VFRFlight forum, Aviazione Generale, VDS, Ultraleggeri

Peter, I am afraid you opened a can of worms. The CAA are bullies, you know the monies we had to waste and the bother we had to endure when they compelled us to put all the Yaks on the british register. All this because the lituanians were not capable to face up to them. The ungarians instead have given them the finger and the Yak 18 have a full CoA and the Sukoy 29 as well.

Your only hope is taht the italian authorities threaten a tit for tat boycot of the british ULM. Good luck, mate!

By the way, if you are unsuccesfull, there will be a legal precedent for banning all italian ULM from UK airspace, this is something to think about for all of us. Guys, better find a way to help Peter!

they dont have a case there, and i doubt any half sane judge would consider their point. in principle, there is no law stating that foreign microlights cannot fly into uk airspace. in fact, there is a rule saying that you need to apply for a permission, therefore implying that is indeed legal to fly foreign registered microlights in UK. in the case, they can charge you with flying the a/c without the permission, for sure not for flying without CofA or PtF, because there is no such thing for italian registered ULM.

if it bothers them that italian ML dont have to undergo the silly, draconian CAA airworthiness rules, well too bad for them. remind them there is no longer an empire, and anyway italy was never part of it

c'e' mica nessuno che e' stato in UK in ultraleggero nell'ultimo anno e che puo' dimostrarlo? questo taglierebbe la testa al toro di fronte al giudice

certamente Pieri e Nuccio, con tanto di permesso regolarmente richiesto e concesso dalla CAA.

Il permesso pero' e' valido solo 28 giorni, e non mi pare che sia rinnovabile piu' di una volta all'anno, e' una sorta di "permesso di soggiorno temporaneo" per chi viene in visita in UK con mezzi senza un CofA standard.

Dice giusto quindi Peter, non ha volato senza CofA ma senza permesso, al limite, cosa che e' ben diversa.

Ciao, Luca

Peter, just my 2 cents.

The good news is that, if I'm not wrong, the Skyranger is an ULM provided with a "type certificate" against the BCAR-S so the fact that your specific ULM does not have a CoFA is an "administrative issue" as the "type" Skyranger is considered "airworthy" by CAA Microlight standards.

The bad news is that they are questioning the "continued airworthiness" of that specifica aircraft, for which, unfortunately, in Italy there is no paperwork stating it, as the Italian ULM are not subjected to periodic airworthiness revision. In other words, the continued airworthiness of an Italian ULM is completely under the responsibility of the owner and we don't have any paperwork that states that the ULM has been "maintained airworthy in accordance with its maintenance and inspection manuals". I believe that the entire process of the 28 days permission is exactly based on a sort of temporary "airworthiness certificate" to back up a not existing italian document.

I know that the case is pretty thin for CAA but with their legal power, I'm afraid they will stick to it until they win.

Well Guys the day of reckoning is getting ever closer and with it looking like I only have the AN52 to answer to which is not even in force nowadays (SUPERSEDED by GC747) I will know the outcome in a few days (court hearing 24th Sept @ 1120hrs)

My defence is only on the flight from Eddsfield to Eshott where the aircraft had been repaired after a minor modification, the airworthiness could be deemed questionable as the CAA hadn't signed off the repair,but then CAA don't sign maintenance for Italian aircraft so I guess I should just tell them vaffanculo!

I will keep you informed of the outcome (or maybe my lawyer will  >:(              ) 

do they have internet in the slammer?  8)

Crono...... Yes they do have Internet in the Slammer, but this guy wasn't going there  :P

For all the followers of this thread here is the outcome :

Finally I can put closure to a very long and drawn out concern I had that occurred from my importation of the Skyranger from Italy. I was questioned intensely about the airworthiness of this particular Skyranger by the CAA as I hadn't applied for the AN52 (TEMPORARY DOCUMENT TO FLY A FOREIGN AIRCRAFT IN UK AIRSPACE) and this actually came to the CAA wanting to take me to Court to answer about 6 summonses, which in the lead up to the Court Hearing was reduced to 3 summonses as 3 were disproven by correspondence whizzing backwards and forwards between PJK Headquarters and CAA Headquarters.

24th Sept was my day to take on the 'Goliath' called the CAA. Now my prospects were looking slightly 60/40 in their favour (rarely do the CAA go for a prosecution unless they are 80/20 sure of winning) but having sought aviation law advice both from UK aviation lawyers and an Italian Aviation Lawyer, I was given a fighting chance to win part or all of the cases. To summarise the entire morning in court I was there to answer charges of flying without a recognised certificate of airworthiness between Le Touquet and Little Snoring and flying between Skegness and Eddsfield and then Eddsfield and Eshott  ! (3 charges)

Instantly my defence was advantageous, I actually flew from Le Touquet to Little Snoring, Little Snoring to Fenland, Fenland to Skegness, Skegness to Eddsfield, Eddsfield to Eshott, Eshott to Latch Farm, Latch Farm to Tandragee. The CAA had obviously deemed the legs to/from Fenland and the leg from Eshott and the leg from Latch Farm to Tandragee as legal as no summonses were raised !! (Confusing eh ? )
NO NOT CONFUSING       :nono: Those legs were legs where I HADN'T BOOKED OUT ON AIRFIELD MOVEMENT SHEETS so they couldn't actually be proved as taking place  :shocked: So with all the other movement sheets showing my transits through these places showed I would be perceived to be conducting these flights in a manner that showed DUE DILIGENCE in my obligation to comply to Airfield regulations and this was reflected in the Court case and that I was considered to be operating legally by complying to sections of the ANO. The CAA looked like they were on shaky ground by only having my entries as records of these flights and without such records they had no proof of these flights ever taking place !!

Of the 3 summonses I was questioned in court about the allegations and proved due diligence was used to comply to the law to the best of my knowledge and the end result was that I was guilty of flying the aircraft without an entry to cover the repair in the logbook after my incident, thereby nullifying the Permit attached to the aircraft, The CAA applied for costs of an astronomical amount and the court looked upon them as excessive and the end result was I got fined £200 (which included the CAA costs and my fine) so all in all I was very lucky and boy was I glad the magistrates were 2 women and a man and I think the 2 females looked at my boyish good looks and thought "here is a honest man who just unknowingly broke the law and we will token fine him)   

But from now on I will always apply for an exemption, I learned a lot from this court battle, but not as much as the CAA did  ;D They now realise that they cannot bully the pilots anymore.... I won this battle conclusively.

...or that they have to do it in a smarter way ;)

Never underestimate the enemy.
Remember that a cornered enemy is a deadly enemy ;)

still, they have NO jurismydiction on foreign aircrafts, thats why they ultimately lost

I reckon that was a result , well done !