Peter wrote:
> The UK Department for Transport has published a consultation document;
> their aim is as stated above.

What's the stated logic behind this?

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

>> The UK Department for Transport has published a consultation document;
>> their aim is as stated above.
>
> What's the stated logic behind this?


http://tinyurl.com/ar229 for all the documents at the DFT website. I've not
had time to read them, so if someone beats me to it for a summary!

D.

David Wright wrote:
> >> The UK Department for Transport has published a consultation document;
> >> their aim is as stated above.
> >
> > What's the stated logic behind this?
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ar229 for all the documents at the DFT website. I've not
> had time to read them, so if someone beats me to it for a summary!
>
> D.

The logic is that they are looking at stopping the practice of
permanently basing an aircraft in the UK but keeping the ownership and
regisration in some other country. According to the documents, they are
looking at the fact that something on the order of 21% of the aircraft
in the UK spend all of their time in UK airspace despite being foreign
registered.

The gist of it is that they want to place a time limit on how long you
can keep a foreign registered aircraft in the UK without changing the
regisration. It's only a proposal for now and they are requestion
comments until late October.

Craig C.

> The DfT is alleging it is to save money on maintenance.

Which isn't quite right. The real reason is to save money on
alterations.

> There are also many, many items (e.g. avionics) that are FAA approved
> only, and for which the European approval route is expensive

Bingo. But that European approval route is what keeps much of the
European GA bureaucracy in business. Ditto those required courses for
the PPL and IR. Ultimately, people do keep planes on the N-register to
save time, hassle, and money - but that time, hassle, and money they
don't want to put up with is the lifeblood of the aviation bureaucracy
and the people who make their living in it. Of course those people
want the practice to stop.

Michael

"Philip W Lee" <phil(at)lee(hyphen)family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
...
> George Patterson > considered Fri, 05 Aug 2005
> 18:12:39 GMT the perfect time to write:
>
>>Peter wrote:
>>> The UK Department for Transport has published a consultation document;
>>> their aim is as stated above.
>>
>>What's the stated logic behind this?
>>
> Faulty.
> Very, Very Faulty.
>
> Wouldn't it also mean pulling out of ICAO?

No just file an exception - countries do it all the time.

Great summary. Thanks!

One item to dispute. The FAA does do ramp checks in Europe, just not very
many. One of our competitors got ramped. The pilot told the FAA inspector
he had no authority. The Inspector gave him a break and told him to call
his Chief Pilot. The pilot was quickly educated, got very apologetic, and
cooperative.

The FAA can ramp a 135/121 operator anywhere in the world. Our POI
(Principal Operations Inspector) asks that question of all of our new
Captains.

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> wrote
>
>>According to the documents, they are
>>looking at the fact that something on the order of 21% of the aircraft
>>in the UK spend all of their time in UK airspace despite being foreign
>>registered.
>
>>The gist of it is that they want to place a time limit on how long you
>>can keep a foreign registered aircraft in the UK without changing the
>>regisration. It's only a proposal for now and they are requestion
>>comments until late October.
>
> The question one must ask is WHY people do this.
>
> The DfT is alleging it is to save money on maintenance. Any N-reg
> owner in Europe will know that is bull. I am an N-reg owner and just
> about everything costs more, not less, because very few maintenance
> outfits are fully FAA certified and they have to "buy" a signature
> from an IA at the end of the job. A typical IA charges the equivalent
> of US$500 for the signoff. Anything that needs a DER (e.g. structural)
> is $1000 for the DER signature - as I know well from a recent exercise
> with an ELT antenna. The CAA is much more relaxed about screwing
> antennas into airframes than the FAA.
>
> There are two main reasons why people "go N".
>
> (1) To get worldwide IFR privileges - basically for European touring /
> business flying.
>
> In the non-jet GA context, this is by far the most common reason. The
> European route to this is the JAA IR which involves 1-2 years' study,
> mandatory ground school, an additional hearing (audiogram) test where
> *each* ear has to pass the -20db limit, and other stuff that's hardly
> relevant to noncommercial GA flying. Most people who earn enough money
> to get access to an IFR-suitable aircraft (i.e. buy one, or buy into
> one of the rare "IFR" syndicates) and to fly it with sufficient
> currency, have a life to live and a job to do and can't devote such a
> chunk of their life to the exams. 99% of the people doing the JAA IR
> are young (often jobless) people, with plenty of time, who want to be
> airline pilots.
>
> (2) Certain types are not EASA approved.
>
> The Cirrus SR22 is the best known example. The TBM700C2 turboprop is
> another one, AFAIK due to its slightly higher stall speed. Various
> turboprops and jets (which I know nothing of in detail) have serious
> certification issues if not on N.
>
> There are also many, many items (e.g. avionics) that are FAA approved
> only, and for which the European approval route is expensive, or
> impossible. I was once quoted US$ 2000 for the paperwork for a backup
> oil pressure gauge (CAA L2 approved company). While few owners will
> move their aircraft to N just to fit a piece of FAA approved avionics
> (because moving to N itself can hardly be done for less than $10k and
> often costs 2x or 3x that, for a SEP - as I know very well, with the
> DAR alone charging $2600) there are many planes containing equipment
> alredy fitted which prevents them going to a different registry.
>
>
> The DfT asked the CAA to come up with evidence that N-reg planes have
> more accidents, and the CAA reported they cannot find any such data.
> So the DfT is attacking it from the "lack of maintenance oversight"
> angle, which in theory is accurate (the FAA does supervise European
> FAA-approved maintenance firms but doesn't do ramp checks) but in
> practice is irrelevant because most N-reg pilots are owners, with a
> powerful incentive to do the specified maintenance (their life, and
> the fact that the insurance is void unless the aircraft is airworthy).
> The CAA is practically unknown to do ramp checks on G-reg planes too -
> just as well because if they did, many UK flying schools, and JAR145
> approved maintenance firms, would be in trouble :) The worst
> maintained planes in the UK are G-reg, not N-reg.
>
> The GBP 250k economic cost in the DfT proposal is low by 2 to 3 orders
> of magnitude - working on the cost of moving each plane to G, or
> offloading it onto the U.S. market. Many of these are turboprops and
> jets. Plus each pilot taking a year to do the JAA PPL/IR. It's a
> complete farce.
>
> It may be only a "proposal" now, but the manner in which the UK and
> European governments usually structure these things is to make the
> process a fait accompli.
>

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:33:34 +0100, Peter >
wrote:

>
wrote
>

>There are two main reasons why people "go N".
>
>(1) To get worldwide IFR privileges - basically for European touring /
>business flying.
>
>In the non-jet GA context, this is by far the most common reason. The
>European route to this is the JAA IR which involves 1-2 years' study,
>mandatory ground school, an additional hearing (audiogram) test where
>*each* ear has to pass the -20db limit, and other stuff that's hardly
>relevant to noncommercial GA flying.
///

It was a while ago, but I did the UK IR ground school via an Oxford
correspondence course.
For a ground school this did not seem specially onerous.
The UK flight component was another matter, it's true.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

The reason is that the bureaucracy and incompetents feel threatened by the
trend. It is my opinion that people go the N-registered route so as not to
have to deal with the bozos who have gone so far as to tell UK pilots what
airplanes they are skilled enough to fly, and that they are doing it to
protect them.

I would hope that the CAA nor the DFT gets their way on this. There should
be plenty of comments from N-reg owners filed in response this, pointing out
that the problem is with the useless bureaucracy, not with the owners.

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
> The UK Department for Transport has published a consultation document;
> their aim is as stated above.
>
> This would be extremely bad news for practically all U.S. registered
> pilots based in the UK.
>
> It would also be bad news for the American GA aircraft market, which
> would get flooded with aeroplanes forcibly sold from the UK. Many
> aeroplanes have FAA approved features which are not European approved.
> These would have to be removed, or the aircraft sold.
>
> Cirrus SR22 (arguably the best U.S. GA success story) would also be
> evicted from the UK, as would the TBM700C2 and other types.
>
>
> Peter.
> --
> Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail.
> E-mail replies to but remove the X and the Y.
> Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary.

Peter wrote:
> jets. Plus each pilot taking a year to do the JAA PPL/IR. It's a
> complete farce.

I wasn't aware that it was even possible to get an IFR rating
on a JAR private pilote license (thought it required a commercial
one to start with); could someone correct me on this one?

--Sylvain

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:55:12 -0700, Sylvain > wrote:

>> jets. Plus each pilot taking a year to do the JAA PPL/IR. It's a
>> complete farce.

>I wasn't aware that it was even possible to get an IFR rating
>on a JAR private pilote license (thought it required a commercial
>one to start with); could someone correct me on this one?

Yes, it's possible for sure.

Rene (JAR/FCL PPL SE/IR)

--
Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups

Sylvain,

> I wasn't aware that it was even possible to get an IFR rating
> on a JAR private pilote license (thought it required a commercial
> one to start with); could someone correct me on this one?
>

Yes, you can.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

George Patterson a écrit :
> Peter wrote:
>> The UK Department for Transport has published a consultation document;
>> their aim is as stated above.
>
> What's the stated logic behind this?
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

If I was a U.K citizen I would fight this one real hard and try to stop
it NOW.

We have seen this happen in France (and with luck fail!). IMHO mainly
motivated by bureaucrats wanting to avoid having pilots using their FAA
licence to fly in France.

20 years ago it was not a problem at all for a french citizen to go to
the U.S, pass his pilot exams and come back to fly F- registered
aircraft after a single stop to the local DGAC office.....I've done it.

Not anymore unless you are a U.S resident!
This having nothing to do with safety issues, to the contrary but
simply to atempt to *HELP* french flight schools who, at that time, saw
many students go West.

Today if you reside in the US (or outside of the E.U) - You come to
France with a US licence, you can fly F registered aircraft without a
single hour of flight instruction! (altough I would highly recommend it
in regards to *MAJOR* diffrences such as flight levels, barometrics
pressures in MB, and phraseology over the Com).

But if you are a French citizen and reside in the E.U, your 'in for
taking all of the French written exams and flight tests if you want to
fly F-registered aircraft.

The solution is to find "N" registered aircraft, with greater and
greater numbers, so one can use, regardless of nationality or place of
residence, is F.A.A licence will all ratings.

As mentionned in this forum this is just about the only way private
pilots can fly I.F.R in France....a private IFR licence has been talked
about for years....to no avail. The *REAL IFR* ticket is not really in
reach of the "standard" business / family / adult pilot unless he has
20K¤, a year and brain cells to spare on totally irelevant material to
the private IR pilot.

IMHO G.A in Europe is nearly dead and I personnally rather go to the
U.S twice a year for some real flying / travelling, spending my money
with people who respect G.A.

Best of luck in the U.K.

Peter wrote:

>
> The question one must ask is WHY people do this.

How about also that going "off N status" creates an aircraft
that is virtually unsaleable in the USA due to its having
a maintenence trail that makes it unfeasable to recertify
at reasonable cost for USA sale ? And that the USA market
is far better than UK ? How many aircraft have you seen
advertised in the UK that are begging to be sold in the USA,
or aircraft for UK sale that are bragging about having
an N number ?

Peter wrote:

> Clearly it is difficult to achieve an effective timed residence ban
> such as that proposed (90 days every 365 days) while allowing visiting
> aircraft, because one obvious work-around is for the pilot to swap
> aircraft every 90 days. While obviously most private pilots aren't
> going to purchase, or rent/lease from outside the UK, a different
> N-reg plane every 90 days (i.e. 4 a year), a larger fractional
> ownership operation could be structured so the planes are rotated via
> other countries. A multinational business operating say 4 jets could
> keep 3 outside the UK and rotate them every 90 days, thus meeting this
> requirement. So the proposal would screw the small private pilot,
> while leaving the larger turboprop/jet groups much less affected.
>

Why can't UK owners just park the airplane across the channel in france
for some portion of the year ? Surely there has to be a percentage of
time resident or similar requirement. So UK owners just lease to a flight
club across the channel for a few months of the year.

Scott,

> Why can't UK owners just park the airplane across the channel in france
> for some portion of the year ?
>

Because it makes for a really long drive to the airport.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In Argentina the same rule applies, foreign aircraft cannot stay for more
than 90 days at a time. So they fly to Uruguay for the day (preferably to
Punta del Este) and come back. Problem solved.

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Scott,
>
>> Why can't UK owners just park the airplane across the channel in france
>> for some portion of the year ?
>>
>
> Because it makes for a really long drive to the airport.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 19:49:34 +0100, Scott Moore wrote
(in message >):

>> Clearly it is difficult to achieve an effective timed residence ban
>> such as that proposed (90 days every 365 days) while allowing visiting
>> aircraft, because one obvious work-around is for the pilot to swap
>> aircraft every 90 days. While obviously most private pilots aren't
>> going to purchase, or rent/lease from outside the UK, a different
>> N-reg plane every 90 days (i.e. 4 a year), a larger fractional
>> ownership operation could be structured so the planes are rotated via
>> other countries. A multinational business operating say 4 jets could
>> keep 3 outside the UK and rotate them every 90 days, thus meeting this
>> requirement. So the proposal would screw the small private pilot,
>> while leaving the larger turboprop/jet groups much less affected.

I had thought of this as well, but it would make for some really complicated
group structures !

> Why can't UK owners just park the airplane across the channel in france
> for some portion of the year ? Surely there has to be a percentage of
> time resident or similar requirement. So UK owners just lease to a flight
> club across the channel for a few months of the year.

The proposal isn't that you can only keep the plane in the UK for 90 days at
a time, it's for a limit of 90 days in the UK in any 12 months period (the 90
days bit is up for discussion). So you would have to have the plane outside
of the UK for the other 9 months.

As Peter suggested, one way around this (that would work only for larger
groups, so still screw the majority of private pilots) is to have a fleet of
five (four doesn't quite do it) planes and move them around the world as
required so that none of them exceed the 90 days limit.


The issues doesn't firectly and personally affect me at the moment, but I've
still put in my objections since it's guaranteed to affect me indirectly or
even directly in the future. One point I made was that it's a bit rich for
our authorities to decide what other countries should be happy with - if the
US authorities aren't happy with it's ability to oversee aircraft on it's
register that are overseas, then surely it's up to them to decide what to do
about it; if they are happy, then what right have out authorities to tell
them otherwise ?

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 8:22:48 +0100, Peter wrote
(in message >):

> The structure of European airspace, and its weather in many places,
> are such that without an IFR capability one can't usefully go
> anywhere.
>
> In the UK there is the IMC Rating; effectively an IR limited to below
> Class A. This means an IR is not strictly needed for flying purely
> around the UK. We do have Class A down to 2500ft, and even surface, in
> a lot of places, but in general one can fly under/around it.
>
> In Europe it's different. Any IMC requires a full IR, and that (flying
> usefully into Europe, doing instrument approaches and departures) is
> why people do the IR. And the FAA IR is the only one that's
> realistically attainable for most pilots that have work to do.

Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and
only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that
elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed without
a full IR.

Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.

"Simon Hobson" > wrote in message
et...
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 8:22:48 +0100, Peter wrote
> (in message >):
>
>> The structure of European airspace, and its weather in many places,
>> are such that without an IFR capability one can't usefully go
>> anywhere.
>>
>> In the UK there is the IMC Rating; effectively an IR limited to below
>> Class A. This means an IR is not strictly needed for flying purely
>> around the UK. We do have Class A down to 2500ft, and even surface, in
>> a lot of places, but in general one can fly under/around it.
>>
>> In Europe it's different. Any IMC requires a full IR, and that (flying
>> usefully into Europe, doing instrument approaches and departures) is
>> why people do the IR. And the FAA IR is the only one that's
>> realistically attainable for most pilots that have work to do.
>
> Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and
> only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that
> elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed
> without
> a full IR.
>
> Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.

The French allow night VFR, pretty restrictive though, see
http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/METROPOLE/AIP/ENR/1/AIP%20FRANCE%20ENR%201.2.pdf

Rgds

Andy R

"Andy R" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Simon Hobson" > wrote in message
> et...
>> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 8:22:48 +0100, Peter wrote
>> (in message >):
>>
>>> The structure of European airspace, and its weather in many places,
>>> are such that without an IFR capability one can't usefully go
>>> anywhere.
>>>
>>> In the UK there is the IMC Rating; effectively an IR limited to below
>>> Class A. This means an IR is not strictly needed for flying purely
>>> around the UK. We do have Class A down to 2500ft, and even surface, in
>>> a lot of places, but in general one can fly under/around it.
>>>
>>> In Europe it's different. Any IMC requires a full IR, and that (flying
>>> usefully into Europe, doing instrument approaches and departures) is
>>> why people do the IR. And the FAA IR is the only one that's
>>> realistically attainable for most pilots that have work to do.
>>
>> Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR,
>> and
>> only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that
>> elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed
>> without
>> a full IR.
>>
>> Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.
>
> The French allow night VFR, pretty restrictive though, see
> http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/METROPOLE/AIP/ENR/1/AIP%20FRANCE%20ENR%201.2.pdf
>
There are also other things things that make it not impossible to get about
without an IR. ie you can fly VFR in most French airways provided you're
not in cloud, and you don't need to be in sight of the surface. So if you
can find a hole to go up through and it's scattered or better at your
destination on occasions you're actually better off than in the UK with an
IMC because you can use the airways.

Rgds

Andy R

Juan,

> In Argentina the same rule applies,
>

Actually, IIRC, the rule planned for the UK is more sophisticated: 90
days out of 365 are the maximum allowed time in the UK.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> Simon Hobson > wrote:
>
>>Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR,
>
> Only in VMC and in Class G :)
>
>>and
>>only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that
>>elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed
>>without
>>a full IR.
>
> Plenty of countries have VFR allowed at night - the USA is one great
> example.
>
> But yes this can be an issue. However a much bigger issue is that the
> UK is unique in allowing flight in IMC (i.e. IFR) anywhere, and
> allowing it without any clearance or even any radio contact in Class
> G.
>
> Outside the UK, to fly IFR, one needs to be on an IFR flight plan
> (following the proper ATS routes, filed and verified via the Brussels
> computer, and amended en-route by ATC as they wish) and an IR is
> mandatory to stay legal. Same in the USA, except their flight plan
> handling and lots of other details are very different.
>
> If the British Govt kicks out N-reg aircraft, in addition to the huge
> costs (typically, 4-5 figures to move back to G, for a little plane
> with no certification issues, and impossible for many e.g. the SR22)
> they will strip a large number of pilots of their IFR privileges for
> European flight. This is a very poor thing to do for safety.

But a very good thing to do for civil servants/politicians who want control
of the populace at any cost. AIUI this isn't being pushed as a safety
measure and it's not even the CAA doing the pushing but the DFT.

Rgds

Andy R

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 9:02:20 +0100, Simon Hobson
> wrote:
> /// in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and
>only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that
>elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed without
>a full IR.
>
>Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.
>

This note is wrong in several respects

Brian Whatcott Altus, OK

Simon Hobson wrote:

> The proposal isn't that you can only keep the plane in the UK for 90 days at
> a time, it's for a limit of 90 days in the UK in any 12 months period (the 90
> days bit is up for discussion). So you would have to have the plane outside
> of the UK for the other 9 months.

Do the UK FBOs realize that the government is actively trying to kill them off ?
I'm guessing the result would be to discourage fat cats from parking their
aircraft in the UK for too long.

Not entirely true. You need an IMC rating to fly in IMC but it doesn't give
you the full priveleges of an IR (Class A use, for instance). It is merely
to teach you to fly in marginal weather. Also you do need to have a Night
Rating (and pay the CAA for the privelege) but it requires neither an IMC
nor an IR rating.

shawn

"Simon Hobson" > wrote in message
et...
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 8:22:48 +0100, Peter wrote
> (in message >):
>
>> The structure of European airspace, and its weather in many places,
>> are such that without an IFR capability one can't usefully go
>> anywhere.
>>
>> In the UK there is the IMC Rating; effectively an IR limited to below
>> Class A. This means an IR is not strictly needed for flying purely
>> around the UK. We do have Class A down to 2500ft, and even surface, in
>> a lot of places, but in general one can fly under/around it.
>>
>> In Europe it's different. Any IMC requires a full IR, and that (flying
>> usefully into Europe, doing instrument approaches and departures) is
>> why people do the IR. And the FAA IR is the only one that's
>> realistically attainable for most pilots that have work to do.
>
> Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and
> only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that
> elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed
> without
> a full IR.
>
> Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.
>
>

In article >,
Simon Hobson > wrote:

(some stuff snipped)

> Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and
> only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that
> elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed without
> a full IR.
>
> Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.

In the US, all you need is three takeoffs and landings at night within
the past 90 days to be qualified at night -- no IFR, "night rating," etc.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Juan,
>
>
>>In Argentina the same rule applies,
>>
>
>
> Actually, IIRC, the rule planned for the UK is more sophisticated: 90
> days out of 365 are the maximum allowed time in the UK.
>

Undoubtedly they also have a regulation that requires UK registered
craft to stay in the UK for some period of time as well. By the
time anyone adds up all the rules the conclusion will be clear: avoid
the UK.

ORVAL FAIRAIRN wrote:

> In article >,
> Simon Hobson > wrote:
>
> (some stuff snipped)
>
>
>>Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and
>>only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that
>>elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed without
>>a full IR.
>>
>>Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.
>
>
> In the US, all you need is three takeoffs and landings at night within
> the past 90 days to be qualified at night -- no IFR, "night rating," etc.

In the USA, you only need to be "night-current" to carry passengers at
night. You don't need to be night-current to fly solo at night. It's
just normal VFR flying.

ORVAL FAIRAIRN > wrote
> In the US, all you need is three takeoffs and landings at night within
> the past 90 days to be qualified at night -- no IFR, "night rating,"
> etc.

I don't think so, Orval....

(b) Night takeoff and landing experience.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act
as pilot in command of an aircraft CARRYING PASSENGERS during the period
beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise, unless
within the preceding 90 days that person has made at least three takeoffs
and three landings to a full stop during the period beginning 1 hour after
sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise, and—

(i) That person acted as sole manipulator of the flight controls; and

(ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of
the same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required).

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Juan,
>>>In Argentina the same rule applies,
>>>
>> Actually, IIRC, the rule planned for the UK is more sophisticated: 90
>> days out of 365 are the maximum allowed time in the UK.
>>
> Undoubtedly they also have a regulation that requires UK registered
> craft to stay in the UK for some period of time as well. By the
> time anyone adds up all the rules the conclusion will be clear: avoid
> the UK.

I already figured that out.

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Juan,
>
>> In Argentina the same rule applies,
>>
> Actually, IIRC, the rule planned for the UK is more sophisticated: 90
> days out of 365 are the maximum allowed time in the UK.

Ah, but of course, the dreaded Anal CAA Residency Rule.

Can't someone give the suicidal muslims alternate targets, like, umm...
bureaucrats?

Obviously, this change is necessary to keep all the terrorists with
N-registered airframes from sneaking away in IFR weather.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

ORVAL FAIRAIRN wrote:
> In the US, all you need is three takeoffs and landings at night within
> the past 90 days to be qualified at night -- no IFR, "night rating," etc.

to carry passengers; if you go on your own, you don't even need that.

--Sylvain

David Lesher wrote:
> Obviously, this change is necessary to keep all the terrorists with
> N-registered airframes from sneaking away in IFR weather.
>

Naw, it keeps N registered airplanes from being flown over the ocean
and used as weapons. The terrorists can't afford to learn to fly in
the UK, like everyone else.

Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
> Can't someone give the suicidal muslims alternate targets, like, umm...
> bureaucrats?

Nah... They're smart enough to realize who their allies are.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Are you kidding? Have you ever tried to find an ANO reference for anything?
I can't make heads or tails out of that silly document.

You're much more technically correct that I intended to be. I was only
trying to point out the original poster was in error about the IMC rating.

Shawn

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ShawnD2112" > wrote
>
>>You need an IMC rating to fly in IMC but it doesn't give
>>you the full priveleges of an IR (Class A use, for instance). It is
>>merely
>>to teach you to fly in marginal weather.
>
> Do you have an ANO reference for the last sentence of the above?
>
> The IFR privileges of the UK IMC Rating are essentially those of the
> JAA IR, but limited to the UK, no Class A, and 1800m min vis.
> Everything else is an opinion; fair enough but it's just that.
>
> One can do perfectly safe fully-IFR flights, in solid IMC, with its
> privileges. Just like the full IR, it needs currency and a suitable
> aircraft and these cost serious time and money.
>
> Unfortunately it's no good outside the UK, for IFR.
>
> Its possession removes the UK PPL *VFR* requirement to be in sight of
> surface and that removal is valid everywhere where they have not added
> the "must be in sight of surface" requirement to the ICAO PPL (got
> that in writing from the CAA).
>

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 7:08:08 +0100, ShawnD2112 wrote
(in message >):

> Are you kidding? Have you ever tried to find an ANO reference for anything?
> I can't make heads or tails out of that silly document.
>
> You're much more technically correct that I intended to be. I was only
> trying to point out the original poster was in error about the IMC rating.

If you are referring to my post at 9:02 yesterday, then please go back and
read it again - I did NOT mention IMC rating or flying in IMC, only IFR !

IFR is not the same as IMC, you can easily fly IFR in VMC.

I wrote :

> Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR,
> and only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand
> that elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not
> allowed without a full IR.
>
> Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.

In hindsite I suppose I should qualify that statement as "Hence even night
flying requires an IR IN MANY COUNTRIES outside the UK." since I am aware
that the UK is not the only place that allows night flight without an IR.

Good point. I'll read more closely next time.

Shawn

"Simon Hobson" > wrote in message
et...
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 7:08:08 +0100, ShawnD2112 wrote
> (in message >):
>
>> Are you kidding? Have you ever tried to find an ANO reference for
>> anything?
>> I can't make heads or tails out of that silly document.
>>
>> You're much more technically correct that I intended to be. I was only
>> trying to point out the original poster was in error about the IMC
>> rating.
>
> If you are referring to my post at 9:02 yesterday, then please go back and
> read it again - I did NOT mention IMC rating or flying in IMC, only IFR !
>
> IFR is not the same as IMC, you can easily fly IFR in VMC.
>
> I wrote :
>
>> Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR,
>> and only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand
>> that elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not
>> allowed without a full IR.
>>
>> Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.
>
> In hindsite I suppose I should qualify that statement as "Hence even night
> flying requires an IR IN MANY COUNTRIES outside the UK." since I am aware
> that the UK is not the only place that allows night flight without an IR.
>

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 06:08:08 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
> wrote:

>Are you kidding? Have you ever tried to find an ANO reference for anything?
>I can't make heads or tails out of that silly document.
>
>You're much more technically correct that I intended to be. I was only
>trying to point out the original poster was in error about the IMC rating.
>
>Shawn
>
>"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "ShawnD2112" > wrote
>>
>>>You need an IMC rating to fly in IMC but it doesn't give
>>>you the full priveleges of an IR (Class A use, for instance). It is
>>>merely
>>>to teach you to fly in marginal weather.
>>
>> Do you have an ANO reference for the last sentence of the above?
>>
>> The IFR privileges of the UK IMC Rating are essentially those of the
>> JAA IR, but limited to the UK, no Class A, and 1800m min vis.
>> Everything else is an opinion; fair enough but it's just that.
>>
>> One can do perfectly safe fully-IFR flights, in solid IMC, with its
>> privileges. Just like the full IR, it needs currency and a suitable
>> aircraft and these cost serious time and money.
>>
>> Unfortunately it's no good outside the UK, for IFR.
>>
>> Its possession removes the UK PPL *VFR* requirement to be in sight of
>> surface and that removal is valid everywhere where they have not added
>> the "must be in sight of surface" requirement to the ICAO PPL (got
>> that in writing from the CAA).
>>
>

If you look at the ANO under Schedule 8 it gives the PPL privileges of
an IMC and Night Rating:
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2000/20001562.htm

As for Operating Mimima this is in the AIP under Aerodromes General
AD-1. In particular from section AD 1-1-6:
http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aerodromes/30101.PDF

As noted previously you may only wish to "fly in marginal weather" but
you can legally fly "fully-IFR flights, in solid IMC". The CAA may
wish to stress it's only to get you out of trouble but that is only
their recommendation.

I have an IMC rating and usually file IFR on longer flights in the UK,
especially as flights over the Cairngorm Mountains are rarely blue
skies! Sometimes I can get on top at FL70 to FL10. If only I could use
the IMC rating when on holiday..

David

LMAO! Good one!

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:WAyKe.5672$lK2.1846@trndny01...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>
>> Can't someone give the suicidal muslims alternate targets, like, umm...
>> bureaucrats?
>
> Nah... They're smart enough to realize who their allies are.
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Hey, this gives me an idea, the Aussies were selling an aircraft carrier a
year or two ago. STC a hook for small aircraft, park the thing a few miles
offshore, offer free ferry service to/from... in French-registered vessels!
That'll really **** them off. :)


"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
> David Lesher wrote:
>> Obviously, this change is necessary to keep all the terrorists with
>> N-registered airframes from sneaking away in IFR weather.
>>
>
> Naw, it keeps N registered airplanes from being flown over the ocean
> and used as weapons. The terrorists can't afford to learn to fly in
> the UK, like everyone else.
>

"Brian Whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:33:34 +0100, Peter >
> wrote:
>
>>
wrote
>>
>
>>There are two main reasons why people "go N".
>>
>>(1) To get worldwide IFR privileges - basically for European touring /
>>business flying.
>>
>>In the non-jet GA context, this is by far the most common reason. The
>>European route to this is the JAA IR which involves 1-2 years' study,
>>mandatory ground school, an additional hearing (audiogram) test where
>>*each* ear has to pass the -20db limit, and other stuff that's hardly
>>relevant to noncommercial GA flying.
> ///
>
> It was a while ago, but I did the UK IR ground school via an Oxford
> correspondence course.
> For a ground school this did not seem specially onerous.
> The UK flight component was another matter, it's true.


Just look at this exam application for the JAA / IRA.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FORSRG1151.PDF

Not only that you have to do it through an approved provider which could set
you back £1500 ($2,700) and as a FAA/IR holder I "only" have to do another
15 hours of training, and pass a mock checkride before getting to do the
actual checkride, and if you want to have a look at what is required to be
known for the IR exam on Air Law you can have a good laugh looking at this.

http://www.jaa.nl/licensing/jar-fcl/jar-fcl_ira_frame.html

If the situation were reversed would the US tolerate people
registering a/c overseas to dodge the US requirements?? No.

Even though the Brit requirements are ridiculous, they are their
prerogative. They should have put paid to offshoring registration years
ago. (Or else why not just do like shipowners and license in some
country like Liberia?)

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> If the situation were reversed would the US tolerate people
> registering a/c overseas to dodge the US requirements?? No.
>
> Even though the Brit requirements are ridiculous, they are their
> prerogative. They should have put paid to offshoring registration years
> ago. (Or else why not just do like shipowners and license in some
> country like Liberia?)

But there is a difference to Liberia and Panama as flags of convenience
registers.
In no way can the US be considered a flag of convenience registry in that
sense and as the biggest GA registry in the world it seems absurd that FAA
regs and licences are not "deemed to satisfy".

Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be quite
incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as anal
as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> If the situation were reversed would the US tolerate people
> registering a/c overseas to dodge the US requirements?? No.
>
> Even though the Brit requirements are ridiculous, they are their
> prerogative. They should have put paid to offshoring registration years
> ago. (Or else why not just do like shipowners and license in some
> country like Liberia?)
>

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote:
>"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> If the situation were reversed would the US tolerate people
>> registering a/c overseas to dodge the US requirements?? No.
>>
>> Even though the Brit requirements are ridiculous, they are their
>> prerogative. They should have put paid to offshoring registration years
>> ago. (Or else why not just do like shipowners and license in some
>> country like Liberia?)
>>
>Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
>government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be quite
>incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as anal
>as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.

Pardon, but the Liberian laws don't impose the onerous requirements
that your government has implemented, and even though the Liberian
government can be quite incompetent and pigheaded when they want to
be, they're not nearly as anal as the folks the US ship owners have to
deal with.


Tim
--
You are being watched. This gives you power.

> >>
> >Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
> >government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be quite
> >incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as anal
> >as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.
>
> Pardon, but the Liberian laws don't impose the onerous requirements
> that your government has implemented, and even though the Liberian
> government can be quite incompetent and pigheaded when they want to
> be, they're not nearly as anal as the folks the US ship owners have to
> deal with.

What are these onerous requirements?

I'm in the U.S., but I'm anti-globalist, and a heretic to boot-I
firmly believe GA here brought its own problems on itself and besides,
what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> > >>
> > >Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
> > >government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be quite
> > >incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as anal
> > >as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.
> >
> > Pardon, but the Liberian laws don't impose the onerous requirements
> > that your government has implemented, and even though the Liberian
> > government can be quite incompetent and pigheaded when they want to
> > be, they're not nearly as anal as the folks the US ship owners have to
> > deal with.
>
> What are these onerous requirements?

Minimum wage, OSHA, union rules, workman's comp, to name just a few?

FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates at
JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a ticket
for the JFK-LAX segment. Similarly, cruises to Alaska start in
Vancouver rather than Seattle because the ships are all registered
under flags of convenience.

-cwk.

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> If the situation were reversed would the US tolerate people
> registering a/c overseas to dodge the US requirements?? No.
>
> Even though the Brit requirements are ridiculous, they are their
> prerogative. They should have put paid to offshoring registration years
> ago. (Or else why not just do like shipowners and license in some
> country like Liberia?)

The best support for this would be that if UK pilots had no choice but
to put up with the UK regs, they'd have more incentive to fight to make
them tolerable rather than simply dodging them. The only problem with
this is that turning back a few decades of regulation is nigh on
impossible and thus capitulating in this area verges on the suicidal.

-cwk.

wrote:

> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>>>>Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
>>>>government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be quite
>>>>incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as anal
>>>>as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.
>>>
>>>Pardon, but the Liberian laws don't impose the onerous requirements
>>>that your government has implemented, and even though the Liberian
>>>government can be quite incompetent and pigheaded when they want to
>>>be, they're not nearly as anal as the folks the US ship owners have to
>>>deal with.
>>
>>What are these onerous requirements?
>
>
> Minimum wage, OSHA, union rules, workman's comp, to name just a few?
>
> FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
> carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates at
> JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a ticket
> for the JFK-LAX segment.

Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
(where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used
to refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country
allows it.

--
"You can support the troops but not the president"
--Representative Tom Delay (R-TX), during the Kosovo war.

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>>
>>>>>Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
>>>>>government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be
>>>>>quite
>>>>>incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as
>>>>>anal
>>>>>as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.
>>>>
>>>>Pardon, but the Liberian laws don't impose the onerous requirements
>>>>that your government has implemented, and even though the Liberian
>>>>government can be quite incompetent and pigheaded when they want to
>>>>be, they're not nearly as anal as the folks the US ship owners have to
>>>>deal with.
>>>
>>>What are these onerous requirements?
>>
>>
>> Minimum wage, OSHA, union rules, workman's comp, to name just a few?
>>
>> FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
>> carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates at
>> JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a ticket
>> for the JFK-LAX segment.
>
> Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
> (where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used to
> refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country allows
> it.

The UK allows it, that I do know. Its possible for example to buy a ticket
on say air India from London to New York, on a service that started in
Mumbai.

Chris wrote:

> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bret Ludwig wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
>>>>>>government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be
>>>>>>quite
>>>>>>incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as
>>>>>>anal
>>>>>>as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pardon, but the Liberian laws don't impose the onerous requirements
>>>>>that your government has implemented, and even though the Liberian
>>>>>government can be quite incompetent and pigheaded when they want to
>>>>>be, they're not nearly as anal as the folks the US ship owners have to
>>>>>deal with.
>>>>
>>>>What are these onerous requirements?
>>>
>>>
>>>Minimum wage, OSHA, union rules, workman's comp, to name just a few?
>>>
>>>FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
>>>carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates at
>>>JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a ticket
>>>for the JFK-LAX segment.
>>
>>Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
>>(where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used to
>>refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country allows
>>it.
>
>
> The UK allows it, that I do know. Its possible for example to buy a ticket
> on say air India from London to New York, on a service that started in
> Mumbai.

But that's not a "domestic" flight. It's not analogous to the NY-LA
situation described above.

wrote
> FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
> carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates
> at JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a
> ticket for the JFK-LAX segment. Similarly, cruises to Alaska start in
> Vancouver rather than Seattle because the ships are all registered
> under flags of convenience.

Eighth Freedom - This is also called cabotage and almost no country permits
it. Airline cabotage is the carriage of air traffic that originates and
terminates within the boundaries of a given country by an air carrier of
another country. An example of this would be an airline like Virgin
Atlantic Airways operating flights between Chicago and New Orleans.

Bob Moore

Peter wrote:

> xyzzy > wrote
>
>
>>Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
>>(where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used
>>to refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country
>>allows it.
>
>
> Isn't this called "cabotage"?
>
> It is legal in the EU, as of recently.
>

For anyone, or just carriers from other EU countries?

--
"You can support the troops but not the president"
--Representative Tom Delay (R-TX), during the Kosovo war.

Chris wrote:
> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote:
> >
> >> FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
> >> carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates at
> >> JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a ticket
> >> for the JFK-LAX segment.
> >
> > Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
> > (where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used to
> > refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country allows
> > it.
>
> The UK allows it, that I do know. Its possible for example to buy a ticket
> on say air India from London to New York, on a service that started in
> Mumbai.

This is not cabotage and is allowed in the US as well. I used to travel
from JFK to FRA frequently and you could often get a great deal on
Singapore Airlines (one of the world's best) because they would fly
JFK-FRA-SKG and while the FRA-SKG segment was always full there were
often a few dozen empty seats on the JFK-FRA leg which they would fire
sale for 1/3rd of the price on DL or LH.

Cabotage would be as for the example I gave above where the foreign
flight touches down in two or more US cities such as BKK-LAX-JFK, and
sells a ticket for the LAX-JFK segment. The only people this benefits
are US airlines, who at this point deserve only a little more sympathy
than French truck drivers. I supported the post-9/11 bailouts because
that was an extraordinary event and defense/nat'l security issues are
the most essential purpose of the whole federal shebang, but that's
behind us. The only people benefiting from the current system are
sleazebag airline execs who get paid millions to lose billions. Time to
let the free market sort things out, IMHO.

-cwk.

Bob Moore wrote:
> wrote
> > FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
> > carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates
> > at JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a
> > ticket for the JFK-LAX segment. Similarly, cruises to Alaska start in
> > Vancouver rather than Seattle because the ships are all registered
> > under flags of convenience.
>
> Eighth Freedom - This is also called cabotage and almost no country permits
> it. Airline cabotage is the carriage of air traffic that originates and
> terminates within the boundaries of a given country by an air carrier of
> another country. An example of this would be an airline like Virgin
> Atlantic Airways operating flights between Chicago and New Orleans.

Yes, and a rancid little bit of protectionism it is.

If permitted, the primary effect of cabotage in the US would likly be
on transcontinental flights, particularly where routes from LAX/SFO/SEA
to Europe run over the US northeast. Secondarily would be southeast
US-Asia routes which often cross over SEA. Passengers strongly prefer
direct flights and modern equipment means you can connect nearly any
city pair in the world if you can fill the seats. Of course, allowing
cabotage would open new opportunities, since you could take an A-380,
start in LAX, then JFK, thence CDG. Allowing the sale of tickets on the
LAX-JFK segment makes this a lot easier to pull off. Ultimately the US
consumer benefits as LAX-JFK tickets get cheaper, and there are more
flights from LAX and JFK to CDG.

Practically speaking, this is mostly an issue for the US since there
are very few other places where geography and politics intersects
properly. There is nothing preventing Delta from operating service from
FRA-LHR-JFK, and selling the FRA-LHR segment, except that passengers
going from FRA-JFK don't want to stop in London, even if it is a
marvelous city. The only other places I can think of where this would
really make sense would be Japan (Sapporo-Osaka) or China
(Beijing-Shanghai-Guangzhou). Everywhere else you go, you're crossing
national barriers and cabotage is no longer the obstacle.

Fair is fair, and if we allow this, we ought to lean on the EU and
other countries to allow US-owned/operated airlines more access to
local markets. Southwest or Scaretran would no doubt love to get in on
Japan, China, or Europe, and that would mean more Boeing airframes, GE
engines, and Rockwell avionics being made here.

-cwk.

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
>> (where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used
>> to refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country
>> allows it.
>
> The UK allows it, that I do know. Its possible for example to buy a ticket
> on say air India from London to New York, on a service that started in
> Mumbai.
>
>
>

Last time I checked, and I could be wrong but, aren't London and New York in
to different countries?

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> xyzzy > wrote
>
>>Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
>>(where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used
>>to refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country
>>allows it.
>
> Isn't this called "cabotage"?
>
> It is legal in the EU, as of recently.
>

Is it completely legal or just within the EU among EU airlines.

> calling it indeed the fifth freedom.

What are the first four freedoms? (and what are the ones after that?)

I've never heard the expression before.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

>> calling it indeed the fifth freedom.
>
>
> What are the first four freedoms? (and what are the ones after that?)
>
> I've never heard the expression before.

From:

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/chicago_conf/intro.html

These Five Freedoms of the Air are:

Freedom of peaceful transit.
Freedom of non-traffic stop (to refuel, repair, or refuge).
Freedom to take traffic from the homeland to any country.
Freedom to bring traffic from any country to the homeland.
Freedom to pick up and discharge traffic at intermediate points.

--
"You can support the troops but not the president"
--Representative Tom Delay (R-TX), during the Kosovo war.

karel wrote:
>
> But ISTR Varig carried people from Paris to Amsterdam
> on their DC10/MD11 coming from Brazil.

Since Paris and Amsterdam are in different countries, cabotage regulations
wouldn't apply.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Jose > wrote in news:

> What are the first four freedoms? (and what are the ones after that?)

From a web site:

Air transportation is different to most other forms of commerce, not
only because of its international components but also because of its
governmental participation and the fact that many national airlines or
'flag carriers' are either in large part government owned, or, even if
not, are felt by the government to reflect the prestige of their nation.
In addition, nations often feel that they can only rely on their locally
owned carriers to have a commitment to providing service to their own
country. This is unimportant if you're a small country in Europe with
excellent road and rail service to other countries, but if you're a
remote island in the Pacific, air service is essential.

And so, for reasons variously good or bad, international air travel has
long been subjected to all manner of complicated restrictions and
bilateral treaties between nations. One of the main treaties that sets
out the fundamental building blocks of air transportation regulation -
the 'rules of the road' - is the Chicago Convention in 1944.

These 'building blocks' are widely referred to as the "freedoms of the
air", and they are fundamental to the international route network we
have today. There are five basic freedoms that are, more or less,
recognized by all countries, two others less widely accepted, and one
hardly accepted at all.

Each is subject to specific conditions, such as establishing the
frequency of flights, that are determined through bilateral agreements
between any two of the countries that are parties to the Convention.

First Freedom - The right to fly and carry traffic over the territory of
another partner to the agreement without landing. (Almost all countries
are partners to the Convention but some have observed this freedom
better than others. When the Korean airliner lost its way over Soviet
air space a few year ago and was shot down, the Soviet Union (among
other offenses!) violated this First Freedom.)

Second Freedom - The right to land in those countries for technical
reasons such as refueling without boarding or deplaning passengers.

Third Freedom - The right of an airline from one country to land in a
different country and deplane passengers coming from the airline’s own
country.

Fourth Freedom - The right of an airline from one country to land in a
different country and board passengers traveling to the airline’s own
country.

Fifth Freedom - This freedom is also sometimes referred to as 'beyond
rights'. It is the right of an airline from one country to land in a
second country, to then pick up passengers and fly on to a third country
where the passengers then deplane. An example would be a flight by
American Airlines from the US to England that is going on to France.
Traffic could be picked up in England and taken to France.

Sixth Freedom - The right to carry traffic from one state through the
home country to a third state. Example: traffic from England coming to
the US on a US airline and then going on to Canada on the same airline.

Seventh Freedom - The right to carry traffic from one state to another
state without going through the home country. Example would be traffic
from England going to Canada on a US airline flight that does not stop
in the US on the way.

Eighth Freedom - This is also called cabotage and almost no country
permits it. Airline cabotage is the carriage of air traffic that
originates and terminates within the boundaries of a given country by an
air carrier of another country. An example of this would be an airline
like Virgin Atlantic Airways operating flights between Chicago and New
Orleans.

karel wrote:
>
> How so?

The situation that generated this discussion is called "cabotage." As Bob Moore
posted, it is defined as "the carriage of air traffic that originates and
terminates within the boundaries of a given country by an air carrier of another
country. An example of this would be an airline like Virgin Atlantic Airways
operating flights between Chicago and New Orleans."

Since Amsterdam and Paris are in different countries, cabotage regulations would
not apply. Allowing this sort of flight is not unusual.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
21...
> Jose > wrote in news:
>

>
> First Freedom - The right to fly and carry traffic over the territory of
> another partner to the agreement without landing. (Almost all countries
> are partners to the Convention but some have observed this freedom
> better than others. When the Korean airliner lost its way over Soviet
> air space a few year ago and was shot down, the Soviet Union (among
> other offenses!) violated this First Freedom.)

Using commercial airlines to spy for the US is a bit underhand too and runs
the risk of being shot down.

In article >,
"Chris" > wrote:

> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
> 21...
> > Jose > wrote in news:
> >
>
> >
> > First Freedom - The right to fly and carry traffic over the territory of
> > another partner to the agreement without landing. (Almost all countries
> > are partners to the Convention but some have observed this freedom
> > better than others. When the Korean airliner lost its way over Soviet
> > air space a few year ago and was shot down, the Soviet Union (among
> > other offenses!) violated this First Freedom.)
>
> Using commercial airlines to spy for the US is a bit underhand too and runs
> the risk of being shot down.


When was that confirmed? Not that it has never been done (by all sides).

What is the origin of the term "cabotage"?

Robin

In message <kh3Re.7748$wE1.6347@trndny01>, George Patterson
> writes
>karel wrote:
>> How so?
>
>The situation that generated this discussion is called "cabotage." As
>Bob Moore posted, it is defined as "the carriage of air traffic that
>originates and terminates within the boundaries of a given country by
>an air carrier of another country. An example of this would be an
>airline like Virgin Atlantic Airways operating flights between Chicago
>and New Orleans."
>
>Since Amsterdam and Paris are in different countries, cabotage
>regulations would not apply. Allowing this sort of flight is not
>unusual.
>
>George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

--
Robin Birch

Peter wrote:
> Robin Birch > wrote
>
>
>>What is the origin of the term "cabotage"?
>
>
> Probably French, like many aviation terms

from http://www.dict.org:

2 definitions found for cabotage

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

Cabotage \Cab"o*tage\, n. [F. cabotage, fr. caboter to sail
along the coast; cf. Sp. cabo cape.] (Naut.)
Navigation along the coast; the details of coast pilotage.
[1913 Webster]


From WordNet (r) 2.0 :

cabotage
n 1: the exclusive right of a country to control the air traffic
within its borders
2: navigation in coastal waters

Thanks, I was wondering whether it had anything to do with Cabot
(sailor).

Cheers

Robin

In message <1125523124.533860@sj-nntpcache-5>, Dave Butler >
writes
>Peter wrote:
>> Robin Birch > wrote
>>
>>>What is the origin of the term "cabotage"?
>> Probably French, like many aviation terms
>
>from http://www.dict.org:
>
>2 definitions found for cabotage
>
>From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :
>
> Cabotage \Cab"o*tage\, n. [F. cabotage, fr. caboter to sail
> along the coast; cf. Sp. cabo cape.] (Naut.)
> Navigation along the coast; the details of coast pilotage.
> [1913 Webster]
>
>
>From WordNet (r) 2.0 :
>
> cabotage
> n 1: the exclusive right of a country to control the air traffic
> within its borders
> 2: navigation in coastal waters
>

--
Robin Birch