|
N register - CAA Rumour
A little birdy tells me that so concerned are the CAA about the increasing prevalence of N registered GA aircraft that are domiciled in the UK, that they are seriously considering the position regarding aeroplanes operating under flags of convenience.
The little birdy also tells me that they are in the throes of drafting legislation that may affect the operators of said aircraft. As I understand it, it is long the lines of, "those aircraft can be based here BUT must return to the country where they are registered to have their annual inspection done". To reiterate this is just a rumour from a very well informed source, however were it to be true, I guess that it would affect quite a few Ppruners. I do not know how it would be policed or enforced - maybe ramp checks a la FAA? Both of mine are G registered but I often borrow an N reg bipe - so I do have a limited but vested interest Stik |
Unless somebody goes on the record with this, it is just another such rumour.
I am quite certain that some people spread them deliberately, either out of a feeling of personal importance, or because they work for the CAA and they don't like the fact that the CAA isn't getting the CofA and license fees. Which isn't to say that something isn't in the pipeline. Forcing N-reg to do their annuals in the mainland USA would be a particularly vindictive way to go about forcing GA to G-reg, while not affecting large cargo operations. |
Another birdie told me recently that somebody has discovered an N-reg aircraft that had been brought over here having been de-registered, left with the N on the tail and flown in the UK for 5 years without any supervised maintenance or CofA renewal being done.
Given that the birdie who told me was a CAA maintenance standards surveyor, it wouldn't surprise me if moves were afoot ! G |
Well done IO540! That killed the thread dead without any proper debate or consideration about what COULD be a very serious issue for many GA operators in this country. While you may well be correct in your assessment, I do think a thread discussing why a regulator may or may not be considering taking such draconian action and why so many people are deciding to go along the N registration path in the first place would be very worthwhile and does not warrant such aggressive sarcasm.
|
Maybe stik would like to indicate (no names required) where his source got the info, or to qualify the rumour in some other way. We have heard many such rumours over the years.
GG |
The DGAC recently investigated the possibilities to do this and were not supported by their own aviation industry (TBMs not certified other than in France and US)
That is the word on the street. These 'rumours' come up with a monotonous regularity. It would be churlish to deny that in the aviation land as a whole there would not be pressures to 'rectify' the situation. Unfortunately it may be easier and more 'convenient' to tighten up regulations than take a good look why there are people choosing to operate under a 'foreign flag' and be proactive about these matters. A lot of people are happy to blame the authorities for regulating things but at the end of the day that is their raison d'etre and they are trying to do the best they can within the parameters set by us as a society. Not sure whether the tale of the inproperly registered machine is contributory to the debate as that was obviously someone who was not playing by the rules. I would certainly be unhappy if it was infered that this means that people flying N registered aircraft were somehow cowboys breaking the rules or looking for an easy way out. For starters people flying on non G aircraft have not only to oblige with the CAA rules when operating but also the FARs. FD |
Stik
Did your little birdy tell you exactly why the CAA are 'so concerned'? If they consider this a safety issue, I would be interested to know the thinking behind it, as surely all N reg planes will be affected. If it's not safety, then what? Surely not something as trivial as loss of revenue? |
My little birdy
My little birdy works within the administration of airworthiness approval.
Little birdy cheeped that the reason for doing this was because of the recent saga/fiasco with Yak maintenance and that there was also some concern that certain private operators were using the N reg whilst not always adhering to FARs. Like I said in my initial post, it is unsubstantiated but it is the first time that I have heard anything of the like and alas I have been around GA a long time! Stik |
I don't see how they could enforce an N reg a/c being returned to the USA for the annual. The FARs require the annual to be carried out by an FAA licenced engineer, and the FARs don't specify where this maintenance must be carried out. So long as the aircraft is inspected and maintained according to the FAA regulations, then nothing else matters as far as I can see....
EA |
Presumably the cost implications of closing this "loop-hole" would be enormous to owners and syndicates with N-reg planes, not to mention FAA IR ratings being difficult to use if you can't get access to an N-reg!
I've not yet got my PPL but was certainly considering going the N-reg route when qualified - hope it isn't closed off. Would there be concerted opposition and lobbying if the CAA moved on this, or would it have to be grudging acceptance, like when the Inland Revenue closes down tax-avoidance schemes? - Michael |
Based onwhat has been said, this would also put many FAA licenced engineers out of business too.
I cant see how it could be enforced without the cooperation of the FAA, and I cant also see those good folks buying into that concept either. GG |
It may be slightly different, I don't know, but last year there was a kerfuffle when Swazi-registered Gazelle helicopters were effectively grounded by the CAA. G-reg ex-mil Gazelles (not the pukka civil ones) are restricted to Permits, and this was a way round this.
Is there a parallel, and if so once a precedent's been set, may it be done again ? I think it would be heavy handed, but then again . . . |
TC_LTN
As you can see it hasn't killed the thread, and there is no need for such comments. The problem is that these "I have heard from a well placed source that..." rumours have been doing the rounds all the time I have been looking at this (3 years), here on pprune and elsewhere, and reportedly for much longer before that, while nobody whatsoever has ever backed them up. When these people are questioned further, they often vanish without elaborating - easy in an anonymous forum. It is funny to observe that when discussing this face to face with people in the business, as I have done at every opportunity, I have never heard any such rumour. Genghis the Engineer Anybody (who tells everybody at his base that he gets his plane serviced somewhere far away) can fly with no CofA, no servicing, no logbooks, no pilot's license (or a forged PPL). Fine if there is no incident. Just like you can drive a car with no road tax and no insurance and no license and no MOT; if you only ever park it in a garage, there is almost zero chance of getting caught. Similarly with importing a plane without paying import VAT. This example therefore doesn't prove anything, and certainly would not be a reason to ban N-reg because one can pull the same stunt with a G-reg. The biggest risk in this activity has to be insurance (lack of), and I know for a fact that the assessor checks the lot: logbooks, licenses, any currency / type rating requirements. But insurance isn't mandatory... stiknruda The YAK business, as I understand it, was caused by suspect paperwork being issued by the Russian authorities to unsuspecting owners. A re-occurence of this would not be prevented by banning foreign-reg aircraft resident here, because a plane in any condition whatsoever (safe or unsafe) can fly over to the UK from anywhere and hang about here as long as it wants, especially on a farm strip where nobody might care. Banning N-reg would be a disaster for the mostly-serious PPLs who have invested lots of time and money into the FAA PPL/IR route. These are generally skilled pilots with lots of currency and I would bet the planes, being mostly privately/business-owned, are well above the UK average GA aircraft condition. Therefore there cannot be a safety case for doing such a thing. It could be a revenue raising measure, of course, but the motivation for raising more money has always been there. I am sure the CAA read everything here and always have done. They know exactly why most people go N-reg: - the FAA IR - planes which cannot be G-reg e.g. the Cirrus and the new TBM700 variant - planes which have non-CAA-approved addons fitted (e.g. aftermarket turbos, different types of wingtip lights, but I can't think of any example which has a safety issue) - planes flown by people who already have FAA licenses and don't see why they should waste money getting CAA licenses - the FAA PPL / Class 3 medical will enable some people to fly when they can't get the CAA Class 2 medical, but evidence from the USA shows there is no detectable safety issue with that Are there other reasons? There is an easier maintenance regime but it's comparable to the G-reg Private CofA. The CAA must have always known all this. Why act now? Perhaps it is time for somebody in the "trade" to confront them directly and get a statement out of them. There would be nothing to lose. |
Are there other reasons? ......... Why act now? |
planes which have non-CAA-approved addons fitted (e.g. aftermarket turbos, different types of wingtip lights, but I can't think of any example which has a safety issue) The problem with GA in Europe, is that its treated in a special way ("ooh no sir, you can't possibly change that light bulb, without filling in forms 1020,1030,1050, in triplicate, then applying to the CAA, waiting 10 monthsm, then paying a large fee, then get a CAA approved engineer to charge you £10,000 for it"), when all it really is is a form of transport to many. Would be great if I could commute to work by plane, but unfortunately unless I get that £500,000 / week job as an F1 driver, its not going to happen. Whereas, if I lived in America, there is a real possibility that I could commute to work by aeroplane, indeed many *normal* (ie. other than the very wealthy) people do (live in Santa Maria, work in Santa Barbara, and its a quick 15 minute hope over the mountains....beats driving). And as stated, there is not a difference in pilot skill / aircraft airworthness between this side of the pond and the other. Maybe if Private GA wasn't so costly due to regulations, then maybe people could afford the Mode S transponder :D Right off my soap box.... EA ;) |
The same discussions come up in Germany regularly. I did read somewhere that it's the FAA that requires N registered aircraft to spend a certain number of months in the USA, not the European governments!! I don't have the details, but it would be interesting to know what the FAA thinks about aircraft stationed overseas.......
Westy |
I have also heard a whisper about this, but from the Department for Transport.......Maybe it is down to national security issues?? Something about an aircraft 'registered' in the USA, painted as such and operating over here, but not actually registered anymore with the FAA! Who's to know if it's actually registered apart from the FAA, who tend not to be looking much in the UK.
Lots of whispers together normally make a loud noise at some stage. |
It has been noted that rumours have been doing the rounds at least 3 years and that nobody has backed them up. This may well be because people in the CAA and DfT are asking questions and thinking about the issue but have not yet formulated a firm view. My experience from contact with the CAA and DfT is that they can take time to address some issues. Take alcohol limits and police testing powers. These were first recommended by the AAIB in about 1991. The DfT issued a consultation paper on proposals in 1996 and legislation was made in 2003. That legislation will not come into effect until later this year.
Questions are also raised as to motive. I think the answer that is clear if you think about it. The Government is responsible the safety of aviation in the UK. Through Parliament it has established a regulatory regime and given the CAA the function of regulation aviation safety standards. By keeping and operating a foreign registered aircraft in the UK the provisions established by Parliament for the good of the population of the UK as a whole are being bypassed and responsibility is in effect being delegated to the authorities of another country. While the difficulties this could cause may be ignored if the number of aircraft involved is limited, it becomes more difficult for them to ignore if the scale of foreign aircraft operation rises. I have heard suggestions that getting on for 10% of privately operated aircraft based in the UK are on foreign registers, mainly the US, Bermuda and Cayman. The percentage appears to be a lot higher in respect of twin turbine powered aircraft. If the CAA or DfT were to decide to do something about this, I am told the most obvious solution would be to follow the Canadian requirements which automatically grounds foreign registered privately operated aircraft if they have been Canada for more than 90 days in the preceding 12 months. It is my understanding that the FAA, at a technical level at least, would be fully supportive of such action. |
How could the CAA force you to have your N reg serviced in the USA? They MAY be able to stop you having it serviced in the UK (I don't know for sure, but suspect they could), but how could they stop you having it serviced in another country?
If you F reg has to be serviced in accordance with FAA regs to stay legal on the F reg, and it's not illegal under local laws to have it serviced in a particular country, then how could they stop you? I mean could you not fly over to Ireland, and have it serviced here by an FAA approved outfit. CAA can't tell you what you can or can't do in Ireland on an F reg aircraft, flown on a FAA PPL. Then when you are returning to the UK, you are flying in a N reg, with all its maitenance uptodate, and with an FAA licence. ie...you are ICAO compliant. Am I missing something? dp |
Nr F
The Swazi-registered Gazelle helicopters were grounded by the CAA. The Swazi authority took a sensible approach and issued ex-mil Gazelles with C of A's but the CAA refused to recognise them and not only grounded the helicopters but threatened to prosecute the pilots who'd flown them on flight tests here. I assume someone with more grey cells and not as petty must have intervened because nothing came of the stupid prosecution prosecuting idea, but the Gazelles were grounded until they were put on the G register and issued with permits. "I think it would be heavy handed, but then again . . ." it wouldn't be the first time! http://www.bluetonguehelicopters.com...rune/actsm.gif |
If I recall the case correctly, the Swazi authority had not taken a "sensible approach", they had acted contrary to international requirements and the CofA's were not valid under the Air Navigation Order. It therefore does not seem to be a case of the CAA "choosing not to recognise them". If it had been an arbitrary decision it would not doubt have been challenged successfully in the courts.
|
WestWind1950
That rumour is definitely incorrect - the FAA does not require N-reg planes, held by a US citizen or a US Trust, to spend any time in the USA. Cathar By keeping and operating a foreign registered aircraft in the UK the provisions established by Parliament for the good of the population of the UK as a whole are being bypassed and responsibility is in effect being delegated to the authorities of another country. As a purely revenue raising measure, I can understand it. Not for any other reason though. Regarding Canada grounding planes after 90 days, I wonder whether they also validate the FAA IR..... ?? |
The point I was making is that in establishing the CAA and passing the Air Navigation Order, Parliament takes account of wider interests not just interests of those flying aircraft in the UK. If aircraft are being permanently based and operated in the UK other than under the system established by Parliament this seems to thwart Parliament's intent in establishing the regulatory system. Obviously it is to the good of the aircraft owners to have N registered aircraft otherwise they would not do it. Whether it is or is not in the wider public interest is an entirely different matter and not one on which I have offered an opinion. However, it is an issue which could bring private flying into disrupte in the UK.
I think that your response to Westwind 1950 is a little disingenous. The FAR does prohibit non US citizens from owning N registered aircraft if they are operated outside the US for more than a certain number of day a year. It is to circumvent US legal requirements that people have resort to having an aircraft they have paid for owned and registered by a trust. |
Cathar
Am I to understand that you have now watered-down your views on what the DfT intend to do to N-reg operators? You seemed rather more certain that the end of the world was nigh when this last raised its ugly head a couple of weeks ago. 2D |
Cathar
How could it bring private flying into disrepute, when UK-based N-reg planes are, on average, maintained to higher standards and flown by more current and higher rated pilots, than UK-based G-reg planes? Anyone wondering where I get the above from only needs to look at the average UK airfield, where they will see a pile of ancient G-reg Cessnas and Pipers and assorted other WW2-era spamcans, in variously advanced stages of decrepitness (but used for PPL training, and VERY IMPORTANTLY paying the CAA regular sums of money every 3 years), and they will see a much smaller number of N-reg planes, usually privately/business owned, well looked after, and used for more serious stuff e.g. business, and mostly by instrument rated pilots. If anything is going to bring private flying into disrepute, it has to be the sight of the UK fleet (nearly all G-reg) gradually falling to bits. Nearly all the people attracted into GA in the UK are skint, the schools are mostly skint, and this is reflected in the state of the planes and the very low currency of most PPL pilots. It is evident from the state of the business that there is little scope indeed for bringing private flying into any more disrepute! Re the US ownership bit, a Trust is legal and something which is legal is not illegal. Certainly that's the case in the USA; may not be that way for much longer in the UK :O |
How could it bring private flying into disrepute, when UK-based N-reg planes are, on average, maintained to higher standards and flown by more current and higher rated pilots, than UK-based G-reg planes? Higher standards of maintenance I can maybe understand, but higher currency? Surely that depends on how many hours one flies in an aircraft, not what register it's on? And higher rated pilots??? For instance, surely the UK Instrument Rating is far more difficult to pass, in technical and intellectual content, than an FAA IR? Having held a UK IR for some years, it's irrelevant to me, but I have heard that one can obtain the answers for the FAA written exams in advance!! Give me the stats, plleeeeeease!:{ |
As IO540 has already mentioned, what about aircraft which cannot be G-registered, such as the Cirrus and the new TBM?
TPK:ok: |
Zlin526
It wasn't meant to be a hook :O I said "on average". Very very few UK PPLs have a current IR. You can see the license stats on the CAA website. Most of those that do have it date back to the UK (not JAR) PPL; the JAR IRs issued to plain PPLs since JAR are miniscule. The JAR IR has a lot more ground school than the FAA IR but most of the extra stuff is commercial stuff and is irrelevant in the PPL/GA context. The FAA flight test is by all accounts at least as hard. It is simply that a pilot going to all the hassle of putting his plane (HIS plane usually, otherwise the N-reg option isn't available) on the N register and getting the FAA PPL/IR isn't going to be doing it to fly down the coast to Beachy Head, IFR. The aircraft registry won't determine the pilot currency but a pilot won't generally bother to do it unless he flies a lot. I am also not saying an FAA PPL/IR does more hours than a JAR PPL/IR; just that the latter is almost extinct. I know a fair number of people who fly regularly, long flights into Europe etc. Nearly all of them are N-reg, FAA PPL/IR. It would take seriously perverse thinking on the CAA's part to believe that banning UK-resident N-reg planes is going to improve safety. If they were going to do it and avoid looking ridiculous, they would need to a) offer an IR appropriate to GA flying, and b) enable an easy conversion to the new IR. They can't do a) without pan-European agreement... but of course they know all this anyway. For larger N-reg operators, e.g. fractional schemes, there would be an obvious and trivial way around the regs: have a pool of planes and rotate them via the UK, so each one spends just under the max permitted time here. The CAA would then miss out on the really juicy CofA fees. It doesn't look very attractive. |
IO
Since many owners look carefully at the potential savings to be made in maintenance costs by moving to N reg, including reduced propellor inspections amongst others, it does not follow that N reg are better maintained in the UK than G reg. It may well be that UK requirements are over pedantic, but that can only make them safer. The arguement that perhaps the skills of many maintenance engineers are somewhat lacking applies no doubt equally to FAA licenced UK based engineers. Your posts are often used to slag aircraft which are not at the end of their design life, and which have had all relavent AD's dealt with, and which the owners are maintaining regardless of the costs caused partially by poor standards of quality controll in their country of manufacture, often the same country that issues N regs. |
Since many owners look carefully at the potential savings to be made in maintenance costs by moving to N reg, including reduced propellor inspections amongst others, it does not follow that N reg are better maintained in the UK than G reg. Neither does it follow that because something is inspected more frequently, it fails less. Indeed many failures occur to aircraft of all nationalities shortly after a visit to the maintenance shop. This thread seems to have lost its way though focusing on personal digs rather than the larger picture. Various unsubstantiated rumours are always popping up on these forums and others. The instigators are never authoritative themselves but invariably have "a friend" who is "well placed" to know what is going on. This thread is a fine example, and you only have to look back two weeks or so, when it was Cathar who had "good information" that the DfT were going to be dealing with this "problem". Some things are certain. The FAA is concerned about the volume of work being generated by (in particular) its large overseas fleet of light aircraft. It must be true, although I don't have a friend "in the know", that the CAA is concerned by the number of pilots who are electing to take themselves out of the system. The IR is the tip of the iceberg. Nobody who has thought hard about the NPPL would actually follow that route if they were aware that for similar money and similar effort, they can obtain an ICAO recognised FAA PPL which permits unrestricted flying in G-reg aircraft. FAA Medicals meet ICAO standards (with a couple of small caveats that are easily avoided), and will often certifcate somebody who by reason of medical history may feel more inclined towards the HGV style approach adopted by the NPPL. The answer is to sort out the mess that is JAA FCL - not to hamper the international recognition of another country's ICAO-compliant licences and the free operation of another state's aircraft. IMHO of course :D |
Bluski
Anyone wishing to switch from CAA to FAA with a primary aim of saving on maintenance cost, are at best dillusional. True, some savings can be made but what with the recent changes in the notice 75 rule, the savings are not all that great. It is just as easy to cut corners on the G reg if you are so inclined. The point is that that the majority of operators using the N reg tend to be serious IR type users, flying more expensive kit that wouldn't skimp on maintenance anyway. Amongst the many reasons for changing to the N reg is to cut down on unecessary bureaucracy and the hoops that the CAA / JAR make us jump through. Not forgetting the ability to simplify the IR process. GG |
The fact is its far easier to *own* an N reg, and fly it as a means of transport. US PPLs tend to be *better rated* in that I mean that a far higher percentage of them hold an IR than a UK PPL. This is thorugh no fault of the UK pilot, but the stupid ridiculous level of the JAA IR for the PPL. You *don't need* to be at such a level to fly IFR in a SEP aircraft, you don't need to know about 737 FMS's to operate your Arrow in airways. Interestingly, although some JAR tolerances are higher than FAA tolerances, its all irrelevant after the test. If you use your IR you get better, if you don't, you loose your skills anyway....ok enough of that :D
Who's to know if it's actually registered apart from the FAA I have heard suggestions that getting on for 10% of privately operated aircraft based in the UK are on foreign registers, mainly the US, Bermuda and Cayman Anyway, no doubt if the powers that be decide this is the best course of action, then some loophole will open up, like getting your aircraft serviced in the Channel Islands or Luxemburg or somewhere....:D EA |
bluskis
As I have already mentioned, the maintenance cost savings under N-reg are similar to the G-reg Private CofA. The only real difference is that you can rent out an N-reg whereas you can't rent out a Private CofA G-reg, but that doesn't affect most N-reg owners who are the sole pilots, or syndicate members. The statistics from the USA (where the majority of the earth's GA flying takes place) show there is NO reduction in safety from the FAA maintenance regime, and NO reduction in safety from the FAA Class 3 medical (compared to JAR). The "G-reg is safer because there is more maintenance" argument is so completely dead that if the CAA closed its GA department and let the FAA do it all, there would be no loss of safety. As 2D says, these rumours surface regularly but are never backed up. I have just spoken to a "well placed contact" in the U.S. aviation scene and he tells me that he's never heard of any FAA moves in this area. Like the others, this piece of info is worth exactly what you've paid for it :O |
"Various unsubstantiated rumours are always popping up on these forums and others. The instigators are never authoritative themselves but invariably have "a friend" who is "well placed" to know what is going on. This thread is a fine example, and you only have to look back two weeks or so, when it was Cathar who had "good information" that the DfT were going to be dealing with this "problem".
2D - I was not aware of Cathar's post, but as this is the Private pilot's rumour network :) , I felt it duty bound to share it with you all. You know who I am and the fact that I rarely contribute to the rumour-mill must mean that I took said "little birdy's" comments quite seriously. I have no axe to grind, I have a UK PPL with no current additional ratings and fly 90% of my 100 hrs a year in G reg aircraft. My source is suitably placed to be in the know. Stik |
You know who I am and the fact that I rarely contribute to the rumour-mill must mean that I took said "little birdy's" comments quite seriously. We do need to look at these rumours with a critical eye. We don't need to know "somebody in the CAA" to be able to predict that the CAA is not happy about the massed arrival of N-reg aircraft on their doorstep. However when that "somebody in the CAA" suggests that there is the thought that N-reg aircraft should be obliged to return to the US for an annual, we can apply our critical faculties. The sole authority on where N-reg aircraft may be maintained and who may do the maintenance is the FAA. The CAA has no authority to vary this no matter how much it might wish to. So anybody spreading that rumour, is demonstrably mistaken and we can dispense with the detail of the rumour very quickly. The sort of rumour we should be worried about are rumours implying the sort of changes that the CAA or Executive is entitled to make. Compelling UK-resident aircraft to swap to the G after 6 months, would be one such change well within their powers. Powers prohibiting UK Citizens from owning overseas assets by trust might be another. Fortunately, both of those come with such massive difficulties attached that I doubt either will see the light of day. I am looking forward to hearing a really compelling rumour with a proper punchline. Any idiot can write "My friend at the CAA says they are not happy with all these N-regs". It takes a much better rumour-mongerer to come up with a credible "... and so the CAA is going to..." bit. No offence intended at all to you Stik. 2D |
Another sanction well within the power of the CAA is to prohibit UK citizens from exercising the privileges of a foreign licence within UK airspace.
|
Indeed. There are numerous perfectly reasonable rumours that you could spread if you were of that persuasion, and I deliberately avoided listing some of the most credible. Even your own has some obvious issues associated with it.
For the most part the rumours that these threads revolve around contain such basic mistakes that you can spot them a mile off. 2D |
I own a G registered plane that is about to be re-registered back onto the US register. I chose this as I want to complete my FAA IR rating so I can fly in Europe.
After reading all the comments here about this topic I called the company who is setting up my FAA trust. Yes I know he has interest to register N reg a/c as this is his job but I needed another view on this rumour. He says that this topic comes up every so often and should be treated as a rumour. It starts with the French getting pisssed off with the number of N registered a/c coming over and then they complain to the CAA. As I understand it there is something in the 1941 (?) Chicago Conference allowing foreign planes to operate in other countries airspace and as long as there are FAA licensed engineers to do the inspections and remedial work as necessary. So to alter this, doesn’t this need a changed by both parties? The nice chap at the US Trust company spoke to the FAA a few weeks ago about this and they didn’t know anything about this change to policy and stated is legal to own and operate an N registered plane in any country as long as it is serviced to FAR requirements. I’ll keep going for the moment so we will have to see. Gruntos |
Does anyone know what exactly were the DGAC going to do when they tried to ban resident N-reg - a proposal which they quickly abandoned.
Was it a time period on the plane's residency, and if so what were the exact limits, or was it limited to French nationals? |
The French proposition was to force aircraft that were seen to be resident in France for more than 6 months to adopt an F registration.
Whilst it was claimed by the usual doom-merchants in the UK that this move in some way mirrored American action or was a specific move against FAA operators the truth was rather more mundane. It was a sweeping response by the DGAC in an attempt to deal with various issues surrounding Yaks (and similar) of many bizarre and ill-policed registrations that were flying in France on full Certificates of Airworthiness. The N-reg community was an incidental victim of the move. In the end, commercial pressure placed (in particular) by EADS killed the proposed legislation, since it would effectively have grounded the many N-reg TBM700C2s that have been sold in France (they are only available on the N). Similar pressure was brought to bear by the operators of various Fractional Ownership schemes which are provided for under the FARs, but not under F-reg operations. Grounding Yaks proved to be a more direct and less contravertial response to the original problem. 2D |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:47. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.