Consultation on foreign aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consultation on foreign aircraft
The short version is that N-reg can stay and that the FAA IR is crap.
The long version, with a nod to Julian who posted this on PPL/IR:
The long version, with a nod to Julian who posted this on PPL/IR:
Government response
Introduction
1. I am writing to thank you for responding to the Department's Consultation on the application of UK regulatory requirements to foreign registered aircraft based permanently in the UK.
2. Our consultation paper of 1 August last year sought views on a proposal to take steps to ensure that all privately operated aircraft permanently based in the UK were operated under requirements equivalent to those contained in the appropriate harmonised European standards. We suggested that this might best be achieved through an amendment to the Air Navigation Order (ANO) aimed at preventing foreign registered aircraft (other than those registered in a state subject to EASA's requirements) from being based in the UK by limiting the time such aircraft could spend in the UK to perhaps 90 days in any 12 months.
3. Copies of the consultation paper were sent directly to representative organisations and stakeholders (listed in Annex C of the consultation document). It was also made available on the Department's website in addition to being publicised by a number of aviation magazines.
4. The closing date for responses was 28 October, although the Department accepted a small number after that date. We received 299 responses in all from many different sources including private citizens, Members of Parliament and the House of Lords, industry, commerce, aviation associations and foreign aviation authorities.
Responses to the consultation
5. Responses received by the Department demonstrated widespread opposition to the proposal to amend the Air Navigation Order to prevent foreign registered aircraft from being based in the UK by limiting the time such aircraft may remain in the country to perhaps 90 days in any one year. However, the Government has also taken note of the many constructive responses suggesting that Government action should instead focus on the reasons why people choose to place their aircraft on the US register and on disincentives to UK registration. Respondents emphasised in particular the perceived difficulty for holders of private pilots' licences of achieving an Instrument Rating in the UK under the prevailing JAR-FCL Instrument Rating requirements; the costs and commercial disadvantages of placing aircraft on the UK register; the relatively fewer aircraft and parts that are certified by the CAA as compared to the FAA or other Authorities; and the widespread recognition and acceptance of FAA licences and certificates worldwide. The feeling among these correspondents was that rather than Government introducing a limit on the activities of foreign registered aircraft, incentives should be introduced for owners to register their aircraft on the UK Register. Many respondents suggested they would move their aircraft to the UK register should CAA certification of aircraft and parts become more extensive and the process of obtaining an Instrument Rating be made more readily achievable.
Government response
6. The Government remains convinced that widespread flagging out of aircraft based in the UK is undesirable and out of line with the internationally accepted system of regulation of civil aviation embodied in the Chicago Convention. Our objective remains that aircraft based in the UK should be required to meet safety standards acceptable within Europe and be subject to verification by the UK and other European aviation authorities that they meet those standards. Taking into account the responses to the consultation, however, and while we will continue to monitor the operation of foreign registered aircraft based here, we conclude that it would not be appropriate at this time to introduce a requirement to place such aircraft on the UK register or impose a time-limit on their activities. We have reached this view in part because it appears to the Government that European proposals published in November 2005 to extend the scope of common European aviation safety rules may provide a better means of achieving our objective in a proportionate way. Stakeholders have been consulted generally on the proposal "to amend Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency". This proposal specifically amends the scope of the EASA Regulation to include a category of aircraft registered in a third country and used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community. Detailed implementing rules will be needed to give force to this amendment and we would expect the Agency to consult stakeholders on the details of their proposals at the appropriate time.
7. Regarding the widespread desire for a simplified instrument rating, the Government recalls that the current rating was established by the JAA acting on the advice of experts from the national aviation authorities of the JAA member States. Responsibility for future changes will rest with EASA. The Government will support efforts by EASA to address this issue, possibly through the provision of a leisure pilots licence similar to the UK NPPL but recognised across Europe. Respondents should note, however, that EASA will need to establish instrument rating requirements that are appropriate for European operations and weather conditions and that previous work by experts indicates that requirements based on the FAA instrument rating would not be acceptable for an instrument rating which gives access to class A airspace.
Introduction
1. I am writing to thank you for responding to the Department's Consultation on the application of UK regulatory requirements to foreign registered aircraft based permanently in the UK.
2. Our consultation paper of 1 August last year sought views on a proposal to take steps to ensure that all privately operated aircraft permanently based in the UK were operated under requirements equivalent to those contained in the appropriate harmonised European standards. We suggested that this might best be achieved through an amendment to the Air Navigation Order (ANO) aimed at preventing foreign registered aircraft (other than those registered in a state subject to EASA's requirements) from being based in the UK by limiting the time such aircraft could spend in the UK to perhaps 90 days in any 12 months.
3. Copies of the consultation paper were sent directly to representative organisations and stakeholders (listed in Annex C of the consultation document). It was also made available on the Department's website in addition to being publicised by a number of aviation magazines.
4. The closing date for responses was 28 October, although the Department accepted a small number after that date. We received 299 responses in all from many different sources including private citizens, Members of Parliament and the House of Lords, industry, commerce, aviation associations and foreign aviation authorities.
Responses to the consultation
5. Responses received by the Department demonstrated widespread opposition to the proposal to amend the Air Navigation Order to prevent foreign registered aircraft from being based in the UK by limiting the time such aircraft may remain in the country to perhaps 90 days in any one year. However, the Government has also taken note of the many constructive responses suggesting that Government action should instead focus on the reasons why people choose to place their aircraft on the US register and on disincentives to UK registration. Respondents emphasised in particular the perceived difficulty for holders of private pilots' licences of achieving an Instrument Rating in the UK under the prevailing JAR-FCL Instrument Rating requirements; the costs and commercial disadvantages of placing aircraft on the UK register; the relatively fewer aircraft and parts that are certified by the CAA as compared to the FAA or other Authorities; and the widespread recognition and acceptance of FAA licences and certificates worldwide. The feeling among these correspondents was that rather than Government introducing a limit on the activities of foreign registered aircraft, incentives should be introduced for owners to register their aircraft on the UK Register. Many respondents suggested they would move their aircraft to the UK register should CAA certification of aircraft and parts become more extensive and the process of obtaining an Instrument Rating be made more readily achievable.
Government response
6. The Government remains convinced that widespread flagging out of aircraft based in the UK is undesirable and out of line with the internationally accepted system of regulation of civil aviation embodied in the Chicago Convention. Our objective remains that aircraft based in the UK should be required to meet safety standards acceptable within Europe and be subject to verification by the UK and other European aviation authorities that they meet those standards. Taking into account the responses to the consultation, however, and while we will continue to monitor the operation of foreign registered aircraft based here, we conclude that it would not be appropriate at this time to introduce a requirement to place such aircraft on the UK register or impose a time-limit on their activities. We have reached this view in part because it appears to the Government that European proposals published in November 2005 to extend the scope of common European aviation safety rules may provide a better means of achieving our objective in a proportionate way. Stakeholders have been consulted generally on the proposal "to amend Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency". This proposal specifically amends the scope of the EASA Regulation to include a category of aircraft registered in a third country and used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community. Detailed implementing rules will be needed to give force to this amendment and we would expect the Agency to consult stakeholders on the details of their proposals at the appropriate time.
7. Regarding the widespread desire for a simplified instrument rating, the Government recalls that the current rating was established by the JAA acting on the advice of experts from the national aviation authorities of the JAA member States. Responsibility for future changes will rest with EASA. The Government will support efforts by EASA to address this issue, possibly through the provision of a leisure pilots licence similar to the UK NPPL but recognised across Europe. Respondents should note, however, that EASA will need to establish instrument rating requirements that are appropriate for European operations and weather conditions and that previous work by experts indicates that requirements based on the FAA instrument rating would not be acceptable for an instrument rating which gives access to class A airspace.
Two questions:
- So I presume you can access Class A IFR in an N-reg with an FAA Instrument Rating and this is acceptable, but to do so G-reg with an equivalent IR is not acceptable - what am I missing here?
- Why does meteorology change from one side of the pond to the other?
- So I presume you can access Class A IFR in an N-reg with an FAA Instrument Rating and this is acceptable, but to do so G-reg with an equivalent IR is not acceptable - what am I missing here?
- Why does meteorology change from one side of the pond to the other?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drauk - thank you for the repost here.
Andy - you are not missing anything; the answer is
- European gold plating of everything;
- European protectionism.
- The need to save face
Nothing new here. The FAA IR is perfectly suitable for flying European airways, as I and many others know too well.
This is excellent news, of course. A victory of common sense, but one which was never assured despite the unbelievable stupidity (not to mention impossibility of enforcement) of the DfT 90-day proposal.
It's not finished yet though. EASA has a similar objective but not only is this a few years away (for practical reasons) but it will also require a much wider consensus. Any move against N-reg is likely to get wrapped up in EASA's Euro-wide PPL and airframe certification ambitions, and their stated intention to somehow swap an FAA IR for some sort of an EASA IR.
Edit: maybe it's now time to give our wonderful democratic government a ladder on which all the Cambridge Arts graduates can quietly climb down and get back into their cubicles.
Andy - you are not missing anything; the answer is
- European gold plating of everything;
- European protectionism.
- The need to save face
Nothing new here. The FAA IR is perfectly suitable for flying European airways, as I and many others know too well.
This is excellent news, of course. A victory of common sense, but one which was never assured despite the unbelievable stupidity (not to mention impossibility of enforcement) of the DfT 90-day proposal.
It's not finished yet though. EASA has a similar objective but not only is this a few years away (for practical reasons) but it will also require a much wider consensus. Any move against N-reg is likely to get wrapped up in EASA's Euro-wide PPL and airframe certification ambitions, and their stated intention to somehow swap an FAA IR for some sort of an EASA IR.
Edit: maybe it's now time to give our wonderful democratic government a ladder on which all the Cambridge Arts graduates can quietly climb down and get back into their cubicles.
Last edited by IO540; 8th Nov 2006 at 10:13.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
appropriate for European operations and weather conditions and that previous work by experts indicates that requirements based on the FAA instrument rating would not be acceptable for an instrument rating which gives access to class A airspace.
- The US has far greater extremes of weather than Europe
- The US has higher mountains than Europe
- The US has more GA than Europe
- Every commercial pilot of a US registered commercial aircraft flying into Europe will be doing so on an FAA IR and not a JAR IR
- The FAA IR is an ICAO compliant rating which the UK and Europe are bound to recognise as signatories to ICAO, in so far as it relates to IFR in N reg aircraft
The conclusions are indeed nonsense and the truth is there is no rational reason for distinguishing between N reg for private operations and N reg commercial traffic, which neither the CAA nor europe can do anything about. However, this will not in practice stop EASA trying to limit the scope for N reg (or indeed other registrations, such as Russia) from being permanently based in Europe. I believe that the US in fact has a similar rule, so a precedent has been set
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Justiciar
Every commercial pilot of a US registered commercial aircraft flying into Europe will be doing so on an FAA IR and not a JAR IR
One of the things people moan about in relation to the JAA IR is that it's [flight] requirements are the same as the ATPL.
Not so the FAA IR: The flight requirements are not the same as the FAA ATP (which I would assume the Captain [at least] of all these commercial flights you refer to has)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen; they are all ICAO I/R's and they all give access to all classes of airspace internationally.
One's access rights to airspace don't change in FAA land or elsewhere dependent upon whether the underlying certificate is Private, Commercial, or ATP.
One's access rights to airspace don't change in FAA land or elsewhere dependent upon whether the underlying certificate is Private, Commercial, or ATP.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think there is much point in dissecting this DfT letter, beyond the essential statement that N-reg is here to stay until EASA gets going.
It was written by somebody who has almost certainly never touched a light aircraft with a bargepole, briefed by somebody from the CAA who may have done but whose salary and civil service pension depends on maintaining the revenue stream and who has spent his entire aviation career either in the RAF or in the CAA and there you have the attitude that "British is best" and "Americans are cowboys".
Those of us who fly IFR around Europe for real know perfectly well that any anti-FAA/IR bias is a load of bo**ocks. The FAA PPL/IR is perfectly suitable for the job.
It was written by somebody who has almost certainly never touched a light aircraft with a bargepole, briefed by somebody from the CAA who may have done but whose salary and civil service pension depends on maintaining the revenue stream and who has spent his entire aviation career either in the RAF or in the CAA and there you have the attitude that "British is best" and "Americans are cowboys".
Those of us who fly IFR around Europe for real know perfectly well that any anti-FAA/IR bias is a load of bo**ocks. The FAA PPL/IR is perfectly suitable for the job.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the Government has also taken note of the many constructive responses suggesting that Government action should instead focus on the reasons why people choose to place their aircraft on the US register and on disincentives to UK registration.
Tim
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
work by experts indicates that requirements based on the FAA instrument rating would not be acceptable for an instrument rating which gives access to class A airspace.
Who are these "experts" and have they missed the point ? The FAA IR rating is currently acceptable and valid for flying in class A airspace in Europe, how can they publish such rubbish ?
Who are these "experts" and have they missed the point ? The FAA IR rating is currently acceptable and valid for flying in class A airspace in Europe, how can they publish such rubbish ?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=unfazed;2953404]work by experts indicates that requirements based on the FAA instrument rating would not be acceptable for an instrument rating which gives access to class A airspace.
Once again a demonstration that anti-FAA/IR bigotry pervades the highest levels of aviation decision making over here - surprise, surprise!
As usual envy driven and based in imagined inadequacies of a busier system that works very well the majority of the time.
The real inadequacy here is on the part of the states who cannot provide an accessible alternative to the FAA/IR route.
The preponderance of N-registered aircraft in Europe is a symptom of a poor European system, not a disease in its own right.
I wonder how much this consultation and the time of the "experts" cost us?
SB
Once again a demonstration that anti-FAA/IR bigotry pervades the highest levels of aviation decision making over here - surprise, surprise!
As usual envy driven and based in imagined inadequacies of a busier system that works very well the majority of the time.
The real inadequacy here is on the part of the states who cannot provide an accessible alternative to the FAA/IR route.
The preponderance of N-registered aircraft in Europe is a symptom of a poor European system, not a disease in its own right.
I wonder how much this consultation and the time of the "experts" cost us?
SB
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funnily enough, when I am over in California in a couple of weeks, the FAA deem me competent enough to share the airways with the likes of BA262 coming from London, so I wonder why the Europeans don't think I am safe enough to share their airways with BA 262 on its return leg......
In FAA land, to command any aircraft that requires a type rating, you must fly to ATP standards, even if you don't have an ATP. For scheduled ops, to act as co pilot you must take the FAA SIC check ride, which again is flow to ATP standards.........
In FAA land, to command any aircraft that requires a type rating, you must fly to ATP standards, even if you don't have an ATP. For scheduled ops, to act as co pilot you must take the FAA SIC check ride, which again is flow to ATP standards.........
Last edited by englishal; 9th Nov 2006 at 01:24.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In FAA land, to command any aircraft that requires a type rating, you must fly to ATP standards, even if you don't have an ATP. For scheduled ops, to act as co pilot you must take the FAA SIC check ride, which again is flow to ATP standards.........
I am trying to generate some debate here. I don't know enough about the FAA IR standards to express opinions and clearly there are many here that do.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the general amount of flying required: 40 as against 55 hours I believe, with previous instrument time (e.g. IMC rating) being counted for the FAA IR but not the JAA?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very good questions, Justiciar.
So, are the DoT and Europe right then? As a stand alone rating held by a PPL, is the overall skill level less than the JAA IR and therefore less appropriate for more crowded European skies?
They are completely wrong.
The key to this is what type of aircraft the FAA requires a Type Rating for. You are looking at jets, certainly, and I believe also turboprops. Under G-reg, anything pressurised requires a Type Rating, AFAIK. None of these make any sense flown without an IR anyway, for airspace/performance reasons.
In the piston context, this is irrelevant, however.
No way are European skies more crowded than US skies. In the piston type IFR/airways levels, FL080-FL180 (FL250 possibly, exceptionally) there is virtually no traffic outside the busy terminal areas, and you don't normally get Eurocontrol-acceptable routes through the middle of those anyway. On a typical 700nm flight from the s. UK to somewhere in Eastern Europe (thus passing straight through the busiest areas e.g. Brussels and Frankfurt) you will almost certainly not get visual with even one other plane - apart from some jets at FL350 or whatever - for the whole trip!! And this is on a weekday, or a weekend. It's quite staggering how little traffic there is, below the jet transport levels.
GA traffic in particular is close to nonexistent in the airways. The word "congestion" is just plain silly. The pilot workload is normally so low that you could sit there reading a book. Every 15-30 minutes you get a new frequency, and occassionally (like flying through the busy Birmingham/Manchester areas) you get a series of vectors.
It's a different situation if you have a slow turboprop (or a slow jets, and all the new "light jets" will be relatively slow) flying at say FL300-350. That will get in the way of jet transport traffic, and this is reflected in some lousy routings which ATC will give these people. I have no experience of this personally but I know turboprop pilots (King Air etc) who frequently moan about that. This will in turn drop major spanners into the advertised performance/range figures for the new light jets (and this is true in both Europe and USA) but this isn't a safety issue, of course.
The min flyight training time is irrelevant. You have to reach the standard, which for the FAA IR is pretty tough. Personally, I took about 20hrs to do the IMCR, then (a few years later) did another 10-15 in the UK towards the FAA IR, then did another 25 in the USA to finish the IR. I think this is fairly average, for someone who is spreading out the ratings to slot into his "other life". Once you start flying for real, you are only as good as your recent currency and what you did in your training soon fades into the distant past. This is another reason why a somewhat tighter stadard of flying in your checkride between the FAA PPL/IR and the FAA ATPL becomes irrelevant once a few weeks have passed.
So, are the DoT and Europe right then? As a stand alone rating held by a PPL, is the overall skill level less than the JAA IR and therefore less appropriate for more crowded European skies?
They are completely wrong.
The key to this is what type of aircraft the FAA requires a Type Rating for. You are looking at jets, certainly, and I believe also turboprops. Under G-reg, anything pressurised requires a Type Rating, AFAIK. None of these make any sense flown without an IR anyway, for airspace/performance reasons.
In the piston context, this is irrelevant, however.
No way are European skies more crowded than US skies. In the piston type IFR/airways levels, FL080-FL180 (FL250 possibly, exceptionally) there is virtually no traffic outside the busy terminal areas, and you don't normally get Eurocontrol-acceptable routes through the middle of those anyway. On a typical 700nm flight from the s. UK to somewhere in Eastern Europe (thus passing straight through the busiest areas e.g. Brussels and Frankfurt) you will almost certainly not get visual with even one other plane - apart from some jets at FL350 or whatever - for the whole trip!! And this is on a weekday, or a weekend. It's quite staggering how little traffic there is, below the jet transport levels.
GA traffic in particular is close to nonexistent in the airways. The word "congestion" is just plain silly. The pilot workload is normally so low that you could sit there reading a book. Every 15-30 minutes you get a new frequency, and occassionally (like flying through the busy Birmingham/Manchester areas) you get a series of vectors.
It's a different situation if you have a slow turboprop (or a slow jets, and all the new "light jets" will be relatively slow) flying at say FL300-350. That will get in the way of jet transport traffic, and this is reflected in some lousy routings which ATC will give these people. I have no experience of this personally but I know turboprop pilots (King Air etc) who frequently moan about that. This will in turn drop major spanners into the advertised performance/range figures for the new light jets (and this is true in both Europe and USA) but this isn't a safety issue, of course.
The min flyight training time is irrelevant. You have to reach the standard, which for the FAA IR is pretty tough. Personally, I took about 20hrs to do the IMCR, then (a few years later) did another 10-15 in the UK towards the FAA IR, then did another 25 in the USA to finish the IR. I think this is fairly average, for someone who is spreading out the ratings to slot into his "other life". Once you start flying for real, you are only as good as your recent currency and what you did in your training soon fades into the distant past. This is another reason why a somewhat tighter stadard of flying in your checkride between the FAA PPL/IR and the FAA ATPL becomes irrelevant once a few weeks have passed.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
previous work by experts indicates that requirements based on the FAA instrument rating would not be acceptable for an instrument rating which gives access to class A airspace.
Perhaps the Dept are happy to allow these dangerous pilots with insufficient training to continue to operate in the class A airspace?
Perhaps they ought to resign for preciding over a system that allowed such dangerous activity to take place in the first place and putting the traveling publics lives at risk, never mind being allowed to continue.
Of course I can enter much class A airspace on my PPL, with nothing more than a SEP-Land class rating, under Special VFR. Of course my training would be much more suitable than those pescy FAA/IR pilots
Every time I go to the Channel Islands, I'm always scared that one of those poorly trained FAA/IR's might crash into me. They really should be banned from the class A airspace!
Now.....where's the sarcasm smiley?
dp
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
...You have to reach the standard, which for the FAA IR is pretty tough...
...Once you start flying for real, you are only as good as your recent currency and what you did in your training soon fades into the distant past. This is another reason why a somewhat tighter standard of flying in your check ride between the FAA PPL/IR and the FAA ATPL becomes irrelevant once a few weeks have passed...
...Once you start flying for real, you are only as good as your recent currency and what you did in your training soon fades into the distant past. This is another reason why a somewhat tighter standard of flying in your check ride between the FAA PPL/IR and the FAA ATPL becomes irrelevant once a few weeks have passed...
It might not be the issue that fresh-minted FAA IRs are not acceptable to the Europeans but that 13 month old self-certified ones aren't. Or that 26 month old self-cert ones aren't. Or that 25 year old non ME tested ones aren't.
That's a significant departure from the CAA/JAA requirements of annual retests (including asymmetric in the case of ME). A far more significant departure than the flying standard required in the IRT...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As others have said the flying skills of the to IR's seem pretty similar (tighter ILS and NDB requriements for JAA and more on the fly responding and planning (i.e no canned routes) in the US) and besides that, you are not really very likely to have an NDB approach into an airport in class A.
