UK planning to evict N-registered aircraft

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/...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
roups.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.