FAA Training in the UK: the legalities
"It should be noted that the Department is currently reviewing the legislation affecting the use of foreign registered aircraft in the UK. It is possible that the legislation may be amended to prevent foreign registered aircraft which are not involved in commercial air transportation from being permanently based in the UK."
A most interesting statement - it would seem to indicate that N-reg non-CAT aircraft will perhaps have to be transferred to UK registrations. Would such a proposal require a Reguatory Impact Assessment?
A most interesting statement - it would seem to indicate that N-reg non-CAT aircraft will perhaps have to be transferred to UK registrations. Would such a proposal require a Reguatory Impact Assessment?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would such a proposal require a Reguatory Impact Assessment?
I doubt it.
They will most likely say that the rules would have no impact on UK aircraft.
There is no requirement to complete a RIA for requirements that affect only aircraft that are not part of the UK fleet.........the only requirement would be to remain within ICAO convention and not causing problems for the other country.
Since the USA requires G registered aircraft based there for more than 6 months to be transfered to the N register, the UK would simply be applying a reciprocal requirement.
regards,
DFC
I doubt it.
They will most likely say that the rules would have no impact on UK aircraft.
There is no requirement to complete a RIA for requirements that affect only aircraft that are not part of the UK fleet.........the only requirement would be to remain within ICAO convention and not causing problems for the other country.
Since the USA requires G registered aircraft based there for more than 6 months to be transfered to the N register, the UK would simply be applying a reciprocal requirement.
regards,
DFC
There is no requirement to complete a RIA for requirements that affect only aircraft that are not part of the UK fleet.........
RIAs should be carried out for all policy changes, whether European or domestic, which could affect the public or private sectors, charities, the voluntary sector or small businesses.
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regu.../ria/index.asp
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RIAs should be carried out for all policy changes, whether European or domestic, which could affect the public or private sectors, charities, the voluntary sector or small businesses.
Public Sector - There is no public sector organisation in the UK or Europe responsible for US aircraft. The FAA is a US based organisation.
Private Sector - There are no UK or European private sector owners of US registered aircraft. US regulations require US aircraft to be owned by US citizens or US organisations who are owned by US citizens. The fact that many UK people use off shore trusts to get round US laws is a matter for them and the US legislature not for the UK Government.
Charities - Charities will not be affected - see requirements of Charity Flights AIC
The Voluntary Sector - Will not be affected by any change. - Show me a voluntary instructor these days!
Small Business - No UK or European small business are actual owners of US registered aircraft - see private sector.
There would be one effect of such a move - UK regulators would once again have regulatory control of all aircraft based long term (over 6 months) in the UK.......and most members of the public would see this as right and proper.
Thus while it may not seem fair or nice especially to people who have N reg aircraft - they can I believe change the rules without an RIA.
After all they simply have to cite - the US requires G reg aircraft to be transfered to the N register after 6 months based in the USA - the UK is simply making a level playing field.
No doubt there is part of the ICAO Convention that would back up such a move.
Regards,
DFC
Public Sector - There is no public sector organisation in the UK or Europe responsible for US aircraft. The FAA is a US based organisation.
Private Sector - There are no UK or European private sector owners of US registered aircraft. US regulations require US aircraft to be owned by US citizens or US organisations who are owned by US citizens. The fact that many UK people use off shore trusts to get round US laws is a matter for them and the US legislature not for the UK Government.
Charities - Charities will not be affected - see requirements of Charity Flights AIC
The Voluntary Sector - Will not be affected by any change. - Show me a voluntary instructor these days!
Small Business - No UK or European small business are actual owners of US registered aircraft - see private sector.
There would be one effect of such a move - UK regulators would once again have regulatory control of all aircraft based long term (over 6 months) in the UK.......and most members of the public would see this as right and proper.
Thus while it may not seem fair or nice especially to people who have N reg aircraft - they can I believe change the rules without an RIA.
After all they simply have to cite - the US requires G reg aircraft to be transfered to the N register after 6 months based in the USA - the UK is simply making a level playing field.
No doubt there is part of the ICAO Convention that would back up such a move.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are no UK or European private sector owners of US registered aircraft.
How about dual citizens? Plenty of holes in the rest of your rebuttals. "which could affect" is quite broad, could include the UK citizen who has a job washing an N-reg plane.
So is there a list of UK instructors with both JAA/CAA and FAA ratings?
How about dual citizens? Plenty of holes in the rest of your rebuttals. "which could affect" is quite broad, could include the UK citizen who has a job washing an N-reg plane.
So is there a list of UK instructors with both JAA/CAA and FAA ratings?
Private Sector - There are no UK or European private sector owners of US registered aircraft. US regulations require US aircraft to be owned by US citizens or US organisations who are owned by US citizens. The fact that many UK people use off shore trusts to get round US laws is a matter for them and the US legislature not for the UK Government.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the case of the Guy who washes N reg aircraft - would the changing of the registration from N to G change the washing requirements?
Organisations who exclusively deal with N reg aircraft safely eg maintenance organisations must have the technical skills and knowledge to maintain the same aircraft to the required safety standards..........or are you saying that N reg aircraft are maintained to a lesser standard or that the maintenance engineers are less qualified?
I think that the only companies who will loose out are those that set up off-shore trusts etc...........many of which are based outside the UK in the Channel Islands.
Personally I don't think that pilots who operate on FAA licenses would have any difficulty meeting JAA standards.........if they can't then it would only bolster an argument that the current situation is dangerous.
Similarily, maintenance engineers would be able to demonstrate competence and knowledge to an acceptable level........again unless they are assisting the argument that the current situation is dangerous.
Thus as I see the situation, N reg operators are unfortunately caught in a corner.......say that they can and do easily meet European safety requirement and the authorities can simply say where is the problem?..........if on the other hand they say that they will have problems meeting European requirements and the authorities have the evidence they want to push through the changes on safety grounds.
Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't situation.
Regards,
DFC
Organisations who exclusively deal with N reg aircraft safely eg maintenance organisations must have the technical skills and knowledge to maintain the same aircraft to the required safety standards..........or are you saying that N reg aircraft are maintained to a lesser standard or that the maintenance engineers are less qualified?
I think that the only companies who will loose out are those that set up off-shore trusts etc...........many of which are based outside the UK in the Channel Islands.
Personally I don't think that pilots who operate on FAA licenses would have any difficulty meeting JAA standards.........if they can't then it would only bolster an argument that the current situation is dangerous.
Similarily, maintenance engineers would be able to demonstrate competence and knowledge to an acceptable level........again unless they are assisting the argument that the current situation is dangerous.
Thus as I see the situation, N reg operators are unfortunately caught in a corner.......say that they can and do easily meet European safety requirement and the authorities can simply say where is the problem?..........if on the other hand they say that they will have problems meeting European requirements and the authorities have the evidence they want to push through the changes on safety grounds.
Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't situation.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
In the case of the Guy who washes N reg aircraft - would the changing of the registration from N to G change the washing requirements?
Might do, washing is reasonably discretionary. If costs go up due to additional G-reg regulatory requirements the owner of the plane may decide to wash it himself. That's if he doesn't say 'sod this' and fly the plane back to the US and sell it. A RIA would supposedly look at all the questions neither you or I know the answers to. So you accept UK citizens can legally own an N-reg now?
So where do we find a list of CAA/JAA instructors with FAA ratings so I can get my upcoming BFR done over here? Otherwise I will just get it done next time I am in the States, will probably be cheaper, and some UK instructor will not get some cash. Another loss of money to UK aviation from these changes?
In the case of the Guy who washes N reg aircraft - would the changing of the registration from N to G change the washing requirements?
Might do, washing is reasonably discretionary. If costs go up due to additional G-reg regulatory requirements the owner of the plane may decide to wash it himself. That's if he doesn't say 'sod this' and fly the plane back to the US and sell it. A RIA would supposedly look at all the questions neither you or I know the answers to. So you accept UK citizens can legally own an N-reg now?
So where do we find a list of CAA/JAA instructors with FAA ratings so I can get my upcoming BFR done over here? Otherwise I will just get it done next time I am in the States, will probably be cheaper, and some UK instructor will not get some cash. Another loss of money to UK aviation from these changes?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This argument is heading off down rather odd lines.
The simple truth is, people by-and-large opted for the N-reg because the FAA system allowed them to obtain a cost-effective and simple Instrument Rating. This rating could only be exercised to the full in an N-reg.
If reciprocity is what we are after with the US, then JAA should accept the FAA IR at face value for the purposes of granting IFR privileges on a JAA licence. If this was too much to bear, the additional restriction could be imposed that such an IFR qualification could not be used for commercial ops.
Taking this simple step would take all of the desirabilty out of being on the N overnight, and the N-reg fleet would come back into the fold without a fight.
But, I fear that this move would be opposed not only by JAA, but also by our own flight training establishment and AOPA. After all, it would destroy a chunk of the domestic flight training market.
2D
The simple truth is, people by-and-large opted for the N-reg because the FAA system allowed them to obtain a cost-effective and simple Instrument Rating. This rating could only be exercised to the full in an N-reg.
If reciprocity is what we are after with the US, then JAA should accept the FAA IR at face value for the purposes of granting IFR privileges on a JAA licence. If this was too much to bear, the additional restriction could be imposed that such an IFR qualification could not be used for commercial ops.
Taking this simple step would take all of the desirabilty out of being on the N overnight, and the N-reg fleet would come back into the fold without a fight.
But, I fear that this move would be opposed not only by JAA, but also by our own flight training establishment and AOPA. After all, it would destroy a chunk of the domestic flight training market.
2D
Last edited by 2Donkeys; 27th Apr 2005 at 21:27.
Well, why not use any DfT requirement to transfer N-reg to G-reg in 6 months as the bludgeon with which to clout the CAA/JAA/EASA into making the IR easier to achieve?
Personally I think that the IR should be easier to achieve - and a CPL perhaps made more demanding so. The CAA, quite wrongly, seems to use the IR Skill Test as the last filter for a pilot wanting to work for the airlines to demonstrate his/her suitability. Am I missing something here? Surely an IR should be proof of ability to fly on instruments to the required standard - and the CPL Skill Test should prove fitness to operate in a commercial environment.
Then introduce a FI Rating which includes the right to give remunerated instruction up to the licence level which the pilot holds - and we could have PPL, then PPL/IMC, then PPL/FI, then PPL/IR and finally CPL/IR........
Personally I think that the IR should be easier to achieve - and a CPL perhaps made more demanding so. The CAA, quite wrongly, seems to use the IR Skill Test as the last filter for a pilot wanting to work for the airlines to demonstrate his/her suitability. Am I missing something here? Surely an IR should be proof of ability to fly on instruments to the required standard - and the CPL Skill Test should prove fitness to operate in a commercial environment.
Then introduce a FI Rating which includes the right to give remunerated instruction up to the licence level which the pilot holds - and we could have PPL, then PPL/IMC, then PPL/FI, then PPL/IR and finally CPL/IR........
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said BEagle.
Perhaps a RIA would be used to demonstrate how expensive having a G as opposed to an N reg on an aircraft is and where those expenses occur. Obvously, the owners of N reg aircraft pay the same for compulsuary insurance, AVgas, oil, replacement parts etc and thus the result of such an investigation would be very telling for the CAA and the DfT..........another reason why they will avoid having one if at all possible!!
What about operators using EASA registered aircraft eg D or F. They can be based here for as long as the owner likes. Can they be used for training? If not does that not go against the free movement of people and services within the EU?
Regards,
DFC
Perhaps a RIA would be used to demonstrate how expensive having a G as opposed to an N reg on an aircraft is and where those expenses occur. Obvously, the owners of N reg aircraft pay the same for compulsuary insurance, AVgas, oil, replacement parts etc and thus the result of such an investigation would be very telling for the CAA and the DfT..........another reason why they will avoid having one if at all possible!!
What about operators using EASA registered aircraft eg D or F. They can be based here for as long as the owner likes. Can they be used for training? If not does that not go against the free movement of people and services within the EU?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The anti-N-reg argument cannot be made on the grounds of safety, because the data from the USA shows there isn't a safety issue with the FAA IR regime and the FAA maintenance regime.
The FAA maintenance regime doesn't differ much from the CAA Private CofA, anyway.
The real problem the Europeans have is that they have created empires by gold plating everything, done so in the name of safety, but nobody in charge has spotted the fact that they have no data supporting the gold plating.
Now, they are in a hole because they would like to recover some of the licensing revenue which they are not getting from N-reg operators, but they can't do much about it because if they do, all sorts of people are going to raise the question as to WHY. And there is no defence to it because there is no data supporting the safety argument.
Is isn't enough to say "we Europeans have stricter standards than the Americans, therefore the American standards are inadequate" !!!! My 9 year old would spot that one.
UK based N-reg planes do not contravene the FARs, they don't contravene the ANO, they are therefore legal and no argument can be made against N on the basis of legality (because they ARE legal). Any move against them will be seen for what it must be, which is a revenue raising measure.
No argument can be made for lack of regulatory oversight, either, because there is no data supporting a claimed reduction in safety.
The best thing is to leave the status quo.
Incidentally, does anyone have a reference for the FAA requirement to go N after 6 months, if sitting on the tarmac in the USA?
Finally, ANO article 115 applies to all non-G-reg planes, so one cannot run e.g. a flying school using D- or F-reg planes. The DfT permission, which is currently granted only for the owner getting training and subject to various other conditions, is required for N- F- D- and every other reg other than G.
The FAA maintenance regime doesn't differ much from the CAA Private CofA, anyway.
The real problem the Europeans have is that they have created empires by gold plating everything, done so in the name of safety, but nobody in charge has spotted the fact that they have no data supporting the gold plating.
Now, they are in a hole because they would like to recover some of the licensing revenue which they are not getting from N-reg operators, but they can't do much about it because if they do, all sorts of people are going to raise the question as to WHY. And there is no defence to it because there is no data supporting the safety argument.
Is isn't enough to say "we Europeans have stricter standards than the Americans, therefore the American standards are inadequate" !!!! My 9 year old would spot that one.
UK based N-reg planes do not contravene the FARs, they don't contravene the ANO, they are therefore legal and no argument can be made against N on the basis of legality (because they ARE legal). Any move against them will be seen for what it must be, which is a revenue raising measure.
No argument can be made for lack of regulatory oversight, either, because there is no data supporting a claimed reduction in safety.
The best thing is to leave the status quo.
Incidentally, does anyone have a reference for the FAA requirement to go N after 6 months, if sitting on the tarmac in the USA?
Finally, ANO article 115 applies to all non-G-reg planes, so one cannot run e.g. a flying school using D- or F-reg planes. The DfT permission, which is currently granted only for the owner getting training and subject to various other conditions, is required for N- F- D- and every other reg other than G.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I widen this slightly.
A FAA CFI wishes to carry out a PPL BFR for a private owner in the UK on a G-Reg.
No remuneration is going to take place; in fact the FAA CFI intends to pay for half of the flight costs.
He is therefore technically not working, merely using the privileges of his FAA CFI, in the same way that a UK PPL FI (non CPL) would teach for no reward.
Moral and/or ethical considerations aside, is this legal?
2close
A FAA CFI wishes to carry out a PPL BFR for a private owner in the UK on a G-Reg.
No remuneration is going to take place; in fact the FAA CFI intends to pay for half of the flight costs.
He is therefore technically not working, merely using the privileges of his FAA CFI, in the same way that a UK PPL FI (non CPL) would teach for no reward.
Moral and/or ethical considerations aside, is this legal?
2close
Last edited by 2close; 5th Oct 2005 at 11:20.
