Austrian CAA: FAA licenses remain valid for N-reg in Europe

[maxred]

I think that the argument that a US based trust can be argued to be the operator of an aircraft is totally farcical, The trust is a token entity to facilitate a loophole in international aviation law. No more, no less.

Well as Silvaire points out it is a farcical as a lot of the nonsense I read on here, and if it was such a large 'loophole' as you put it I am sure the FAA would have taken steps to close it by now.

[peterh337]

The FAA is completely happy with the use of trusts - a quote from a FAA chief counsel's office lawyer's presentation I went to a while ago.

Loads of planes are on trusts, for a variety of reasons. Many wealthy individuals and big-name corporates don't want to show they own a jet, for example, for security and PR reasons.

[mad_jock]

Why would the FAA care about European operators of N reg? Its a european problem not thiers.

Which is exactly the reason why most of us don't think anything will come of this meeting, is it this month or next?

EASA - Safety Assessment Of Foreign Aircraft (EC SAFA Programme)

Is already out there.

where no enforcement at all will be possible until some case law is formed

And how do you form case law without enforcing the law?

[goldeneaglepilot]

Maxred.

Why would the FAA want to close a loophole that allows continued ownership of an American aircraft (and thus revenue for the Americans) from a non US citizen?

Most people in Europe who own a N reg aircraft and operate it in Europe do so because it allows them access to a less expensive system of personal licences and maintenance. If theTrust ownership loop hole was removed that would become impossible for most.

[maxred]

Most people in Europe who own a N reg aircraft and operate it in Europe do so because it allows them access to a less expensive system of personal licences and maintenance. If theTrust ownership loop hole was removed that would become impossible for most.

The insidious fried envy of the UK. Brilliant.

I cant have so you cant have, the politics of the great unwashed.

Also GAP

I can not imagine that the UK agencies are comfortable with the anonimity offered to UK owners of N reg aircraft through US based trusts.

Classic - that statement is again just inaccurate. Do you honestly think that the UK agencies, either care, or in fact do not know, who is operating under their jurisdiction? 2 minutes on the internet is all that is required.

[421C]

Evidently my brain works differently to yours, because nobody else thinks it is at all enforceable.

Indeed, in particular in the meaning of "nobody else".

The top people at every European CAA which anybody has asked haven't got a clue what the words mean, either.

There is some lack of clarity in the definition of "Operator" and the definition of "resident". I agree. But this doesn't mean that suddenly the entire regulation is void. The most easily dismissed is the residency issue. For 95% of FRA pilots I would imagine there is no lack of clarity as to whether they are resident in the EU or not. For those in the 5%, I imagine there are methods to resolve this uncertainty. An obvious one would be to present the case to an NAA and get their agreement, and if you don't like their verdict, you can litigate - ie. in much the same way that residency questions are resolved for tax purposes.

On the operator question, this forum and the N-reg regulation isn't, amazingly enough, the first time this question has been raised. It certainly has been a matter of all sorts of case law in the USA, for Part 91, Part 91 Supart K (Fractional) and Part 135. The circumstances in which a person is deemed to have operational control of an aircraft are reasonably clear and I don't see how some trust arrangement could ever be used for a European beneficiary or shared beneficiary to ever claim he did not have operational control, except through some elaborate and self-evidently false construct. If one ever found a US trustee willing to be party to something so dumb (given the liabilities it carries) I would imagine they were essentially crooks. You can imagine what sort of person would offer such services and then you have to ask whether you trust them as owners of your $500k Cirrus or whatever. But don't take my word for it - ask a reputable trustee outside the EU if they would be willing to claim to have operational control of your aircraft and execute both the legal paperwork and day-day 'communications' needed to substantiate that. You have been writing about this possible "solution" for years now. I bet you that you won't actually find anyone sensible willing to do it. Go on, ask around.

Anyway, I am an engineer, and I look for solutions. This also means I don't easily bend over forwards to get shafted, especially when it is proposed by a bunch of faceless shysters in Brussels.

I bought my ~ £10,000 insurance policy
earlier this year (learning absolutely nothing useful in the process) but that
isn't going to make me go native.

I am not proposing anyone "go native" or "bend over". I also look for solutions, but I evaluate them too, otherwise they are not solutions but delusions. Your engineering is faulty if you think "enforceability" is a solution to anything in respect of FRA.

This is not to say there aren't genuinely grey areas. Someone who lives half their time in the US vs EU etc. Of course, one would hope a sensible solution could be found that is fair to such a person. But for the majority of FRA operators for whom EU residency isn't a grey area, and who have no genuine connection to a genuine non-EU operator (eg. a company or private owner for whom they fly) the greyness is not meaningful IMHO.

[421C]

I can not imagine that the UK agencies are comfortable with the anonimity
offered to UK owners of N reg aircraft through US based trusts.

And how is that different from the anonymity offered UK owners of UK reg aircraft through anonymous corporate vehicles and trusts? This "trust loophole" fallacy is always repeated in an FRA forum. Let us be perfectly clear. I can be a lunatic bent on world domination. I can set up a whole chain of anonymous offshore vehicles. At one end of my chain an entity can buy me an EU (note any EU) register aircraft and base it in the UK. How regulating bloke X with an N-reg Cirrus at Blackbushe out of flying helps serve any public purpose or interest is beyond me.

[Thomascl605]

Here we go again !

If you are flying N reg in Europe everyone knows that you are perfectly legal to fly with an FAA licence. Until EARSA rewrite the FAR's to include that you need a European licence too (which won't happen) , then just keep on flying as you have been for many many years. The whole rubbish about Operator residence, colour of Pilot's underwear etc is completely and utterly farcical, and shows the people who have written such drivel up for what they really are. Show me a safety case involving an N reg aircraft which hinges on Operator or Pilot residence ? There are a huge number of Airlines flying into and out of Europe every day, safely and if not safer that their European counterparts. Are we really expected to believe that just because a European Operator chooses to fly under the N reg that this is a safety issue just because of the residence of the Operator ? Of course not, this is total and utter rubbish and is discrimination by the lowest of the low.

This smacks of the same type of idiot rule about the 7 year IR validity of flying outside of Europe. Quite clearly many hundreds of very experienced senior Pilots are unhappy about that one too. So much so it's led to a petition being started on another Pprune forum against the CAA with hundreds of signatures so far.

I won't waste my time arguing the points with those of you that are

A. Trying to find a new vendetta after what probably is the longest soap opera posting on Pprune so far which has sadly yielded zero results. For that I feel sorry for you.

B. Give up, roll over and get shafted for thousands of euros just to fly the same aircraft with a European IR that has stupid validity periods which is currently discriminating against many thousands of senior Captains.

I'll just wait and see and if necessary there will be a discrimination case started in the future.

[Pace]

421C

The facts are that this is all poorly worked out and failing something sorted on a Bi lateral I have no doubts whatsoever on a solid legal challenge in the EU courts.

pace

[mad_jock]

Its not a vendetta.

Its just trying to get through to you that you have your head up your arse if you think its not going to happen or that it won't affect you.

IT HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH SAFETY.

The discrimination case will be amusing from the outside. Highly expensive and lasting years and years if you are on the inside.

[maxred]

Again spot on MJ. the chances are that most people who have been flying N Reg in the UK during the last few months will have been approached by an "official" to discover who the pilot is, that is to build up an intelligence list as to WHO is operating the aircraft.

I was going to leave this alone however......

I honestly think that you have been watching too many movies. It must be a W1 moment.

GAP, the chances are slightly>zero

[mad_jock]

More likely he lives in the South of england where the checks are being done.

Glasgow they just have a special force of baggage haddlers to put the head in on anyone that looks dodgy.

[Thomascl605]

No need to insult me MJ

It didn't take long before the bald haggis started bashing. Sad really, what a pathetic posting from you MJ.

[maxred]

Yes that Smeato moment, when even if you are on fire, some eejit will still stick the boot in

[Thomascl605]

Interesting to see the mindset though of all you lot who are against N reg in Europe. MJ, and all of you others love taking it in the a*s from a bunch of non elected, non pilots in Brussels writing laws , discriminatory and illegal ramblings of some thousands of pages better served up as recycled bog roll. The Stalinesque nature of life in Europe now, people afraid to speak up, to disagree, what was it you says MJ, jail ? Funniest thing I ever heard, you really are a piece of work.

Interesting to see those of you putting your faith in an Orwellian dictatorial mindset such as the Brussels gravy train which may well be derailed firstly with the impending collapse of the Euro and then country after country jumping ship.

Let's see what happens to all of this drivel then.

[mad_jock]

No if I said you were too thick to do the exams that would be an insult.

I actually think once you do get your finger out you will wonder why you made such a fuss.

Maybe if you didn't presume that we all have an agenda to ruin your life you would realise that whenever we disagree with you we arn't insulting you.

[Thomascl605]

And these exams, where are they in the FAR's exactly ??? You need to take your finger out.

Also, look at the IR theory exams that some hundreds of Pilots all have issue with too. Look at the petition against the CAA, hundreds of signatures from mostly European expats flying for Emirates or similar, thousands of hours and being told they have to do their IR theory exams again, what a load of rubbish.

Frankly, Europe and EARSA are a sinking ship, get this through you head and perhaps we can all move on to a common form of licencing with ICAO's help.

[mad_jock]

You better hope it doesn't sink because you will have to get every single country in EASA to change its ANO again afterwards, so how many court cases is that going to be?

I know nothing about the FAR's. Why would I?

I currently don't need to extract my finger to do some exams to work in a particualar area of operations. Have done in the past and complied with the local laws for both issue of local licenses and validations.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Maxred - wow, you certainly are prickly if anyone has an opinion different to yours. Do you own and fly an N reg aircraft yourself?

Just for the sake of clarity, I will clarify a statement of mine earlier:

If theTrust ownership loop hole was removed that would become impossible for most.

The Loophole is that the ONLY way to own an N Reg aircraft if you are not a US Citizen is by having it registered to either an American citizen as the owner OR to an American based trust.

Of course if details of the actual owner (the trustor) was availible to the authorities it would remove a lot of the issues over N-Reg being based and operated in the UK.

Now this could also be addressed easily by allowing ownership of N Reg aircraft by a non US entity and making the details of ownership availible through a similar system as G-INFO.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by goldeneaglepilot

Maxred - wow, you certainly are prickly if anyone has an opinion different to yours. Do you own and fly an N reg aircraft yourself?

Just for the sake of clarity, I will clarify a statement of mine earlier:



The Loophole is that the ONLY way to own an N Reg aircraft if you are not a US Citizen is by having it registered to either an American citizen as the owner OR to an American based trust.

Of course if details of the actual owner (the trustor) was availible to the authorities it would remove a lot of the issues over N-Reg being based and operated in the UK.

Now this could also be addressed easily by allowing ownership of N Reg aircraft by a non US entity and making the details of ownership availible through a similar system as G-INFO.

In the UK you would still want to hold any group operated aircraft in a 'limited liability structure' rather than in the individual's names as the owners are jointly and severally liable for all injuries and damages on the ground.

In addition, I believe the trust documents identifying the trustor are filed with the FAA, so this information is not opaque at the regulatory level

Besides trusts, you can also have the aircraft owned by an American corporation with (I think) 75% of the voting shares held by US Citizens, The President being US Citizen and 2/3 of Directors/Managing Officers US Citizens. I believe it is then possible for a non-US citizen to have a mortgage interest over the aircraft (for security of the capital) and to fly it. I know this is much more inconvenient than the trust structure, but it is nonetheless still viable for some people.