Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 13
By IMCR
#1849442
Its an option, but the airspace GA would like to largely operate in, is not above FL15. How many in GA carry oxygen certainly with capability to higher levels? How many have the performance much above? These are more often than not the limiting factors anyway, but the very useful climbs that can escape the poor weather at lower levels. Co-ordinating with CAT and a low level service would be a Godsend. I also think for much of the UK despite ATC protestations a reliable radar could be provided at these sort of levels without terrain and clutter issues.
By KevEv
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1849450
Irv Lee wrote:Sorry if already covered, I haven't fine-toothed every page, but this must be part 21 G reg only, surely? Not that it says so clearly.


No, it's any aircraft regardless of registration:

You need to follow the declaration process below before flying in UK airspace, regardless of the aircraft registration.
The declaration will allow you to fly until 21 December 2021, unless it is revoked.

(https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-indust ... -airspace/)

I'm not entirely sure the CAA actually have the legal power to do this; I'm no lawyer but surely the rules for operating an N-reg aircraft are set by the FAA, not the CAA. If the FAA are content that a US-registered (note, it does not mention UK-resident, so this is all N-reg's, not just those that live here) aircraft be piloted by an FAA registered pilot, my understanding is that it's legal to do so.

Using the CAA's logic, a UK-resident with an FAA licence couldn't fly from the US to the UK and then back. Even in an N-reg - which means, for example, a captain for American/Delta/etc would need to get their FAA ATPL validated by the CAA to operate American scheduled carrier flights if they happened to become UK resident (which, at 183 days per year, is not beyond the realms of possibility).
User avatar
By jakob1427
#1849494
Lockhaven wrote:What is the definition of living in the UK ?

Do any of the people possibly affected have dual passports.

Do you still have relatives in the USA.

Have you got a second home in either the USA or Europe.

:wink:


Residence in the UK is also a grey an area (if we're talking tax residence anyway, I don't know of any other definition in the law) and is something I've dealt with in the past. The UK has a "ties" system of residence whereby if you have purely no ties and no work in the UK it's the 183 day rule, but as soon as you have family, property, assets, previous tax ties or even what HMRC could deem "a place of stay" then you denote your time required to trigger residency status by a points based system (the highest number of points means that you could trigger UK residency by spending as little as 16-45 days in the UK in a given tax year)! The CAA have not seemed to clarify what they deem as residents but I suppose that would be a fun legal argument if it came down to proving it.

In terms of people affected such as myself, I do have a second passport to my UK one (Czech), however if I were to try to claim my residency status as being outside the UK then I would fall foul of this CAA Rule:

Guidance for visiting pilots, including FAA certificate holders not residing in the UK

You need to follow the declaration process below before flying in UK airspace, regardless of the aircraft registration.

This can allow you to fly for up to 28 days per calendar year, from 1 January until 31 December., as stated in the Aircrew Regulation. Pilots should try and declare as early as possible in the calendar year should they want to use the full 28 days permitted.


Which means I'd only get to fly in UK airspace for 28 days in a given calendar year, so pointless for me.

Also in terms of why I've kept my FAA licence for flying in the UK (I do not fly N-reg in the UK, just G-reg) - it's the same reason as @2Donkeys mentioned: the CAA/JAA/EASA system seems a horrendous mess of constant rule updates, needless costs and hoops to jump through, so I've been trying as hard as possible to not get caught up in that pond and trying to keep the utopia of having just one ICAO licence to fly globally (I fly in the US often too, so didn't want the pain of having two licences to keep current separately).
2Donkeys, Grelly liked this
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1849501
KevEv wrote:
Irv Lee wrote:Sorry if already covered, I haven't fine-toothed every page, but this must be part 21 G reg only, surely? Not that it says so clearly.


No, it's any aircraft regardless of registration:

(Had to edit the text below as I needed to correct an accidental negative, reversing a meaning):

Not worried about any other registration than G. This announcement is all encased in EU to UK references, and previous announcements with that sort of wording have only applied to what were Easa aircraft, now part 21. Tbe ANO, which covers non part 21 and allows it, unless specifically banned, and I am pretty sure any such ban would have to reference the ANO article. So I am not at all convinced this applies to someone with an FAA ppl in a syndicate non part 21 aircraft
Last edited by Irv Lee on Wed May 26, 2021 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
G-BLEW, Lockhaven, 2Donkeys and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By IainD
#1849526
What with this and the LAA/CAA spat in the permit maintenance world the CAA do seem determined to kill off any recreational flying!

What next ..all class A above 1000 feet?

Ive had an extra helping of pessimism today :)
By A4 Pacific
#1849565
I’ve just come across this article from 11 years ago from my all time favourite aviation writer Dick Collins:

https://airfactsjournal.com/2012/05/dicks-blog-whats-wrong-with-cirrus-pilots/

In it he gives an insight into a number of things I found of interest. One being the point mentioned by some here about the relative ease of acquiring an FAA Instrument rating, as opposed to a CAA one.

Start with the FAA. A while back the instrument rating requirements were drastically reduced making the rating both less expensive and potentially more lethal. This was in response to pressure from general aviation interests, especially AOPA.

The result is that we have instrument-rated pilots who are not at all prepared for instrument flying, especially in technically advanced airplanes. The training systems that have been developed do what training systems have always done: they prepare pilots for the FAA tests. A person with an instrument rating might know something about operating on an IFR flight plan but know nothing of cloud flying.

Why would this affect Cirrus pilots more than others?

From the beginning the Cirrus has been sold as a transportation machine. That relates to weather flying like the airlines do. So a new pilot, and many Cirrus pilots are relatively new, gets an instrument rating and is suddenly trying to do what infinitely more experienced pilots are doing with airliners. And there are two of those experienced pilots in the front end of every airliner.


The full article is well worth a read.
User avatar
By 2Donkeys
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1849567
I think the Cirrus is this generation's Bonanza. The Dr Killer of its day. Interestingly, if you analyse FAA accident statistics relating to deaths in TAAs, mishandling of flights in instrument conditions does not feature highly - tempting though it is to make the link.

The relative ease of the US IR probably has more to do with the ground exam (singular) rather than the flying, although there are noticeable differences in the test standards when compared to EASA (localiser and GS deviations for example). The FAA redeems themselves with the ATP flight test, which also contains a significant Instrument component to tougher standards than the EASA IR.

Dick Collins is a huge loss to aviation. My favourite writer too, and one who wrote a lot about IFR flight - which is unusual amongst the mounds written about aerobatics, grass strip flying etc etc
User avatar
By Human Factor
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1849572
My God. How have we allowed Delta, United and AA to operate into our airspace all these years if their crews aren’t suitably qualified (ATP differences noted)?

:shock:

:twisted:
By A4 Pacific
#1849573
My favourite writer too, and one who wrote a lot about IFR flight


I recall his beautiful Cessna 210. Pressurised and de-iced, but most importantly it had a good weather radar too! Bought from new and never owned by anyone else. He scrapped it rather than sell it on. An utterly consummate airman with the gift of communication.
2Donkeys, flybymike liked this
By A4 Pacific
#1849574
Human Factor wrote:My God. How have we allowed Delta, United and AA to operate into our airspace all these years if their crews aren’t suitably qualified (ATP differences noted)?

:shock:

:twisted:


I think you know the answer to that one JW! :roll: :lol:
User avatar
By G-BLEW
Boss Man  Boss Man
#1849578
2Donkeys wrote:The relative ease of the US IR probably has more to do with the ground exam (singular) rather than the flying, although there are noticeable differences in the test standards when compared to EASA (localiser and GS deviations for example).


On the flip side of that coin, the test route and the approaches that you will have to fly on the test are not known in advance. ISTR a whole bunch of approaches and holds coming in quick succession, including an unpublished DME/DME hold (There was only one DME and a combination of DME + GPS distance was allowed).

Ian
2Donkeys liked this
User avatar
By Iceman
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1849591
As a matter of interest, does this change also affect those pilots using an FAA licence to fly Isle of Man or CI-registered aircraft ?

Iceman 8)
User avatar
By 2Donkeys
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1849594
Iceman wrote:As a matter of interest, does this change also affect those pilots using an FAA licence to fly Isle of Man or CI-registered aircraft ?

Iceman 8)


I doubt it. In those examples, the CAA-equivalent for that registry validates the FAA (or other) licence and it is that validation which is the basis on which the aircraft is flown.
User avatar
By Iceman
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1849596
So why not ‘just’ transfer your aircraft to the 2-reg or do you have to be a resident there to do so ?

Your answer will represent a relief for at least one UK-resident friend who flies an M-reg PA46 on an FAA licence.

Iceman 8)
User avatar
By 2Donkeys
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1849598
The 2 reg is an option - but one which comes with its own family of issue-ettes. Purely from a personal standpoint, I expect to take the path of least resistance and get myself CAA PPL/IRed.
Iceman liked this
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 13