China requires provenance of all foreign aircraft
Thread Starter
China requires provenance of all foreign aircraft
Several media outlets reporting that all foreign carriers are required to prove aircraft ownership and other details to the Chinese authorities.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that a lot of landing permits are being delayed for weeks as carriers scramble to provide the mountains of paperwork for EACH aircraft- and the Chinese bureaucracy takes it's (diligent?!) time.
This is in response to China barring Russia from flying foreign owned aircraft into their airspace. It has naturally applied this burden of proof to ALL foreign carriers.
Some may say this action only favours the Chinese carriers, particularly the freight carriers- as they are virtually the only aircraft operating into and out of China.
On the other hand it is good the Chinese stood up the the Russians.
The cynic in me says the motive lies in the deep rooted psyche of the CCP to leverage any event globally to gain a strategic and economic advantage
https://apnews.com/article/russia-uk...34b19e3d524c33
Anecdotal evidence suggests that a lot of landing permits are being delayed for weeks as carriers scramble to provide the mountains of paperwork for EACH aircraft- and the Chinese bureaucracy takes it's (diligent?!) time.
This is in response to China barring Russia from flying foreign owned aircraft into their airspace. It has naturally applied this burden of proof to ALL foreign carriers.
Some may say this action only favours the Chinese carriers, particularly the freight carriers- as they are virtually the only aircraft operating into and out of China.
On the other hand it is good the Chinese stood up the the Russians.
The cynic in me says the motive lies in the deep rooted psyche of the CCP to leverage any event globally to gain a strategic and economic advantage
https://apnews.com/article/russia-uk...34b19e3d524c33
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 1st Jun 2022 at 21:03. Reason: Fix url
I think what Russia did amounts to piracy in many ways and China seems to be doing the right thing in asking them to provide provenance and if they can't then don't enter their airspace. Seems reasonable to me.
However to apply that rule to only Russia and no other country/carrier is partisan and is taking sides. It would be hypocritical. It should be reasonably easy to provide up to date ownership records asap for assets that cost in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.....and if not.... why not?
However to apply that rule to only Russia and no other country/carrier is partisan and is taking sides. It would be hypocritical. It should be reasonably easy to provide up to date ownership records asap for assets that cost in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.....and if not.... why not?
I think what Russia did amounts to piracy in many ways and China seems to be doing the right thing in asking them to provide provenance and if they can't then don't enter their airspace. Seems reasonable to me.
However to apply that rule to only Russia and no other country/carrier is partisan and is taking sides. It would be hypocritical. It should be reasonably easy to provide up to date ownership records asap for assets that cost in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.....and if not.... why not?
However to apply that rule to only Russia and no other country/carrier is partisan and is taking sides. It would be hypocritical. It should be reasonably easy to provide up to date ownership records asap for assets that cost in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.....and if not.... why not?
For example a leased aircraft transferred from the Bermuda register to the Russian register without the involvement of the lessor ...
The way I read the article, it's simply putting the onus on airlines to prove that their aircraft are legitimately registered with the marks they are carrying. The only time an airline is likely to have a problem in supplying that evidence is if its aircraft have been moved from one country's register to another without being officially de-registered from the former.
For example a leased aircraft transferred from the Bermuda register to the Russian register without the involvement of the lessor ...
For example a leased aircraft transferred from the Bermuda register to the Russian register without the involvement of the lessor ...
Honestly, I don`t get it. Every airplane that I had flown/inspected/released to flight had a Certificate of Registration on board, where it was clearly stated who is the owner of that particular aircraft. If that document is forged, any other document, supporting that (false) claim, can be forged too.
Honestly, I don`t get it. Every airplane that I had flown/inspected/released to flight had a Certificate of Registration on board, where it was clearly stated who is the owner of that particular aircraft. If that document is forged, any other document, supporting that (false) claim, can be forged too.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
China has been cash rich for a few years now looking for investment opportunities around the world. Perhaps they are significant investors in AER Cap Holdings, Chapman Freeborn, GECAS, Nordic Aviation Capital or one of the other global leasing companies who are now whistling for their money after Putin grabbed their aircraft. If one of those aircraft lands outside Russia it will promptly get a seizure notice nailed to the mast and not be permitted to leave.... That includes in China.
Follow the money!
Follow the money!
Honestly, I don`t get it. Every airplane that I had flown/inspected/released to flight had a Certificate of Registration on board, where it was clearly stated who is the owner of that particular aircraft. If that document is forged, any other document, supporting that (false) claim, can be forged too.
Jurisdictionally dependent, the ICAO definition of operator is applied to the CoR, that is, whoever has the right to control the aircraft for 28 days or more will be recorded on the CoR, however that is CAA dependent, some note the 28 day period, but do not require notification to the CAA of parties with rights to control of the aircraft.
China is not necessarily acting unreasonably with their action, it is consistent with taking some care with not getting crosswise with the US led sanctions series, but it is a pain for many. The beneficial owner of a leased aircraft is not the operator as recorded on the CoR. It will become problematic for many FAR 91K operations, as there is a complex ownership requirement for such programs, but they are recorded so can be provided. For leased aircraft, the same applies, the documents of ownership and lease may differ from the CoR in fact generally must be different.
good work for lawyers.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 1,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly, I don`t get it. Every airplane that I had flown/inspected/released to flight had a Certificate of Registration on board, where it was clearly stated who is the owner of that particular aircraft. If that document is forged, any other document, supporting that (false) claim, can be forged too.
Some time ago there was an international convention called the Captetown Convention in which we all agreed to setup a centralized registry of ownership for aircraft and engines ( https://www.internationalregistry.aero/ir-web/ ) for about US$40 any member of the public can lookup the the ownership details of aircraft and engines.
Then came along the Russian fruit loop that gave the middle finger to the convention, they were a signatory.
Under the convention every change of ownership goes via the international registry, what Russia is doing is not going via the registry, the original owners are still listed in the registry.
What amount to a US$40 certificate that legitimate operators can obtain from the registry seems like a small price tp pay for the piracy being done in Russia. As a result of their actions every aircraft operated costs more, it is industry that is paying for the Russian piracy, not the Russians and not the Bankers.
Only half a speed-brake
Despite the clear and simple explanation above, I am now looking at EASA NAA issued Certificate of Registration saying:
4) Name of the Owner
5) Address of the Owner
But hold on...
Note 1: This Aircraft is Operated by... (different entity)
Note 2: This Certificate is issued for registration purposes only and is not a certificate of title. DG CAA does not determine rights of ownership as between private persons.
After a closer look, not confusing at all.
4) Name of the Owner
5) Address of the Owner
But hold on...
Note 1: This Aircraft is Operated by... (different entity)
Note 2: This Certificate is issued for registration purposes only and is not a certificate of title. DG CAA does not determine rights of ownership as between private persons.
After a closer look, not confusing at all.
Surely the Chinese are checking all aircraft so that when this nonsense has played through they can say to the Russians - "see we played fair, we did it to everyone."
The response by Russia to sanctions may have been expedient at the time but the long term damage is substantial. It will be a brave owner that rents or leases or allows any asset to enter, overfly or otherwise have any exposure to Russia for the future. Money talks, but the loading out the front end for any future involvement with Russia would be higher than outright purchase price...
There are some odd ICAO conventions that act to prohibit a state from enforcing liens on an aircraft in a 3rd state... local judgements can be enforced by the state, so a visiting aircraft that is in breach of a contract from another country could have say, Chinese court judgements enforced. The states of manufacture could also raise ADs based on reported non compliance with the AMMs grounding the aircraft. That would be disregarded by Russia, but the Chinese etc would probably happily ground those aircraft on entry to their territory, under their obligations to ICAO and state foreign aircraft safety oversight rules.
Where Russia disregards international law which seems to have been their historical intent, nationalising the assets works within their own boundary, but doesn't get a signature of release from the owner with the cape town convention.
China (excluding Hong Kong and Macau...) is a signatory state to the treaty and would be a party with obligations under Article 43 to enforce court orders issued in compliance with Chapter III Default remedies:
- Article 8 — Remedies of chargee
- Article 12 — Additional remedies
- Article 13 — Relief pending final determination
Once again, the treaty doesn't make allowance for a lawless state, one that just cares less about their treaty obligations. There is a method of termination by a state, but there is no method to remove the state, although the Article 61 — Review Conferences, amendments and related matters permits amendment that can cure the Russia syndrome. Cynically, one can assume that a method of removal of a rogue,"Russia like state" is not needed, they are effectively removing themselves from future need of such treaties, they can continue playing with North Korea all by themselves. As Russia is a complicit party to the breaches of the treaty obligations, the lessors may have a ready fund to dig into in the bank accounts that have been frozen, lawyers are going to be the only winners of the criminal actions of Russia in Ukraine.
It's hard to imagine any manager in the future whetting the appetite of their board by using the term "lease", "JV", "loan" or similar in connection to the name "Russia". Normally, a return to "business as usual" would happen promptly, but the further confirmation that Russia disregards every convention that the rest of the world considers reasonable will make it difficult to regain any trust in their word. The immediate damage to Russia by the ego of Putin is just beginning. Peter Zeihan may well be correct that Russia will not survive as the RF, disintegration may be coming along sooner than later.
was the second one of the rescue aircraft?
https://m.economictimes.com/news/int...w/92005972.cms
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..... The curiosity in this case is the state is acting illegally, the aircraft had registration, and then the state is complicit with the breach of the lease agreements, and further now disregards airworthiness matters to which the state has an obligation as a signatory to ICAO.
These are nice words for "state-piracy", as we have seen from some of the poorest African countries.
Actually, I think, Russia will simply produce "court documents", with a legal binding confiscation of all these aircrafts, stating the new legal ownership of these aircrafts is in Russia. And, then, China will say: "OK, these are legally owned by a Russian company, etc". If there is an ownership dispute, please first go to court, before we take action on this. So, yeah, I do have some doubts, whether the China mandatory ownership proving is going to make much of a difference. The only difference is, that China can now state they did take action.
I completely agree on that and TBH, I think, the only real solution of this conflict, is indeed, when the RF gets dissolved into many individual and much smaller states. Otherwise, the aggression will keep coming again, the moment, Russia has rebuilt its armed forces.
A physical inspection of data plates found it affixed to a 3rd B737. In the meantime, the lessee of this sad story planned a B737 into the weeds on an approach flown in competition with a thunderstorm. The plane in that accident that killed a few dozen punters was remarkably untainted by shenanigans, or at least none were reported.
Africa is not the only country with oddities that occur, not by a long shot.
Same guy spak filled a PC12 that had taken some serious flesh wounds from a hand grenade, which shredded the aft fuselage of the plane. It got painted in the not the not the north continent, with the repair more or less not being Pilatus's preference. The feds did get in on that one... If your late 90's PC12 looks a little worse for wear at the RH tail, then it would pay to see who did a 337 for that toy between 2006 and 2010.... It had a nice paint job in 2010....
Some of this is amusing, sometimes 4 people die when they are given a vacuum pump that is supposed to be overhauled and is not, and they get to try limited panel flight unsuccessfully, and it ends in tears and litigation, with one of the more sturdy regulators doing zip.
China is not unreasonable with their request for provenance.
Russia can provide all of the court documents they wish to the aircraft registry https://www.internationalregistry.aero/ir-web/ or [email protected] and I doubt that without a signatory from the recorded owner that the ownership will change hands. As no court cases on the matter are in the news, I would expect that Russia hasn't tried their luck in finding how far their reputation has been dragged by Putin, but it is not likely that any court direction coming out of a criminal state such as Russia will be accepted in Ireland under the treaty. (I certainly hope that is an overly optimistic expectation of jurisprudence)
