altered to close the loophole, perhaps you have to accept that times have changed and reassess your position.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Retford, UK
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose the other thing to bear in mind is that fairness doesn't really come into it.
If the DfT have already made up their mind on this it doesn't really matter what fair and reasoned arguments people come up with
People will be allowed to have their say in the consultation period, of course, but will that make any difference?
If the DfT have already made up their mind on this it doesn't really matter what fair and reasoned arguments people come up with
People will be allowed to have their say in the consultation period, of course, but will that make any difference?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DfT have missed the point it would seem. The majority of N reg pilots/owners (not talking about the likes of British Gas and big corporations that have their Corporate machinery on the American/Cayman/Bermudan registrations in the UK) have the aircraft on a foreign register, for License purposes (i.e the FAA IR).
Being a bunch of "Good ol' chaps" at the CAA, they decided to make the IR almost unattainable to the average Joe Bloggs PPL in the UK. I can see some reasoning behind this, like avoiding having a load of Warrior pilots filing and flying airways within the UK (we simply don't have the room), so what they did was give us the IMC rating...useless if you want to use it outside the UK FIR in IMC...DOH....OR in airways...you just can't do it.
IF "they" do ban foreign reg aircraft here...what will they do with the aircraft that aren't available on the UK reg? What will they do for all the pilots that only maintain their foreign licenses? And they even mention "The addition of a rating to a licence would cost £100"... well okay then...here's your 100 quid...now give me my JAA ATPL!! Yeah right!
The document should, and I hope, will, be torn to shreds, filled paragraphs starting with "It is not uncommon..." and "It is assumed..." and "It appears..." etc etc. They clearly don't know what they are talking about.
There is NO SAFETY BENEFIT to be had at all.
Has capitilism suddenly worked it's way into the DfT...it looks like it... as the ONLY PEOPLE TO BENEFIT WILL BE THE CAA/DfT as their revenue will go up...and that makes me feel incredibly sick!!!
Being a bunch of "Good ol' chaps" at the CAA, they decided to make the IR almost unattainable to the average Joe Bloggs PPL in the UK. I can see some reasoning behind this, like avoiding having a load of Warrior pilots filing and flying airways within the UK (we simply don't have the room), so what they did was give us the IMC rating...useless if you want to use it outside the UK FIR in IMC...DOH....OR in airways...you just can't do it.
IF "they" do ban foreign reg aircraft here...what will they do with the aircraft that aren't available on the UK reg? What will they do for all the pilots that only maintain their foreign licenses? And they even mention "The addition of a rating to a licence would cost £100"... well okay then...here's your 100 quid...now give me my JAA ATPL!! Yeah right!
The document should, and I hope, will, be torn to shreds, filled paragraphs starting with "It is not uncommon..." and "It is assumed..." and "It appears..." etc etc. They clearly don't know what they are talking about.
There is NO SAFETY BENEFIT to be had at all.
Has capitilism suddenly worked it's way into the DfT...it looks like it... as the ONLY PEOPLE TO BENEFIT WILL BE THE CAA/DfT as their revenue will go up...and that makes me feel incredibly sick!!!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJP59
"Fairness" does indeed come into it. The policies of DoT, as a branch of the executive, are amenable to judicial review. Two of of the grounds for judicial review, are the so called "Wednesbury test of reasonableness" and that their actions should be based in good faith, and follow the principles of natural justice.
So I trust that if the DoT is foolish enough to proceed with this folly, that AOPA will instruct its lawyers to challenge any such policy in the High Court.
"Fairness" does indeed come into it. The policies of DoT, as a branch of the executive, are amenable to judicial review. Two of of the grounds for judicial review, are the so called "Wednesbury test of reasonableness" and that their actions should be based in good faith, and follow the principles of natural justice.
So I trust that if the DoT is foolish enough to proceed with this folly, that AOPA will instruct its lawyers to challenge any such policy in the High Court.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about compensation? If the Govt chops off your front garden to build a road, they have to pay compensation. The figures for this would be astronomical.
I also don't like describing the keeping of an N-reg plane in the UK as a "loophole". Some things are prohibited and those are ILLEGAL. Everything else is LEGAL. Not 99% legal. It's 100% legal. This is actually a clear cut case, because we have the ANO (which doesn't prohibit it) and nothing else. It isn't like the tax law and its mountains of precedents.
Keeping an N-reg here is every bit just as legal giving your (non-working) wife half your savings so she can get the interest paid gross. Or selling enough shares to crystallise an £8400 gain every tax year. Etc.
"Loopholes" rank alongside "common law wives" - the press like to use the term but there is no such thing.
I also don't like describing the keeping of an N-reg plane in the UK as a "loophole". Some things are prohibited and those are ILLEGAL. Everything else is LEGAL. Not 99% legal. It's 100% legal. This is actually a clear cut case, because we have the ANO (which doesn't prohibit it) and nothing else. It isn't like the tax law and its mountains of precedents.
Keeping an N-reg here is every bit just as legal giving your (non-working) wife half your savings so she can get the interest paid gross. Or selling enough shares to crystallise an £8400 gain every tax year. Etc.
"Loopholes" rank alongside "common law wives" - the press like to use the term but there is no such thing.
Guest
Posts: n/a
IO540
Loopholes are legal. There is tax avoidance and tax evasion - the former uses legal mechanisms to reduce liability and the latter is just illegal.
One could argue that private pilots are exploiting a loophole to gain FAA IRs and that government action to address this is no different to closing down various tax schemes, in that the government wishes people to comply with its regulation. The commercial use of N and other reg for UK based aircraft is a matter that I don't understand.
It must be galling for owners of N reg aircraft in the UK, but I doubt that the government would be obliged to pay compensation, just in the same way that they changed the tax laws affecting computer contractors and paid no compensation to them either - perhaps Flying Lawyer or a colleague may have an informed view, since I'm not a lawyer.
Loopholes are legal. There is tax avoidance and tax evasion - the former uses legal mechanisms to reduce liability and the latter is just illegal.
One could argue that private pilots are exploiting a loophole to gain FAA IRs and that government action to address this is no different to closing down various tax schemes, in that the government wishes people to comply with its regulation. The commercial use of N and other reg for UK based aircraft is a matter that I don't understand.
It must be galling for owners of N reg aircraft in the UK, but I doubt that the government would be obliged to pay compensation, just in the same way that they changed the tax laws affecting computer contractors and paid no compensation to them either - perhaps Flying Lawyer or a colleague may have an informed view, since I'm not a lawyer.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk of compensation and legal action is an unnecessary distraction from the main feature here.
The DfT consultation is flawed in many respects - not least its own self-confessed lack of detailed analysis in relation to the impact of the changes that it is proposing.
There are a number of solutions to the problem - most of which ultimately relate to Flight Crew Licensing, rather than to the desire on the part of British Pilots to own their aircraft through a US trust.
Sadly, rather than look for solutions, the DfT is seeking to coerce the N-reg community back to the G without any real understanding of the issues.
We need, rapidly, to educate our legislators.
2D
The DfT consultation is flawed in many respects - not least its own self-confessed lack of detailed analysis in relation to the impact of the changes that it is proposing.
There are a number of solutions to the problem - most of which ultimately relate to Flight Crew Licensing, rather than to the desire on the part of British Pilots to own their aircraft through a US trust.
Sadly, rather than look for solutions, the DfT is seeking to coerce the N-reg community back to the G without any real understanding of the issues.
We need, rapidly, to educate our legislators.
2D
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loopholes are legal. There is tax avoidance and tax evasion - the former uses legal mechanisms to reduce liability and the latter is just illegal.
Likewise, FAA licenced pilots flying N-reg aircraft isn't a loophole. It's simply the way it was supposed to operate.
I agree that calling this a loophole is a hindrance. You certainly wouldn't find the word loophole in any document reviewed by a PR consultant who was working for GA on this issue.
dp
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dublinpilot
With the greatest of respect, loopholes are in the eye of the beholder.
What happened to MIRAS? Why did the government encourage small firms to incorporate and then complain that they took advantage of dividends in a way that they did not forsee?
In that case, if playing devil's advocate, I could argue that the two issues are not related. If people are using ownership to circumvent UK FCL rules, then surely the government is allowed to govern, by legislation.
I would be very careful how you construct your argument.
With the greatest of respect, loopholes are in the eye of the beholder.
What happened to MIRAS? Why did the government encourage small firms to incorporate and then complain that they took advantage of dividends in a way that they did not forsee?
There are a number of solutions to the problem - most of which ultimately relate to Flight Crew Licensing, rather than to the desire on the part of British Pilots to own their aircraft through a US trust.
I would be very careful how you construct your argument.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2D
I agree that the bottom end of the GA market is going N primarily for what you call FCL (the FAA IR) reasons, but I don't think that's anywhere as true higher up.
There are turboprops and bizjets which are on N for serious (and in some cases insormountable) certification reasons. I met a man recently with a bizjet (not a cheap one like a Citation) who reckoned it would cost him £600k to move it to G. Nobody would even consider putting that plane on G. Yet, it doesn't have any equipment that would be considered unusual for the type. He has an FAA CPL/IR, and a UK ATPL. JAA IRs/ATPLs are exceedingly rare at the bottom (SEP) end of GA (I gather you've got one) but not so rare higher up.
I know all this stuff has been done to death here, in which case one could ask why does anyone spend the time to write anything here. I am just making the point that it's a complex picture. Most people reading this think that the problem consists mostly of the little N-reg planes sitting on the grass at the local airfield(s).
Equally there are a lot of heads in the sand. This part of Pprune is largely dealing with the very low end of GA, and I suspect VERY few people involved with bizjets ever read the "bizjet" sections. I know that people that fly seriously just don't have the time to read these forums.
But these people, many of them very influential, are going to start waking up now.... I don't think there is going to be a shortage of material for educating the DfT
F3G
A Govt is allowed to govern but the rules should be reasonable. If people do something to get around rules that ARE unreasonable that is no suprise. It isn't as if people were going N primarily to save money.
I agree that the bottom end of the GA market is going N primarily for what you call FCL (the FAA IR) reasons, but I don't think that's anywhere as true higher up.
There are turboprops and bizjets which are on N for serious (and in some cases insormountable) certification reasons. I met a man recently with a bizjet (not a cheap one like a Citation) who reckoned it would cost him £600k to move it to G. Nobody would even consider putting that plane on G. Yet, it doesn't have any equipment that would be considered unusual for the type. He has an FAA CPL/IR, and a UK ATPL. JAA IRs/ATPLs are exceedingly rare at the bottom (SEP) end of GA (I gather you've got one) but not so rare higher up.
I know all this stuff has been done to death here, in which case one could ask why does anyone spend the time to write anything here. I am just making the point that it's a complex picture. Most people reading this think that the problem consists mostly of the little N-reg planes sitting on the grass at the local airfield(s).
Equally there are a lot of heads in the sand. This part of Pprune is largely dealing with the very low end of GA, and I suspect VERY few people involved with bizjets ever read the "bizjet" sections. I know that people that fly seriously just don't have the time to read these forums.
But these people, many of them very influential, are going to start waking up now.... I don't think there is going to be a shortage of material for educating the DfT
F3G
A Govt is allowed to govern but the rules should be reasonable. If people do something to get around rules that ARE unreasonable that is no suprise. It isn't as if people were going N primarily to save money.
Guest
Posts: n/a
IO540
But who decides what is reasonable? The 36% who voted for the government or the rest? This government (or more accurately the previous 2 incarnations) has a track record of acting quite forcefully to deal with certain anomalies.
And if that government then closes the loophole, is it being unreasonable or just using its mandate to govern?
I'm not against you on this matter, but the way executive power is granted.used in this country leads me to believe that the government will get it's way on this one. N Reg ovwners are too small a minority to lobby and I would imagine that few of them vote Labour or are perceived to vote Labour.
And not only this one. That's one of the reasons why I'm currently looking at off shoring my company and moving to another country. BTW, I am neither a computer contractor nor a N reg owner
If I were you, I would be considering my options carefully.
But who decides what is reasonable? The 36% who voted for the government or the rest? This government (or more accurately the previous 2 incarnations) has a track record of acting quite forcefully to deal with certain anomalies.
And if that government then closes the loophole, is it being unreasonable or just using its mandate to govern?
I'm not against you on this matter, but the way executive power is granted.used in this country leads me to believe that the government will get it's way on this one. N Reg ovwners are too small a minority to lobby and I would imagine that few of them vote Labour or are perceived to vote Labour.
And not only this one. That's one of the reasons why I'm currently looking at off shoring my company and moving to another country. BTW, I am neither a computer contractor nor a N reg owner
If I were you, I would be considering my options carefully.