TSA to be informed on every flight ?
 

Had an odd one from a friend today does anyone have any details?

I was told that every flight made by an N reg aircraft will require the TSA to be informed of such a flight?

I am sure this cannot on face value be correct?

Pace

60% of all aircraft in the world are on the 'N' reg.

Trying to keep track of every movement made by 60% of the world's aircraft would be a virtually impossible feat.

Pace, "friend" may have misconstrued the TSA threat that every aircraft fitted for six pax or more (I think) will have to submit passenger manifests, crew criminal background/security checks etc before every flight.

Not sure if it's six pax, or six seats - would need to look again. AOPA USA onto it in a big way.

Could be that a Seneca would require passenger manifests and security cards etc. for every flight, yes.

What's next? Sky marshals on every flight?

Disguised of course so you don't recognize them in your PA-28...

And of course, the sky marshal will get its own definition, not being a passenger, so that they can legally accompany PPL students on solo flights.

There is a proposal kicking about for notification above 12500lb (5700kg). This is being resisted because it catches a lot of stuff like King Airs.

Presumably it would apply to USA only. It would be totally mad to do it worldwide.

There are big concerns (see the US AOPA newsletters, etc) that if the 12500+ regime did come in, it could get extended to all the stuff below too. That would be a real problem.

It's all a bit meaningless since I am sure that anything 12500+ will be filing a flight plan anyway, and all the agencies see those real-time anyway (as they do in the UK). I suppose such a notification would be just another website to hit, but collecting the required passenger details for a domestic flight would be pretty intrusive.

The GAR form is a big enough hassle sometimes, collecting passport numbers etc.

10540

I think there are also proposals for every flight to be through a security checkpoint and huge restrctions on what you can carry on your own private aircraft incase you want to blow yourself up or slit your own throat :)

The 12500 ib figure would not effect some jets like the CJ1 but would effect my old 2s that I fly.

Pace

Deliberately misleading advice
 

Pace,

I don't know whether this is relevant to your question.

Back in 2001, I was considering my return to private flying after a break of many years.

At that time, I was considering doing the FAA PPL (instead of renewing my UK PPL) and then coming back to the UK and buying into an 'N Reg' group.

I mentioned this idea to an instructor at one of the clubs. This person told me that if I owned a US registered aircraft in the UK, I would only be permitted to fly it for six months in any year. This was plainly a lie.

Later, I learned that many UK flying instructors resent people going abroard for their training and resent people owning US registered aircraft in the UK. These people will tell you any old rubbish just to put you off.

Broomstick.

Welcome to UK GA, BP :)

The one thing which never changes is the amount of disinformation and where it comes from.

Unfortunately many people "in the business" haven't got a clue so they probably actually believe it themselves, because they heard it in the pub.

It is an utterly crazy and poorly thought proposal by the TSA -

TSA: TSA Proposes Large Aircraft Security Program

To give you an example, everyone carried on an aircraft with MTOW of 12,500lbs or more must go through a full background check and the TSA must be notified. This is the same, regardless of whether you are carrying the same old folk on the same old routes for a Part 91 operator, or if you are NetJets or if you are any of the B17 operators who sell rides in their aircraft.

Imagine if the TSA gets their way, what next? The UK version of the TSA has a brainwave, decides thats a jolly good idea, and they should follow suite? The hassle the passengers and crew face daily with liquids & gels & nail clippers & removing shoes will be nothing in comparison to this. A line must be drawn between what is sensible necessity and ill-thought out overkill.

NBAA, AOPA & EAA are all fighting this daft plan, and everyone is encouraged to go online to voice their protest against it. This is just one example...

AOPA Online: TSA Large Aircraft Security Program Member Action Center

Broom/IO...to be fair it's not neccessarily a "lie".

I do know that when I got my first (I had two) FAA PPL "issued on the basis of" (From Colgne/Koln FSDO), the FAA inspector asked me, conversationally, "Why do you want this licence?".

"Because I can, it was a fun cross country from Manchester to get it, and I'd like to be able to fly N registered aircraft if I find one.", says I.

"Oh", says inspector, "I don't know where you would be able to find one, because any N registered aircraft, in order to remain on the US register, must spend a minimum of six months from every year in Federal airspace - unless it's an international carrier on a scheduled route".

I used to argue the six months ruling, too, until folks found the "get around" of having the aircraft owned by a "US Trust".

Nowadays, it's so commonplace for folks to have N registered aircraft that it's probably too late to do anything about it, so nobody really cares any more - despite the eforts of Customs & Excise and the DoT.

I think that inspector was wrong anyway. The 6 month rule applies to a specific scenario (something to do with U.S. corporate ownership; I am sure somebody will come up with the details) and does not apply to normal private ownership.

If the ownership passes away from a U.S. one, the aircraft CofA is void there and then - no 6 month rule. The U.S. trust does not solve this.

Errrr..... What's a US Trust then if it's not a body corporate incorporated in the USA? If a US Trust owns the aircraft then it's US owned.

This explains the situation fairly well.

You don't need a US trust.

The plane mere needs to be continuously owned by a US citizen(s) or by a US corporation.

In the case of the corporation there is a minimum figure on the % shareholding which needs to be by US citizens.

A trust is merely a device whereby the owner owns it on trust for the actual operator, and there is a document signed. You do the same if owned by a corporation.

But you don't need a formal trust document at all. If for example I had a son who was a US citizen, he could own my (N-reg) plane and I just happen to be flying it.

Thank you for that link Mike. It suggests that you can own (non US) an N-reg plane, outside the USA, for up to 6 months. This is complete news to me!!

A body corporate implies a legal structure owned by its shareholders or, as the Yanks prefer, its stockholders. We have managed to invent bodies that are incorporated but not owned by share or stock holders but we don’t refer to these as corporations. For example in the UK LLPs.

A trust on the other hand is not a body corporate in the normal sense and nor is it incorporated in the normal sense. There is no public central register of trusts in the UK or for that matter in the States. We are familiar with trusts used extensively for estate planning and it is no different State side with Credit Shelter Trusts. Inevitably trusts in their various incarnations provide a useful tool for sheltering assets without necessarily incurring some of the disadvantages of a corporation - hence their wide spread use.

Different animals for different purposes.

The difference Shirley is that with a trust the Trust has legal title to the goods but the trust benificiaries have beneficial ownership, i.e. they have the right to use the asset but do not legallyown it.

If the a/c is owned by a US corporation that complies with the rules then the beneficial owner is not legally protected. Fine if you have a relationship of trust between yourself and the person who controls the US corporation, but if you don't have a relative or someone else you are willing to entrust with ownership of your asset who is a US citizen then a Trust is the vehicle to obtain the use of the asset and reduce the risk.

Trusts cost money to set up and run, they wouldn't exist if there was no need for them.

Mike

Trusts and trust law is complex. Not only are there trust lawyers and accountants, but trust lawyers and accountants who only deal with a particular element of trust law.

Inevitably any summation of trust legislation is bound to be an over simplification. Trusts may be assets settled by one individual for the benefit of others, without the effective passage of title, but equally the settlor might be a beneficiary, and the asset may or may not be irrevocably settled on persons other than the settlor, so in turn the beneficiaries or the settlor may retain all the benefits of owning the asset(s). Notwithstanding the settlor or the beneficiaries may be able to dissolve the trust at their whim and so enjoy the asset(s) which were only in trust for the time it suited them.

It is in consequence very easy to confuse ownership, control and similar terms. For example, in so far as the FAA is concerned they require that if an aircraft is owned by a corporation 75% of the voting rights are owned by US citizens. In theory the US citizen(s)’ exercise control over the asset, in the same way as the trustees in a trust with reservation of title. However, in both cases, the actual owners of the aircraft are quite entitled to “file” a charge over the asset and exercise a quick claim should the need arise. In consequence ownership and control maybe mere illusions.

I think trusts may therefore be used in this regard for rather different reasons and offer other advantages over corporations than title protection.

Everything costs money to set up and run if you do not have the skill to do it yourself. Costs fall between two stools – those that have to be paid to the authorities for the privilege (taxes, filing fees, etc) and those paid to the “professionals” providing the service. If money is an issue this might be an issue in the choice of the “best” vehicle. Inevitably the more you have, the less relevant either becomes, and the greater your options!

My wife will own it for you if you like ;):)

Might take you up on that, Englishal :ok:

AIUI the only real difference between using a corporation (typically a Delaware one) and using a US citizen (as I do; this particular chap owns about 200 planes now) is that in theory the individual US citizen could run off with the plane since he owns it completely, whereas the corporate route gives the real owner 25% control so he can block certain drastic actions.

I haven't looked at my trust agreement lately but it contains a clause preventing the trustee from preventing me from enjoying the asset, so in reality he can't simply run off with it.

Not with a charge.

Agreed, I'm about to set one up and settle some cash in it.

That's a tautology:-

I refer m'learned friend to FAR 47.5

ergo, if the registration is valid "the actual owners of the aircraft " are the US entity, not you.