|
The detail for Non Citizen trustors for N Reg aircraft is currently being examined by the FAA. There was a public meeting with respect to this on June 6th and the submission period for submissions following that meeting is 6th July.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012.../2012-6146.pdf At present details of the Trustor are not recorded by the FAA, nor details of the operator of the aircraft - hence the public meeting. It also explains the interest in who is operating N-Reg aircraft based in the UK prior to a significant event such as the Olympics. On February 9, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration (the FAA) published its Proposed Policy Clarification (the PPC) regarding the use of non-citizen trusts (NCTs) to effect registration of an aircraft on the FAA registry.1 The PPC is a draft, prepared and published by the FAA for public comment, which includes its justifications for seeking to impose changes to the NCT registration process, and explanations and descriptions of those proposed changes, including a sample trust agreement revised to reflect the same.2 The PPC was issued after being reviewed and approved by officials of the FAA and DOT, as well as the Transportation Secretary. The PPC includes the FAA’s general recognition of NCTs, which is a positive development. However, the PPC imposes new, and not insignificant, conditions on the use of NCTs including the allocation to the trustees of primary responsibility for certain matters as the “owner” of the aircraft. This Bulletin briefly describes the FAA’s purpose for publishing this PPC, the matters addressed in the PPC, and its likely implications. FAA’s Compliance Concerns The PPC repeated the concerns raised by the FAA in previous reviews of NCTs.3 Many of those concerns are not exclusive to the use of NCTs, despite the recent scrutiny. However, the use of NCTs is of particular concern because NCT-registered aircraft are frequently based, operated and maintained outside of the US and, per the FAA, impeding its national and international responsibilities to monitor, enforce and ensure compliance with the airworthiness and operational standards required of FAA-registered aircraft.4 Proposed NCT Requirements The PPC NCT-related requirements are intended to address the FAA’s compliance concerns by requiring NCT trustees to facilitate periodic or urgent efforts by the FAA to find or verify information with respect to the “identity and whereabouts of the actual operators of aircraft and the location and nature of operation.” For that purpose, the PPC proposes revisions in the form trust agreement requiring that NCT trustees furnish the following to the FAA upon its demand: Within 2 business days:
In addition to the reporting obligations, the FAA has clarified its position regarding documents to be filed with trust agreements, and proposed new requirements related to trustee removal or resignation. In particular, the FAA notes that parties to NCTs often enter into, but do not file with the FAA, an operating agreement, pursuant to which the non-citizen beneficiary or trustor is given significant operational control over the aircraft. The FAA has proposed that these operating agreements must be submitted to the ACC with the trust agreements, but has not specified whether these agreements would be filed in the FAA ancillary files, or recorded with the FAA registry. The trust agreement attached as an exhibit to the PPC includes suggested revisions by the FAA intended to further limit non-citizens from influencing the trustee’s control over certain aircraft matters, as well as clarifying certain perceived ambiguities in current “market” trust agreement forms. With respect to trustee resignation and removal, the FAA has proposed additional terms to be included in trust agreements. The FAA found that current NCT trust agreements give the non-citizen trustors too much discretion in removing trustees. Consequently, the FAA has proposed new terms that will limit the non-citizen trustors’ ability to remove trustees in the absence of “cause” as well as clarify the grounds that will constitute “cause” for removal. Pursuant to the PPC, trustees will be allowed to resign if the trustor is uncooperative. Parties to transactions involving NCT-registered aircraft, especially financing parties, are likely to further address the impact of any such trustee resignation or removal in the transaction documents. |
Maxred - wow, you certainly are prickly if anyone has an opinion different to yours. Do you own and fly an N reg aircraft yourself?
YES. And another on G reg:ok: |
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 GEP's writeup of the FAA position is also consistent with their position back then. They don't like anonymous trusts, and they don't like trusts where the trustor can boot out the trustee easily (e.g. a pre-signed Bill of Sale). Nothing new here, at all. |
Its an accurate reflection of the CURRENT position with respect to trusts - "nothing new" except the public meeting took place only a few days ago and its still within the submission period - how "new" do you want?
The fact is that the FAA are very aware of the legal ownership of aircraft held in trust (the trustee) but often have very little detail of the trustor and even less details of where the aircraft is, who's looking after it and even more important who the "real operator" is. |
They know all those things to the same extent to which they know about them in the USA.
The FAA system is one where trust is vested in suitably qualified individuals e.g. an A&P/IA or a Part 145 Repair Station to do the release to service. They have very active offices abroad who inspect the FAA scene out there. Much more pro-active than the local CAAs especially the UK one. Trust ownership is probably impossible to stop - even if they wanted to. At a very basic level, they cannot prevent me selling my N-reg plane to a US citizen (living anywhere), for any amount (say $1), and he loans it back to me. Is the FAA going to ban lending your plane to somebody? :ugh: I don't know who you are trying to scare, GEP. I see some seriously dark clouds on the horizon. For example that bogus project called PRNAV, which has the potential of wiping out a huge chunk of the IFR community bigger than anything EASA might have done, due to the sheer cost of ripping out and replacing loads of perfectly good avionics, for no technical reason whatsoever. Just to get the "right paperwork". But I am not worried about the FAA screwing the N-reg community because it is all over the world, and is a useful component of US foreign influence which costs the USA peanuts. |
Peter -
This is an issue which directly affects both of us, you perhaps more than me, we both operate N reg aircraft that are UK based. On a selfish note I am perhaps in a better position than you with respect to the issue of N Reg ownership and UK operation. At least I could directly register ownership with the FAA should I choose rather than a US based trust - could you? I am not trying to scare anyone, its simply taking a look with open eyes at the whole picture rather than getting focused on small parts of the detail and missing the overall message that is being sent out by the FAA and various other authorities. Its better than us sticking our fingers in our ears and heads in the sand and then getting upset when change is forced upon us. We can all quote small parts of the detail and get the result to match our own ideas but is that realistic? I would hope that you received notice of the public meeting - I did. |
MJ, stop custard chucking at the N reg community.
|
It's really sad to see a lost cause wringing out their baggage as per MJ. I guess you would grant Prima Nocta wouldn't you MJ if Brussels said so....so sad !
As for the rest of you chasing the legality etc of N reg and LLC's etc, you really are a sad little bunch. My best friend with thousands of jet hours runs an LLC, safely and in the sound knowledge that some witch hunt and sad pathetic little ferry / ops company won't ruin them. That's the problem, you all have never flown a jet (including MJ ) have you ? |
Several of the Citation series and I fly a Jetprop now, will that count?
|
For all the scare stuff about N-reg trusts...
The FAA is happy with individual trusts, of the kind that e.g. SAC offer. What they don't like is some US bloke owning a load of planes in his own name, and what they don't like are trusts which conceal the trustor's (the beneficial owner's, in UK-speak) identity from the FAA. Many high-end owners use trusts to conceal the owner's identity (and this includes many Americans, who could just own an N-reg in their own name) for various reasons and I guess the FAA is going to chip away around the edges to limit this. |
Spot on Peter, the owners have money to throw at any potential issue. Surprisingly they are extremely clued up to all of this b*llocoks. Some half baked, dim witted, vendetta guy with a few hours on a Crustation won't change the fact that no one I repeat no one gives a flying f*ck about the ramblings of some Chav hell bent on his next vendetta of N Reg. (You have failed with chavvy Ferry Guy, get over it ! )
|
I have never seen ANY FAA official endorsment of a particular trust. Therefore one should not be seen better than another (naughty Peter - getting towards advertising for free (for a company you prefer) on PPrune)
The FAA at the 6th June Meeting did make public a draft trust agreement that they would feel happy with. The issue the FAA seem to have with trustor's not being quickly identifiable extends to all US Trusts. Even though SAC trades from a UK address it is still an American Trust and is not above the FAA perception of issues, a quick check on the FAA website will show individual trustors are not quickly identifiable. FAA Registry - Aircraft - Name Inquiry |
And who really believes a word you say after you getting d*cked about your lack of knowledge for olympic slots - thicko !
|
Wow, what a nice chap you are. Just been having a read of your other posts. I'm on my knees now bowing to to the great aviation God... You do have such a way with words, if someone has a different opinion to you.
Perhaps you should read back through a few of the previous posts and realise that following the uncertainty and doubt created by the DfT's own people they clarified things. Perhaps you would be prepared to pass your opinion on the VFR slot allocation at Southend, and the other airports that will probably announce it during the next two weeks? Or was I drinking too much cider? Perhaps if you send me your email address then next time I'm told something I can run it past you for your advice and counsel. Yep, I'm thick, in fact probably the village idiot, but do I care - NO. At least I can hold my head high with out the brand of obnoxious. Toodle pip old chap, off now to munch on another turnip!! |
Is this FAA rule about being a citizen to register a N reg something new? The reason I ask is although I now own and fly an N reg in the UK on a FAA PPL and hold US citizenship when I bought my first plane 20 years ago while residing in the US I was neither a citizen or green card holder at the time, I simply handed the dealer the money and sent in the my registration details, I don’t recall any questions regarding citizenship. With my most recent plane I bought it in the US flew it there for a short while then had it containerized and shipped it here to the UK. again with no questions as to my citizenship from the FAA or shippers, when I went to register it to my new UK address it was a one page form and unless I missed something it never asked my citizenship either. So in a hypothetical situation of a non US citizen owning a N reg in the UK what is to stop him/her simply filling out his details on an updated aircraft registration form and sending it onto the FAA?
|
Thomas we don't have a vendetta.
There are folk that obviously who do though who have obviously put alot of thought and effort into changing the current status quo. We are just putting the point forward that your view that it won't happen, we don't agree with. And that legal challanges will be more than likely fruitless. And even if they do succeed the next round of legislation they will have another shot at restricting it again. I am quite sure the owners are clued up about it. And being the sort of people they are, they will be doing a constant cost analysis. As soon as the cost of fighting it exceeds the cost of complying they will change their plans. Yes there is some scope for basing outside. Jersey/IOM parking will be full and then the other countries just outside will have more aircraft based there. But then again once the positioning costs start ramping up and the aircraft isn't ready just down the road thier views may change. What hardware we all fly doesn't come into it. |
Originally Posted by piperboy84
(Post 7249177)
Is this FAA rule about being a citizen to register a N reg something new? ....
So in a hypothetical situation of a non US citizen owning a N reg in the UK what is to stop him/her simply filling out his details on an updated aircraft registration form and sending it onto the FAA? In your case, the dealer seems to have messed up. You must have either been a US Citizen, a resident alien (i.e. lawfully admitted for permanent residence), or a foreign corporation and certify that 60% (IIRC) of the flight hours are within the US, to have legally registered the aircraft. I believe (but have not checked) that in the fine print on the form it does say this. It is a good thing you didn't crash as the aircraft was very likely unregistered during the whole of its operation. I am not clear if you currently own an N-Reg over here, but if you are not a US citizen and you own it (as in have title) then it is not registered and not airworthy and in all likelyhood not insured. Finally, the only clear example, of which I am aware, of an insurer not paying out after a crash invovled Graham Hill's un-registered N-Reg Aztec (although the details of the rational for non-payment remain a bit obscure). |
The AAIB report says nothing useful about it but Graham Hill's plane appears to have at some stage become de-registered from the US register but never placed onto a new one.
In effect, his plane didn't exist. Since he was hardly short of money it was presumably a c0ckup by somebody who he trusted to get the papers right. One way to achieve this nasty situation is to apply to the FAA for an Export CofA, as one would if transferring the plane to a different register, but for whatever reason not proceed with the transfer. The FAA will then (usually if not always, AFAIK) de-register the plane, without necessarily any correspondence. This could happen in a situation where you are selling the N-reg plane to a foreign seller who wants his local register on it, but he pulls out at the last minute. Such a situation can arise with any aircraft registry which operates non-expiring CofAs (e.g. FAA, EASA, etc.) whose validity hangs purely on a Release to Service by an authorised person/company. In GH's case, the company doing the subsequent maintenance would have had no reason to become aware of the de-registration. It would have been only had he applied for a field approval for some mod that the FAA may have refused the inbound 337.... It is believed that GH's insurer didn't pay out because the lack of registration made the CofA invalid, so the flight was illegal before it got off the ground. There may have been other reasons also but this one would have been enough. |
Pursuant to 49 USC § 44101, an aircraft cannot be operated unless it is registered. Regardless of how one intends to operate an aircraft, there are stringent limitations on foreign ownership of U.S. registered aircraft.
49 USC § 44102 states that an aircraft may be registered only when it is owned by a citizen of the United States, an individual citizen of a foreign country lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (“Resident Alien”) or a corporation not a citizen of the United States when the corporation is organized and doing business under the laws of the United States or a State, and the aircraft is based and primarily used in the United States. FAR 47.2 defines “U.S. Citizen” as: (1) An individual who is a citizen of the United States or one of its possessions; (2) A partnership of which each member is such an individual; (3) A corporation or association created or organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, of which the president and two-thirds or more of the board of directors and other managing officers thereof are such individuals and in which at least 75 percent of the voting interest is owned or controlled by persons who are citizens of the United States or of one of its possessions. |
here's an info sheet I just found on the FAA homepage:
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certific...AFS-750-94.pdf |
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).
|
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. 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). |
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. |
part fcl has 0.0 to do with ownership and trusts.. |
Originally Posted by goldeneaglepilot
(Post 7249045)
...
The FAA at the 6th June Meeting did make public a draft trust agreement that they would feel happy with. The issue the FAA seem to have with trustor's not being quickly identifiable extends to all US Trusts. ... 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.) |
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:8 |
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. |
That link was well found, mm_flynn :ok:
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.) 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. |
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. |
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?:\ |
Originally Posted by mad_jock
(Post 7251801)
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. Good one. :ugh: 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. |
Originally Posted by goldeneaglepilot
(Post 7251711)
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.
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) |
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. |
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.....:rolleyes: |
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
quote |
Thanks, I have often wondered how you guys got that effect!
Well I have now learnt something really usefull from this thread. Ta |
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. |
GEP- refer to MJ post no. 80
|
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 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?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/wibble.gif Maxred - well done to your trustee!! Others are often not as good or prompt. |
There. We're all learning something....
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:34. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.