N Reg aircraft under official pressure in UK??
 

Why is it that my bosses aircraft has been ramp inspected recently at two different locations in the UK by officials from the UK CAA / DTI and a full document check made - it was not just our aircraft it was all N reg on the airfield. I have heard of people operating N Reg to skirt around the law in the UK in terms of commercial work and training - is that what all this is about?

He was quizzed lots about my involvement ( I fly him around) they also gave a hard time to another guy at the airfield who was instructing on his aircraft. I had heard that the UK authorities rarely bother about such matters and even though its against the law in the UK without permission they just don't bother. I was also told that they do not worry too much about aerial charter work and AOC's for N Reg as "there are lots of loopholes" in the way the UK polices the matter

Oh good, a troll :rolleyes:

Interesting point - troll?? Maybe, or it could be a very valid point. I had heard that a number of airfields had been visited recently by the CAA / DTI / Police and documents of aircraft inspected.

It was lines like "I was also told that they do not worry too much about aerial charter work and AOC's for N Reg as "there are lots of loopholes" in the way the UK polices the matter" that make it seem like a poorly thought out troll against the N-Reg rather than an honest question. He spends more time implying that N-Reg aircraft are just used too break the law than actually talking about the ramp checks.

Good point - but has the OP post got any element of truth in it? Any one else heard of recent ramp checks?

No. But anyway it doesn't matter if they ramp check you as long as you are not breaking the law and to break the law you have to do it knowingly.

I bet you that if you carried out a survey of N vs G with regards to irregularities in paperwork, that N would come off better, simply because the FAA are pretty tough on paperwork, and that it is not worth the risk of being ramp checked and as N operators we know that this risk is higher by having an N on the tail. So I don't have much sympathy with operators breaking the law.

Can't be. All foreign trolls have required an EASA Part-TRL licence to post here since 8 April. And the SAFT teams have been doing a lot of checks lately, or so my boss tells me...

I agree that the FAA are very strict on paperwork - however that seems to be confined mainly within its own shores. A good example of something slipping through the FAA net in the first instance is the Seneca V thread

http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-fl...a-v-crash.html

I have also seen first hand, FAA annuals completed in England (on paper) where the engineer was at the time several thousand miles away!!!

I think it's another anti N-reg troll.

There might be some inspections going on but anybody who knows about aviation will know that you can do illegal charters (i.e. AOC busting) in a G-reg just as well, and will attract a lot less attention :E

Shall we start a thread on how to do dodgy papework on Part M maintenance? I could kick off by talking about a certain EASA 145 company which has a long history of fake documents (usually, re-using forms, when the component doesn't carry a S/N) and the CAA have known about them for ages.

Peter,

I don't think G-Reg is any better than N-Reg, I think that both have issues, a few minutes before I saw your post I posted on the Indy Hiatt thread:

I do think the FAA maintenance system is more open to abuse in Europe - simply because of the lack of FSDO's in Europe to police N reg maintenance

I don't agree.

The FAA people in Europe have hit FAA A&Ps and AIs pretty hard when irregularities have come to light. I know of an IA who has been banned several times, over some years, for signing off stuff which allegedly he should not have. That terminates your income, basically...

They have also busted FAA repair stations over here.

The UK CAA does virtually nothing.

Lots of people don't like the FAA regime for lots of reasons. Usually it is something to do with axe grinding. The flight training business doesn't like it. Anybody making money out of paperwork doesn't like it, because of the more streamlined route on mods. Various bitter commercial and ex commercial AOC pilots don't like the FAA route because of some rogue operators which, it is erroneously believed, can exist more easily on the N-reg. I am sure MJ will be along in a minute :E

That says a lot - banned several times, I do agree the FAA does take enforcement action. The problem in my experience is actually finding someone at the FAA to make an investigation / take action with a person based outside America.

The New York FSDO which covers the UK is extrememly busy and seem VERY reluctant to take on any investigative matters unless PUSHED....

I do think the FAA maintenance system is more open to abuse in Europe - simply because of the lack of FSDO's in Europe to police N reg maintenance

GEP-That is just not true. The FAA inspection, particularly on paperwork, is as rigerous, if not more, than the CAA regime.

If anything, the DAR/IA, are more vigilant, there are less of them, they rely heavily on repeat business, they are scrutinised by an FAA regime that focuses on diligence and accuracy in all apsects of paperwork, and frankly having utilised both sytems for over 15 years, the FAA outweighs EASA land ten fold - my experience.

This anti N reg nonsense, veiled by ''shortcuts and skirting safety, is utter bollox. I would suggest GEP, you should know that

No; the FAA has offices in Europe. They are the ones that get in the car and "visit" firms when malpractice has been reported.

The NY IFU is nominally responsible for Europe but does very little nowadays.

I told you before Peter its all about regulations for all the residents of a country or group of country's if they all decide to club together.

Nothing to do with safety what so ever.

Which is why they are putting a stop to it and will use what ever devious methods possible. Including prolonged inspections/ every time inspections to make owning one and running one as much as PIA as possible for local residents.

BTW troll or otherwise if they are doing inspections I doudt very much its to do with the EASA ****e. Its proberly more to do with the sodding olympics and all that rubbish. They will be wanting to have a list of aircraft that are based within flying distance of the venues.

So why does the CAA not replicate on G reg????

Because they already have a list of owners and details for the G reg lot. Just now I really don't think its anything to do with being N reg, just not G at the moment.

But thats not saying the data couldn't be used at a later date to prove the aircraft was being perm operated from UK soil.

And sorry, does the FAA not?

MJ - I could take you for a coffee at an airfiled we both know and love, show you 3 aeroplanes flying under Part M, all of which have known issues, that the CAA know of, and choose to ignore - Fact.

I am sure I could do the same with any designated reg country, however, the point everyone appears to jump on is that the N reg is haven for all that would choose to shortcut safety/compliance/et al.

It is simply not accurate.

As I have said its cock all to do with the issues you are mentioning, its all to do with the residents of a country circumventing national law.

It goes far deeper than the NAA's which is why "they" have pushed it through by hook and crook and spent so much time and money doing it.

And the "they" are Sir Humprey types (google "Yes Prime Minster" for the none UK folk)

And I don't know if they FAA does for UK owners maybe all the UK planes have trusts listed as the owners. And would they release the data anyway? I would presume so with all the US residents likely to be at the Olympics but who knows.

And I know you are right I could do the same for a few G regs as well. BUt thats not threason why they are pushing it through.

Hi Maxred,


Please don't get me wrong, my current aircraft is N-Reg, I have previously owned G-Reg so have seen both sides of the coin. I agree about the FAA being paperwork intensive. However I have also seen that in Europe the FAA are stretched very thinly and routine inspections on maintenance standards are infrequent. That is why I feel the system is more open to abuse.


I have on my desk evidence of two annuals that have been completed by an FAA engineer when he was 2000 miles from the actual aircraft. That has taken many months to get taken up by the FAA. The matter has been passed from desk to desk at the FAA.


With regards the ramp inspections now, I do suspect that the Olympics and the UK authorities need to know about ownership and operation of various GA aircraft on the N-Register is paramount as part of the security risk assessment.


Interestingly enough I wonder how many N-Reg operators have realised the procedures in place and the need for specific permits from the DTI during the Olympic period. Speaking to the person who issues the permits two weeks ago was interesting, he commented on how very few people had applied and how without the special permit operation during the Olympic period for certain types of operation it would effectively ground aircraft.