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

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.

Olivier Demacon wrote:

> 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!
<...>
> 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.

what about a French citizen who is a US resident?

--Sylvain

Sylvain a écrit :
> Olivier Demacon wrote:
>
>> 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!
> <...>
>> 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.
>
> what about a French citizen who is a US resident?
>
> --Sylvain

No problem at all. This was done to stop French residing citizen to go
to the US, get there licence and fly in France. But if you reside
outside the US (since France cannot go against ICAO agreement!) you can
get your US licence validated in order to fly F registered aircrafts.

Olivier

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 ?

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)

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.

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.

"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

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.

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.
>