Cirrus SR22 Accident Nov. 16, 2008 off Cherbourg
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was Riverboats post in this thread (page 3) that first suggested the accident occured after clearance to enter Jersey Zone had been granted, and after a descent had occured.
Jersey Evening Post reported 17/11: "The French coast guard station CROSS at Jobourg in Normandy received a message from Jersey air traffic controllers at 6.23 pm French time yesterday saying that contact with the aircraft had been lost. However, it is understood that there was no mayday from the aircraft. It is known that the pilot received permission from air traffic in the Island to enter the Jersey-controlled airspace near Cherbourg minutes before the aircraft disappeared from screens."
Can only guess at this stage that the clearance was granted when the aircraft was somewhere North-east of the accident site.
Jersey Evening Post reported 17/11: "The French coast guard station CROSS at Jobourg in Normandy received a message from Jersey air traffic controllers at 6.23 pm French time yesterday saying that contact with the aircraft had been lost. However, it is understood that there was no mayday from the aircraft. It is known that the pilot received permission from air traffic in the Island to enter the Jersey-controlled airspace near Cherbourg minutes before the aircraft disappeared from screens."
Can only guess at this stage that the clearance was granted when the aircraft was somewhere North-east of the accident site.
Last edited by execExpress; 19th Nov 2008 at 21:55.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More likely a JAA/JAR PPL or whatever eurocrats want to call it and deem it good for across Europe this month.
Do the FAA recognise the United States of Europe as a country?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seriously doubt this accident will answer that question. The NTSB will file the report with minimal data and a reference to contact the French or the British (which ever one does the investigation) and that will be the extent of the Fed's involvement (unless the investigating authority asks them to be involved). Neither the CAA nor the DGAC have shown any tendency to stress over a technical issue of this sort (after all the intent wasn't to fly to France). Furthermore, I have yet to see any evidence of an insurer walking away from a claim based on something like this.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The validity of any license or rating in an N-reg is wholly down to the state of registry i.e. the FAA.
This one is an old chestnut of course, FAR 61.3 and the word "issued". I have copies of written replies from different bits of the FAA on the supposed pan-European validity of a JAA PPL, and two of these replies are completely contradictory. I can well imagine somebody getting an affirmative reply (such as some indded have got) and they would be perfectly entitled to rely on it. After all, if you contact any official body and it says such and such is ok then what are you supposed to do?
mm_flynn - I do agree except that
is a tougher one, since the non-recipient of the insurance payout is unlikely to advertise the fact. I don't have any real evidence one way or the other except that old case of Graham Hill (invalid CofA; the AAIB report is online) and feedback from my insurer confirming they would probably not pay out if a flight was illegal to start with. But this flight could not have been in that category, IMHO, not least because it never landed in France, so you are probably right.
This one is an old chestnut of course, FAR 61.3 and the word "issued". I have copies of written replies from different bits of the FAA on the supposed pan-European validity of a JAA PPL, and two of these replies are completely contradictory. I can well imagine somebody getting an affirmative reply (such as some indded have got) and they would be perfectly entitled to rely on it. After all, if you contact any official body and it says such and such is ok then what are you supposed to do?
mm_flynn - I do agree except that
I have yet to see any evidence of an insurer walking away from a claims based on something like this.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is indeed curious that a purchaser of an N-reg did not have an FAA PPL at the time of the purchase. It is an odd way round to do this. I made sure I had the FAA PPL before moving the TB20 from G to N. Of course the whole reason for going to N was to get the FAA IR and it is highly likely this pilot bought an N-reg for the same reason, and perhaps he thought that the inconvenience of having to stick to UK airspace until he gets at least the FAA PPL is not a problem, relative to the significant cost (4 digits min) of buying a G-reg Cirrus and then transferring it to N-reg.
Does the USA have the concept of 'apparent authority'?
There are instances whereby person x said (or wrote) this and person y said (or wrote) that and when it came to pass- what was enacted into law is what mattered - and the example that I am aware of within the US, the pilot lost.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And a lot of what is enacted doesnt matter in practice. Allegedly it is illegal to walk down Oxford Street without wearing your sword! :-)
There is so much bureaucracy and change in Europe, that trying to integrate with or relate to the FAA system, and tip a hat to ICAO, even the most die-hard bureaucrat may decide life is too short, or a good way to while away the years to pension and then handover to someone else ;-)
The colour of the paperwork is not of interest in establishing what happened - which is what really matters
There is so much bureaucracy and change in Europe, that trying to integrate with or relate to the FAA system, and tip a hat to ICAO, even the most die-hard bureaucrat may decide life is too short, or a good way to while away the years to pension and then handover to someone else ;-)
The colour of the paperwork is not of interest in establishing what happened - which is what really matters
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Over the hill and far away
Age: 76
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of a slight thread-drift, what are the benefits, or advantages, of having an N regd aircraft in the UK? Or is it because that particular model isn't yet type-approved in Europe?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I have read often about the FAA enforcement culture in the U.S. Removing privileges from pilots where necessary is one thing. Enforcing "when we the US wrote country (how many years ago?) we meant country and we still mean country, and if you (France) tell us as far as your aviation goes your regulatory organisation is EASA we're here to tell you that doesnt fit our definition so we dont accept what is applicable in your airspace is applicable in your airspace" would be quite another. Why anyone in FAA would be motivated to ever take such a tack I don't know. If they simply wanted to assert 'rules is rules'. well, France might not be the best place to go do that.:-)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken - The inability, over may years, to cut through bureaucracy and create (or 'sell') a european IR more suited and more attainable for "GA" (v Airline) ops has driven significant demand for the FAA IR and in-turn N-registered aircraft - which works well for that important segment of the GA eco-system (if the 1000's of N-reg operating across Europe are anything to go by).
Last edited by execExpress; 20th Nov 2008 at 00:11.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Socal - unfair - you miss my point entirely. Not trying to have anything both ways or take the piss. (BTW I have a FAA licence too. I only dream Europe/ICAO would adopt and rebadge FAA lock stock and barrel - how many systems does the world need?).
My point put simply is -would a european-wide accepted licence issued by the body that regulates europe satisfy the requirement of the far you quote - which as you rightly assert should be respected.
Probably it would - unless someone wants to get really, really hung up on the literal meaning of the word country in the context of Europe. After all what is the requirement about - ensuring that if an N-reg is flown in non-US airspace without a US licence that the folks whose airspace the aircraft is flying in are happy with the flying qualifications that the pilot does have. If they are happy then the FAA are happy too, eh? Requirement met. Like you say, a lot more 'can do' pragmatic than many public sector organisations.
My point put simply is -would a european-wide accepted licence issued by the body that regulates europe satisfy the requirement of the far you quote - which as you rightly assert should be respected.
Probably it would - unless someone wants to get really, really hung up on the literal meaning of the word country in the context of Europe. After all what is the requirement about - ensuring that if an N-reg is flown in non-US airspace without a US licence that the folks whose airspace the aircraft is flying in are happy with the flying qualifications that the pilot does have. If they are happy then the FAA are happy too, eh? Requirement met. Like you say, a lot more 'can do' pragmatic than many public sector organisations.
Last edited by execExpress; 19th Nov 2008 at 23:53.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US works with Europe as one big happy family in many other spheres of course.
In this case Europe would perhaps feel that its licence is its licence and does the job it needs to do - document the qualificiations of the pilots it is issued to. Personally I cant see the US having a problem with accepting that - and I guess nobody will never ever know! :-) We have probably spent more words and time on this discussion than it is of interest to the authorities themselves to prioritise or clarify - if they think it needs clarifying from their point of view.
If one day I see in or on the news a US-EU spat over the definition of country with regards to the acceptability or applicability of JAR licences in Europe I'll let you know and buy you a beer. Until then, life is too short. :-)
In this case Europe would perhaps feel that its licence is its licence and does the job it needs to do - document the qualificiations of the pilots it is issued to. Personally I cant see the US having a problem with accepting that - and I guess nobody will never ever know! :-) We have probably spent more words and time on this discussion than it is of interest to the authorities themselves to prioritise or clarify - if they think it needs clarifying from their point of view.
If one day I see in or on the news a US-EU spat over the definition of country with regards to the acceptability or applicability of JAR licences in Europe I'll let you know and buy you a beer. Until then, life is too short. :-)
Goodnight.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA does a much stricter level of enforcement in the USA than any European authority does over here, but they can afford to because the US IR is far more accessible than the European IR.
In the USA, you have the old PPL CPL ATPL pipeline, and the hallmark of a 'professional pilot' is the ATPL (as it should be; you need an ATPL to be a Captain). The IR is just another qualification which anybody can do at their old PPL school, with the same instructor usually, with the same crowd... and no professional status is attached to it.
In Europe, flying got split into private and professional. Private got consigned to the "VFR" dustbin and the totally mysterious possibility of a private IR got glossed over. Professional cadets start off with the IR however (well possibly the CPL but that is a VFR-only bit which anybody can get), the ATPL is something anybody with a CPL/IR can just pick up after logging 1500hrs TT and 500 multi-crew RHS hours, and professional pilot status thus got linked to the IR because it is the only reasonably hard bit of ab initio airline pilot training, and all the regulators then worked on making the IR really gold plated.
EASA is currently in a state of flux but their present status is to not accept any foreign licenses at all, in any way whatsoever, as a credit towards anything at all, and achieve recognition of foreign stuff via reciprocal treaties instead. Whether they will succeed in this high-risk confrontational (esp. with the USA) strategy remains to be seen.
As SoCal said, it is usually the FAA IR, because to get worldwide IFR privileges you need the IR country of issue match the aircraft country of registry.
There are some maintenance advantages particularly in the area of minor modifications but these would not apply to a new plane like this. There is no significant difference on routine maintenance costs between an N-reg and a G-reg, both being privately operated (I've done both so I know).
The SR22 is EASA approved, so I cannot imagine why wnybody would buy an N-reg one today unless definitely planning to go for the FAA IR.
Any old fizzy cold lager for me please
In the USA, you have the old PPL CPL ATPL pipeline, and the hallmark of a 'professional pilot' is the ATPL (as it should be; you need an ATPL to be a Captain). The IR is just another qualification which anybody can do at their old PPL school, with the same instructor usually, with the same crowd... and no professional status is attached to it.
In Europe, flying got split into private and professional. Private got consigned to the "VFR" dustbin and the totally mysterious possibility of a private IR got glossed over. Professional cadets start off with the IR however (well possibly the CPL but that is a VFR-only bit which anybody can get), the ATPL is something anybody with a CPL/IR can just pick up after logging 1500hrs TT and 500 multi-crew RHS hours, and professional pilot status thus got linked to the IR because it is the only reasonably hard bit of ab initio airline pilot training, and all the regulators then worked on making the IR really gold plated.
EASA is currently in a state of flux but their present status is to not accept any foreign licenses at all, in any way whatsoever, as a credit towards anything at all, and achieve recognition of foreign stuff via reciprocal treaties instead. Whether they will succeed in this high-risk confrontational (esp. with the USA) strategy remains to be seen.
what are the benefits, or advantages, of having an N regd aircraft in the UK? Or is it because that particular model isn't yet type-approved in Europe?
There are some maintenance advantages particularly in the area of minor modifications but these would not apply to a new plane like this. There is no significant difference on routine maintenance costs between an N-reg and a G-reg, both being privately operated (I've done both so I know).
The SR22 is EASA approved, so I cannot imagine why wnybody would buy an N-reg one today unless definitely planning to go for the FAA IR.
Any old fizzy cold lager for me please
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
I find your attitude a touch insulting to anyone who has embarked upon the route of gaining either a CPL or IR.
Have you got one? If not and it's so easy then why not? If you have then you must realise you are denegrating what was a lot of work to achieve.
Again I refer to above. You don't have a JAA IR due to the degree of difficulty involved in gaining one, therefore i guess you haven't just 'picked up' an ATPL yet. Once you have then you may be in a position to discuss the ease with which one can be acquired.
I find your attitude a touch insulting to anyone who has embarked upon the route of gaining either a CPL or IR.
well possibly the CPL but that is a VFR-only bit which anybody can get
the ATPL is something anybody with a CPL/IR can just pick up after logging 1500hrs TT and 500 multi-crew RHS hours
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have an ICAO CPL/IR which is good enough for me, and took me long enough to do.
My comments were on the European v. US political scene.
I have not done a JAA IR because it would be of no use in my N-reg plane. If I have to do it then I will.
The JAA ATPL is unreachable to any private pilot because of the multi crew time requirement, but is easily reachable to somebody with a CPL/IR who has got a RHS commercial job. There is no additional checkride, whereas in FAA-land there is an additional checkride for the ATPL.
Etc.
My comments were on the European v. US political scene.
I have not done a JAA IR because it would be of no use in my N-reg plane. If I have to do it then I will.
The JAA ATPL is unreachable to any private pilot because of the multi crew time requirement, but is easily reachable to somebody with a CPL/IR who has got a RHS commercial job. There is no additional checkride, whereas in FAA-land there is an additional checkride for the ATPL.
Etc.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was thinking about this debate over FAA registered aircraft and licenses.
Please follow my logic and correct as appropriate.
1. The pilot is JAA qualified and the aircraft is on the N reg,
2. We agree he can fly in UK airspace because the "country" of issue of his license and the airspace are the same,
3. However, the UK is not a country, but made up of a number of countries in the usual sense - Scotland, England, Wales, Norther Ireland,
4. If the UK does not strictly fit the definition of "country" does the EC fit the definition to an any greater or lesser extent?
5. The CIs are a Principality. In term of the FAR's use of country are they a country in their own right, are they part of the country of the United Kingdom, how do they fit with the term used? Why do we assume the flight in CIs airspace is any different than in French airspace? Moreover, I understand the CI zone is French airspace at all times BUT jurisdiction is passed to the CIs when the zone is open. Does the jurisdiction of the airspace alter the position?
I agree it is a pedantic point not least because the FAA in any event would be unable to exercise any enforcement action other than to withdraw the license.
I think someone mentioned earlier it was not a matter for the "owner" of the airspace. I dont believe that is correct. A French registered car can be driven on our roads in the UK. However if the drivers license is not valid for any reason including the license not being recognised by the UK the driver is operating the car illegally. Whether or not the car is entitled to be on our roads is academic.
Please follow my logic and correct as appropriate.
1. The pilot is JAA qualified and the aircraft is on the N reg,
2. We agree he can fly in UK airspace because the "country" of issue of his license and the airspace are the same,
3. However, the UK is not a country, but made up of a number of countries in the usual sense - Scotland, England, Wales, Norther Ireland,
4. If the UK does not strictly fit the definition of "country" does the EC fit the definition to an any greater or lesser extent?
5. The CIs are a Principality. In term of the FAR's use of country are they a country in their own right, are they part of the country of the United Kingdom, how do they fit with the term used? Why do we assume the flight in CIs airspace is any different than in French airspace? Moreover, I understand the CI zone is French airspace at all times BUT jurisdiction is passed to the CIs when the zone is open. Does the jurisdiction of the airspace alter the position?
I agree it is a pedantic point not least because the FAA in any event would be unable to exercise any enforcement action other than to withdraw the license.
I think someone mentioned earlier it was not a matter for the "owner" of the airspace. I dont believe that is correct. A French registered car can be driven on our roads in the UK. However if the drivers license is not valid for any reason including the license not being recognised by the UK the driver is operating the car illegally. Whether or not the car is entitled to be on our roads is academic.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: southeast UK
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have now travelled some distance 'off thread' and to be honest have left me confused.
Are we proving that there is no such thing as a 'common' European licence despite the Eurocrats efforts to make it so?
European countries have spent much of history at war with each other and I do not see things changing with EASA/JAR etc. Each country will pull for its own benefit and lodge its own differences from the 'standard'.
Add in a registration and licence outside of Europe and everything descends into a farce of grey areas.
I do not see that any state, European or otherwise, will get involved in the legalities of this particular accident. No third party is invloved waiting for legal clarity before jumping in for compensation.
This poor guy who had been trained to fly, had a licence issued by someone and flying an aircraft registered somewhere has come to an un-timely end and we are all debating the legalities of flying just inside French airspace, or not.
How about a separate thread, or better still a separate room, where you can all go and bang your heads together in an attempt to unify the regulatory authorities of the planet.
This subject is so old I am sure that God had an FAA/IR as a flag of convenience.
Are we proving that there is no such thing as a 'common' European licence despite the Eurocrats efforts to make it so?
European countries have spent much of history at war with each other and I do not see things changing with EASA/JAR etc. Each country will pull for its own benefit and lodge its own differences from the 'standard'.
Add in a registration and licence outside of Europe and everything descends into a farce of grey areas.
I do not see that any state, European or otherwise, will get involved in the legalities of this particular accident. No third party is invloved waiting for legal clarity before jumping in for compensation.
This poor guy who had been trained to fly, had a licence issued by someone and flying an aircraft registered somewhere has come to an un-timely end and we are all debating the legalities of flying just inside French airspace, or not.
How about a separate thread, or better still a separate room, where you can all go and bang your heads together in an attempt to unify the regulatory authorities of the planet.
This subject is so old I am sure that God had an FAA/IR as a flag of convenience.