Bermuda Revokes Russian Airworthiness Certificates?

Forces the planes to be grounded. Loss of income, aggravation.
Just swatting at the Russians.
 
I regret posting it. I suspect another AI generated article. Seems over the top to me Bermuda has any capability to issue an airworthiness certificate of any kind.
 
kontiki said:
Seems over the top to me Bermuda has any capability to issue an airworthiness certificate of any kind.
Click to expand...
It's simply how the higher end aircraft leasing business works. You'll find a majority of those aircraft registered in Bermuda are owned by lease companies in Ireland. There are various reasons for this from tax structures, registration laws, asset protection issues, etc. Its been this way for some time with different host countries at times..
RyanShort1 said:
So, maybe one country will now prove that pieces of paper are not what makes airplanes safe or unsafe...
Click to expand...
But the AWC is how you prove to other countries that that your aircraft does meet a minimum standard per the Chicago Convention/ICAO. You'll find the vast majority of any ICAO country's civil aviation rules and laws (to include the FARs) are to meet these international conventions. Without them you can't move aviation assets outside the host country like Canadian owner-maintained aircraft and now any Russian operated aircraft to any of the other 180+ ICAO countries.
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
It's simply how the higher end aircraft leasing business works. You'll find a majority of those aircraft registered in Bermuda are owned by lease companies in Ireland. There are various reasons for this from tax structures, registration laws, asset protection issues, etc. Its been this way for some time with different host countries at times..

But the AWC is how you prove to other countries that that your aircraft does meet a minimum standard per the Chicago Convention/ICAO. You'll find the vast majority of any ICAO country's civil aviation rules and laws (to include the FARs) are to meet these international conventions. Without them you can't move aviation assets outside the host country like Canadian owner-maintained aircraft and now any Russian operated aircraft top any of the other 180+ ICAO countries.
Click to expand...

The Venn diagram between the laws of physics and the laws of bureaucracy rarely intersect.
 
Bell206 said:
But the AWC is how you prove to other countries that that your aircraft does meet a minimum standard per the Chicago Convention/ICAO. You'll find the vast majority of any ICAO country's civil aviation rules and laws (to include the FARs) are to meet these international conventions. Without them you can't move aviation assets outside the host country like Canadian owner-maintained aircraft and now any Russian operated aircraft to any of the other 180+ ICAO countries.
Click to expand...
I mean, I get that, but... you know as well as I do, that if my plane had a paper cert today and it got stolen out of the plane tomorrow, it's still a viable machine and nothing changed but the paper.
 
The revocation is published. Those planes can now be impounded anywhere in the world where they may be on the ground. An oligarch's plane arrived in UK, enroute to a southern resort, and was impounded. He had another problem, his palatial home in London had also been locked up.

There have been a small number of Russian charter companies with aircraft registered in Bermuda, and they have had their planes locked in place there.

Paperwork is just bureaucracy, but it can have teeth too.
 
Bell206 said:
True. But there are also aircraft flying around in a condition that invalidates that piece of paper as well. The AWC is simply part of the larger system whether the owner chooses to follow it or not.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the violence inherent in the system. Something perfectly good can be condemned, and something approved on paper, can be a deathtrap.
 
This move to withdraw airworthiness certificates was so big that it got Putin’s attention. He announced in response that Russia would just issue its own airworthiness certs and registrations for these leased airplanes.

I don’t know if that means expropriation of the property.

I suppose it does mean they will fly domestically until they can no longer be serviced. Which might not take long, since Airbus and Boeing have pulled out.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I mean, I get that, but... you know as well as I do, that if my plane had a paper cert today and it got stolen out of the plane tomorrow, it's still a viable machine and nothing changed but the paper.
Click to expand...

That's because your paper cert is backed by records at the FAA. Now if the FAA were to revoke your AWC, then legally you would have a very nice lawn decoration. Except in Russia, I suppose.
 
NoHeat said:
I suppose it does mean they will fly domestically until they can no longer be serviced. Which might not take long, since Airbus and Boeing have pulled out.
Click to expand...
FYI: given Russia has designed/built their own aircraft it would not take much for them to copy/produce any part requirement. And if by some chance they can't I'm sure the black market via China will provide a good supply of needed parts. Its worked for other countries with good success.
 
Ed Haywood said:
That's because your paper cert is backed by records at the FAA.
Click to expand...
No, it's because somebody did the engineering work and maintained manufacturing standards. The paper cert is an extortionist's method of quality control, but quality can exist outside of that system.
 
RyanShort1 said:
No, it's because somebody did the engineering work and maintained manufacturing standards. The paper cert is an extortionist's method of quality control, but quality can exist outside of that system.
Click to expand...

Ok, but how do you KNOW that somebody did the engineering work and maintained manufacturing standards?

If only there were a system to somehow "certify" that an aircraft had been designed and built to "airworthy" standards ...
 
Ed Haywood said:
Ok, but how do you KNOW that somebody did the engineering work and maintained manufacturing standards?

If only there were a system to somehow "certify" that an aircraft had been designed and built to "airworthy" standards ...
Click to expand...
Like the FAA and the 737MAX? Seems like integrity at the manufacturer is even more important than at the regulator… and besides, I’m also thinking of 40+ year old airplanes with proven track records.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Like the FAA and the 737MAX? Seems like integrity at the manufacturer is even more important than at the regulator… and besides, I’m also thinking of 40+ year old airplanes with proven track records.
Click to expand...

Thought experiment #1: would a lack of airworthiness regulations lead to less or more 737MAX-type events?

Thought experiment #2: if only 40+ year old airplanes can be deemed proven safe, how do new airplane types get to be 40 years old?
 
Ed Haywood said:
Thought experiment #1: would a lack of airworthiness regulations lead to less or more 737MAX-type events?

Thought experiment #2: if only 40+ year old airplanes can be deemed proven safe, how do new airplane types get to be 40 years old?
Click to expand...
You’re missing my initial point that these certs are being rescinded for purely political reasons. You know that as well as I do. There is nothing demonstrably wrong with any of those aircraft that caused the certs to be pulled. That airplane is just as safe now as it was when the cert said it was legal.
 
The real issue is that without that piece of paper, the planes will be locked down until this political war is over.

Airworthiness is not the issue at all. External pressure on a country, in the form of preventing that country from using their assets outside their own airspace, is a powerful tool.

Nationalizing the panes makes them only useful inside that country, and even then, the planes become un insured. The nationalizing country becomes responsible for compensating their actual owners for the value of those planes before the unpleasantness started. There are some presidents for requiring that payment to be made before the nationalizing nation can operate any of its ships outside their own waters, and the air rules are based on nautical rules.
 
RyanShort1 said:
You’re missing my initial point that these certs are being rescinded for purely political reasons. You know that as well as I do. There is nothing demonstrably wrong with any of those aircraft that caused the certs to be pulled. That airplane is just as safe now as it was when the cert said it was legal.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Or maybe Bermuda's explanation is legit.
 
RyanShort1 said:
You’re missing my initial point that these certs are being rescinded for purely political reasons. You know that as well as I do. There is nothing demonstrably wrong with any of those aircraft that caused the certs to be pulled. That airplane is just as safe now as it was when the cert said it was legal.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. The Bermudian authority could believe and make a legitimate case that without a supply of spare parts being available to Russia that the planes cannot possibly be maintained in an airworthy condition. It might be preemptive but who knows when one of the planes might need a part that cannot be obtained.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Maybe, maybe not. The Bermudian authority could believe and make a legitimate case that without a supply of spare parts being available to Russia that the planes cannot possibly be maintained in an airworthy condition. It might be preemptive but who knows when one of the planes might need a part that cannot be obtained.
Click to expand...
Wait, now you're getting way out in the weeds. If I don't have spare parts for my Luscombe, the cert doesn't get pulled automatically. That's still ridiculous and political. Why are you trying to dismiss that?
 
RyanShort1 said:
Wait, now you're getting way out in the weeds. If I don't have spare parts for my Luscombe, the cert doesn't get pulled automatically. That's still ridiculous and political. Why are you trying to dismiss that?
Click to expand...
I avoid the political out of respect for POA Rules of Conduct.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Wait, now you're getting way out in the weeds. If I don't have spare parts for my Luscombe, the cert doesn't get pulled automatically. That's still ridiculous and political. Why are you trying to dismiss that?
Click to expand...

It’s interesting that you use this as an example because in many (non-US) countries if a certified type doesn’t have a commercial, non-governmental ‘support’ organization doing business with owners in the country, that is exactly what happens: the CAA of that country pulls the type certificate. Typically this results in the type being operated in a non-ICAO ‘permit to fly’ regime that eliminates the owners right to use his certified type plane for commercial use, internationally or for flight training. That is exactly the situation for your Luscombe in many countries. Nice huh?
 
Tusayan said:
It’s interesting that you use this as an example because in many (non-US) countries if a certified type doesn’t have a commercial, non-governmental ‘support’ organization doing business with owners in the country, that is exactly what happens: the CAA of that country pulls the type certificate. Typically this results in the type being operated in a non-ICAO ‘permit to fly’ regime that eliminates the owners right to use his certified type plane for commercial use, internationally or for flight training. That is exactly the situation for your Luscombe in many countries. Nice huh?
Click to expand...
Ridiculous, mainly. Genuinely worthy of ridicule.
 
Yes, it’s completely nuts and also BTW, installing used parts on a certified type is nearly illegal under the same non-FAA regs because they have to be approved for service by a Repair Station with specific inspection approval for the parts in question.
 
Posted by a 747 pilot in Hong Kong.

"Was in HKG last week and during taxi in we heard an ABC asking Ground something (start up?).
Then ATC told the guy that the airplane was de-registered from Bermuda and the airplane was now grounded.."

That piece of paper does have value..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top