If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 ? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 ? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 8:22:48 +0100, Peter wrote
(in message ): The structure of European airspace, and its weather in many places, are such that without an IFR capability one can't usefully go anywhere. In the UK there is the IMC Rating; effectively an IR limited to below Class A. This means an IR is not strictly needed for flying purely around the UK. We do have Class A down to 2500ft, and even surface, in a lot of places, but in general one can fly under/around it. In Europe it's different. Any IMC requires a full IR, and that (flying usefully into Europe, doing instrument approaches and departures) is why people do the IR. And the FAA IR is the only one that's realistically attainable for most pilots that have work to do. Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed without a full IR. Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Simon Hobson" wrote in message et... On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 8:22:48 +0100, Peter wrote (in message ): The structure of European airspace, and its weather in many places, are such that without an IFR capability one can't usefully go anywhere. In the UK there is the IMC Rating; effectively an IR limited to below Class A. This means an IR is not strictly needed for flying purely around the UK. We do have Class A down to 2500ft, and even surface, in a lot of places, but in general one can fly under/around it. In Europe it's different. Any IMC requires a full IR, and that (flying usefully into Europe, doing instrument approaches and departures) is why people do the IR. And the FAA IR is the only one that's realistically attainable for most pilots that have work to do. Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed without a full IR. Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK. The French allow night VFR, pretty restrictive though, see http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv....0ENR%201.2.pdf Rgds Andy R |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Andy R" wrote in message ... "Simon Hobson" wrote in message et... On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 8:22:48 +0100, Peter wrote (in message ): The structure of European airspace, and its weather in many places, are such that without an IFR capability one can't usefully go anywhere. In the UK there is the IMC Rating; effectively an IR limited to below Class A. This means an IR is not strictly needed for flying purely around the UK. We do have Class A down to 2500ft, and even surface, in a lot of places, but in general one can fly under/around it. In Europe it's different. Any IMC requires a full IR, and that (flying usefully into Europe, doing instrument approaches and departures) is why people do the IR. And the FAA IR is the only one that's realistically attainable for most pilots that have work to do. Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed without a full IR. Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK. The French allow night VFR, pretty restrictive though, see http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv....0ENR%201.2.pdf There are also other things things that make it not impossible to get about without an IR. ie you can fly VFR in most French airways provided you're not in cloud, and you don't need to be in sight of the surface. So if you can find a hole to go up through and it's scattered or better at your destination on occasions you're actually better off than in the UK with an IMC because you can use the airways. Rgds Andy R |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | June 2nd 04 07:17 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | May 1st 04 07:29 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 2 | February 2nd 04 11:41 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |