AirTalk.org

Peter · Guest

This has just been released. Well done to all those who lobbied.

Consultation on Foreign Registered Aircraft Based Permanently in the
UK

Government response

Introduction

1. I am writing to thank you for responding to the Department's
Consultation on the application of UK regulatory requirements to
foreign registered aircraft based permanently in the UK.

2. Our consultation paper of 1 August last year sought views on a
proposal to take steps to ensure that all privately operated aircraft
permanently based in the UK were operated under requirements
equivalent to those contained in the appropriate harmonised European
standards. We suggested that this might best be achieved through an
amendment to the Air Navigation Order (ANO) aimed at preventing
foreign registered aircraft (other than those registered in a state
subject to EASA's requirements) from being based in the UK by limiting
the time such aircraft could spend in the UK to perhaps 90 days in any
12 months.

3. Copies of the consultation paper were sent directly to
representative organisations and stakeholders (listed in Annex C of
the consultation document). It was also made available on the
Department's website in addition to being publicised by a number of
aviation magazines.

4. The closing date for responses was 28 October, although the
Department accepted a small number after that date. We received 299
responses in all from many different sources including private
citizens, Members of Parliament and the House of Lords, industry,
commerce, aviation associations and foreign aviation authorities.

Responses to the consultation

5. Responses received by the Department demonstrated widespread
opposition to the proposal to amend the Air Navigation Order to
prevent foreign registered aircraft from being based in the UK by
limiting the time such aircraft may remain in the country to perhaps
90 days in any one year. However, the Government has also taken note
of the many constructive responses suggesting that Government action
should instead focus on the reasons why people choose to place their
aircraft on the US register and on disincentives to UK registration.
Respondents emphasised in particular the perceived difficulty for
holders of private pilots' licences of achieving an Instrument Rating
in the UK under the prevailing JAR-FCL Instrument Rating requirements;
the costs and commercial disadvantages of placing aircraft on the UK
register; the relatively fewer aircraft and parts that are certified
by the CAA as compared to the FAA or other Authorities; and the
widespread recognition and acceptance of FAA licences and certificates
worldwide. The feeling among these correspondents was that rather
than Government introducing a limit on the activities of foreign
registered aircraft, incentives should be introduced for owners to
register their aircraft on the UK Register. Many respondents
suggested they would move their aircraft to the UK register should CAA
certification of aircraft and parts become more extensive and the
process of obtaining an Instrument Rating be made more readily
achievable.

Government response

6. The Government remains convinced that widespread flagging out
of aircraft based in the UK is undesirable and out of line with the
internationally accepted system of regulation of civil aviation
embodied in the Chicago Convention. Our objective remains that
aircraft based in the UK should be required to meet safety standards
acceptable within Europe and be subject to verification by the UK and
other European aviation authorities that they meet those standards.
Taking into account the responses to the consultation, however, and
while we will continue to monitor the operation of foreign registered
aircraft based here, we conclude that it would not be appropriate at
this time to introduce a requirement to place such aircraft on the UK
register or impose a time-limit on their activities. We have reached
this view in part because it appears to the Government that European
proposals published in November 2005 to extend the scope of common
European aviation safety rules may provide a better means of achieving
our objective in a proportionate way. Stakeholders have been
consulted generally on the proposal "to amend Regulation (EC) No
1592/2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and
establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency". This proposal
specifically amends the scope of the EASA Regulation to include a
category of aircraft registered in a third country and used into,
within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing
in the Community. Detailed implementing rules will be needed to give
force to this amendment and we would expect the Agency to consult
stakeholders on the details of their proposals at the appropriate
time.

7. Regarding the widespread desire for a simplified instrument
rating, the Government recalls that the current rating was established
by the JAA acting on the advice of experts from the national aviation
authorities of the JAA member States. Responsibility for future
changes will rest with EASA. The Government will support efforts by
EASA to address this issue, possibly through the provision of a
leisure pilots licence similar to the UK NPPL but recognised across
Europe. Respondents should note, however, that EASA will need to
establish instrument rating requirements that are appropriate for
European operations and weather conditions and that previous work by
experts indicates that requirements based on the FAA instrument rating
would not be acceptable for an instrument rating which gives access to
class A airspace.

[The last sentence is particular shows the astonishing ignorance of
the UK aviation legislators - but they are being advised by the UK
CAA...]

NoSpam · Guest

Peter wrote:

Peter · Guest

NoSpam <nomail (AT) hursley (DOT) ibm.com> wrote:

NoSpam · Guest

Peter wrote:

Peter · Guest

NoSpam <nomail (AT) hursley (DOT) ibm.com> wrote

Simon Hobson · Guest

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 15:56:51 +0000, Peter wrote
(in message <u8v3l25g79slh8ng3bu7bhpfs0g1i0orlm (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>):

Peter · Guest

Simon Hobson <simonsnews (AT) thehobsons (DOT) codotuk> wrote:

Barney Rubble · Guest

This bit sums up all that is wrong with European flying :-

"Respondents should note, however, that EASA will need to establish
instrument rating requirements that are appropriate for European operations
and weather conditions and that previous work by experts indicates that
requirements based on the FAA instrument rating would not be acceptable for
an instrument rating which gives access to class A airspace."

Or to put it another way, the US IR is a piece of crap, and we want to
defend our own little fifedom and make "our" pilots jump through many many
more hoops to exercise the same privilages. Get with it Europe, there are
1000's of FAA IR pilots doing this everyday in the EU Alpha airspace, at the
sharp end of some big birds, so what EXACTLY is not acceptable? Oh and since
when did Europe have worse WX than the US? Total and utter BS.