Austrian CAA: FAA licenses remain valid for N-reg in Europe
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just checked a sample AD 8050-1 (Aircraft registration document). It pretty clearly asks one to Certify (immediately below the 'you will be fined or imprisoned if you make a false statement' bit) that one is either a US Citizen, Resident Alien, or Non-Citizen corporation (and the aircraft is properly based in the US).
Last edited by mm_flynn; 18th Jun 2012 at 12:45.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid that the view given by Peter is NOT shared by the vast majority of FAA pilots who reside in the UK, for those who hold just an FAA licence it is a time of uncertainty. Pace made some very good points about what is happening in respect to trying to find a workable solution for all of this.
There are many loose ends at the moment with regards the implementation of EASA.
From my point of view I feel uncomfortable with the doubt, even though I hold both FAA and JAR/UK licences. The aircraft I normally fly is N reg (based in the UK and UK VAT paid) but registered and insured through the US and I pay tax both in the UK and the US. I also have both UK and US addresses. Yet even with seemingly all bases covered I still feel unease.
There are many loose ends at the moment with regards the implementation of EASA.
From my point of view I feel uncomfortable with the doubt, even though I hold both FAA and JAR/UK licences. The aircraft I normally fly is N reg (based in the UK and UK VAT paid) but registered and insured through the US and I pay tax both in the UK and the US. I also have both UK and US addresses. Yet even with seemingly all bases covered I still feel unease.
you have absolutely no reason to feel that way.
you are double licensed so you are just fine. it is only about licensing.. there is nothing to prevent a n-reg ac take of into the eu skies.
...
in the us the operator is the one who makes (decides to make) the plane do a flight.
this is not the pilot, and not necessarily the owner (for example a lease company does not decide .. the organisation/person that leases the plane).
Last edited by Ellemeet; 19th Jun 2012 at 07:24.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
Quote:
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.
Just for the sake of clarity, I will clarify a statement of mine earlier:
Quote:
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.
Last edited by Ellemeet; 19th Jun 2012 at 07:26.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overall, I think it is positive. An affirmation from the FAA of the support of the principles of Non-Citizen Trust Ownership supported by a tidying up of the administrative details. It may be a PITA for some Trustees, in that they will probably have to change some agreements to impose additional restrictions and file (potentially redrafted) operating agreements, but overall it does seem quite reasonable for the FAA to be able to enforce its obligations equally on all of the ownership structures.
In reading, it also further confuses me in the 'Operator' discussion. Between EASA, the local country and USA it appears there are range of different entities who could simultaneous be operator for any given flight based on the differing perspectives offered (the pilot, the entity that keeps maintenance records and authorises flights, An entity registered as an operator, the Trustor Owner, the entity HMRC have in mind with their “Operator (not Pilot)” question on the GAR, etc.)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree entirely, and over a strong cup of cocoa, I read through it also. It IS positive, and entirely reasonable.
The hysteria whipped up by some on this forum, and I again comment with the appearence of an ''agenda'', is precisely that - misplaced hysteria.
When all this began, the threads I mean, the same protaginists were on the 'safety' route, i.e. N reg operators skirted at the edge of the envelope, operations and maintenance, and flying, were all done with a dodgy set of ownesrhips, licences, inferior gained FAA IR's, etc etc.......
Focus has now altered to the Trust Status, The Ownership Status, as all being dodgy, or underhand in some way. EARSA will sort them al out, seems to be the constant cry. The main issue for these guys is that in reality there is not much for the FAA ''TO SORT OUT"
Sorry, utter nonsense
The hysteria whipped up by some on this forum, and I again comment with the appearence of an ''agenda'', is precisely that - misplaced hysteria.
When all this began, the threads I mean, the same protaginists were on the 'safety' route, i.e. N reg operators skirted at the edge of the envelope, operations and maintenance, and flying, were all done with a dodgy set of ownesrhips, licences, inferior gained FAA IR's, etc etc.......
Focus has now altered to the Trust Status, The Ownership Status, as all being dodgy, or underhand in some way. EARSA will sort them al out, seems to be the constant cry. The main issue for these guys is that in reality there is not much for the FAA ''TO SORT OUT"
Sorry, utter nonsense
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So at present the FAA can quickly access the details such the pilots, operators trustors and details of where the aircraft has been used?
Come on Maxred, its a difficult one. You previously said you had an N-Reg aircraft in the UK - I would be extremely surprised if the operator could be contacted by the FAA easily. My understanding is that the trustee is actually breaking American law at present if they disclose the Trustors details without a Court order to disclose or the express consent of the trustee.
Come on Maxred, its a difficult one. You previously said you had an N-Reg aircraft in the UK - I would be extremely surprised if the operator could be contacted by the FAA easily. My understanding is that the trustee is actually breaking American law at present if they disclose the Trustors details without a Court order to disclose or the express consent of the trustee.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That link was well found, mm_flynn 
That's a normal attitude, displayed by some who have been flying AOC ops and came across some cowboys, some of whom happened to be N-reg. The G-reg cowboys didn't draw attention; 10 points for sussing out why not 
It doesn't matter where one goes, one meets people who trot out that old line.
No, I didn't think EASA thought about the "operator" clause very much, either 
It has increasing hallmarks of an internal private project driven by a few individuals.
And I am damn sure that a lot of people involved who did wonder about this useless clause kept their mouths shut because it would conveniently render the legislation unworkable. Had I been on that committee that's exactly what I would have done.
When all this began, the threads I mean, the same protaginists were on the 'safety' route, i.e. N reg operators skirted at the edge of the envelope, operations and maintenance, and flying, were all done with a dodgy set of ownesrhips, licences, inferior gained FAA IR's, etc etc.......
It doesn't matter where one goes, one meets people who trot out that old line.
Between EASA, the local country and USA it appears there are range of different entities who could simultaneous be operator for any given flight based on the differing perspectives offered (the pilot, the entity that keeps maintenance records and authorises flights, An entity registered as an operator, the Trustor Owner, the entity HMRC have in mind with their “Operator (not Pilot)” question on the GAR, etc.)
It has increasing hallmarks of an internal private project driven by a few individuals.And I am damn sure that a lot of people involved who did wonder about this useless clause kept their mouths shut because it would conveniently render the legislation unworkable. Had I been on that committee that's exactly what I would have done.
Last edited by peterh337; 19th Jun 2012 at 14:54.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think they did put some effort in and its just not come up yet what the cunning plan is on that one.
I have a sneaky feeling it will be defined in some other transport regulation in the depths of some legislation on road haulage.
I have a sneaky feeling it will be defined in some other transport regulation in the depths of some legislation on road haulage.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on Maxred, its a difficult one. You previously said you had an N-Reg aircraft in the UK - I would be extremely surprised if the operator could be contacted by the FAA easily. My understanding is that the trustee is actually breaking American law at present if they disclose the Trustors details without a Court order to disclose or the express consent of the trustee.
Well as fate would have it, our UK postal service, via a UK postman, delivered today, a Safety Communique, from my US manufacturer, via my US trust, a letter. Hardly James Bond is it?
Well as fate would have it, our UK postal service, via a UK postman, delivered today, a Safety Communique, from my US manufacturer, via my US trust, a letter. Hardly James Bond is it?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good one.
Road Haulage actually has a very clear definition of Operator. One needs an Operator's Licence to be an Operator. So, that isn't very likely to be the place the 'cunning planners' have buried their masterstroke.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can imagine a Trust Structure which forbids the Trustee from disclosing the Trustor's details, but I certainly wouldn't expect that to be normal. In addition, I would expect the FAA to have objected to that in the Trust documents field with the registration. Nor would I expect there to be a general 'American Law' preventing the disclosure of trustor details in response to a lawful request from the US Government.
I suspect people who want to hid who they are to use several layers of indirection (e.g. a Trust holds the aircraft on behalf of a foreign holding company who then allows another party to operate the aircraft)
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a matter of interest whats the definition.
You only need a operators license to carry goods or burden connected with any trade or buisness when the plate weight is more than 3.5tons. Including renting in.
For example you can run a 7.5ton horse box without one. But you are still the operator of that vehicle.
And Article 257 of the ANO defines operator. But then doesn't define managment but does have a clause for 14 days hire.
Mind you there is nothing stopping them slipping in the definition which they want on the sly at some point in the future. As they don't need to redo everything to clarify a defintion, which could be what the plan is.
You only need a operators license to carry goods or burden connected with any trade or buisness when the plate weight is more than 3.5tons. Including renting in.
For example you can run a 7.5ton horse box without one. But you are still the operator of that vehicle.
And Article 257 of the ANO defines operator. But then doesn't define managment but does have a clause for 14 days hire.
Mind you there is nothing stopping them slipping in the definition which they want on the sly at some point in the future. As they don't need to redo everything to clarify a defintion, which could be what the plan is.
Last edited by mad_jock; 19th Jun 2012 at 18:22.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect people who want to hid who they are to use several layers of indirection (e.g. a Trust holds the aircraft on behalf of a foreign holding company who then allows another party to operate the aircraft)
What like Tory party politicians, Directors of UK Footse 100 companies, and Bankers?
Figures.....
What like Tory party politicians, Directors of UK Footse 100 companies, and Bankers?
Figures.....
Last edited by maxred; 19th Jun 2012 at 18:27.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max there is a button two along from the right from the youtube button that when you highlight some text then press it makes it a
it looks like a speech bubble
quote
Last edited by mad_jock; 19th Jun 2012 at 18:30.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maxred - well done to your trustee!! Others are often not as good or prompt.
Mm: The reason that the FAA held the public meeting was simple - there was legal right to not make disclosure of trustors details.They are trying to ammend that on various grounds.
Mm: The reason that the FAA held the public meeting was simple - there was legal right to not make disclosure of trustors details.They are trying to ammend that on various grounds.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Maxred - I am presuming you are refering to the use of the quote tool?
Perhaps I should have used that to quote your earlier post in the context of my reply
My response:
Perhaps I should have used that to quote your earlier post in the context of my reply
Well as fate would have it, our UK postal service, via a UK postman, delivered today, a Safety Communique, from my US manufacturer, via my US trust, a letter. Hardly James Bond is it?
Maxred - well done to your trustee!! Others are often not as good or prompt.
