Can the orphaned ones keep flying and, if so, how? I see the Socata ST10 there, for example.
What I find interesting, is the rebate you get on annual fees for multiple TCs. Starting the 11th (in the same category), it becomes free. Also, there is a huuge gap between 1999kg and 2001kg MTOW (!)
Peter wrote:
In the UK, moving a particular type to Annex 2 has been heavily resisted by the CAA because it opens up more flexible maintenance, away from (what is today) Part M, and the CAA loses money (because the fees go to the LAA instead, unless you are looking at say a Spitfire which is on a CAA permit), and the Part M companies lose money (so they lobby hard under the table to block the moves, and the CAA obviously supports them).
And EASA has the same revenue stream protection incentives as any national CAA
Sorry Peter but you are wrong on this again. Annex 2 is not always LAA maintenance. Neither is it necessarily Permit to Fly.
Many Annex 2 types operate on National ARCs, for example the PA18-150 Super Cub. Basically it’s very similar to the old CAA LAMS arrangement. The CAA get fees from me on mine!
From 2004 to 2012 I owned a Bellanca 7GCBC Citabria. On German register. She was never an EASA aircraft but Annex 2. So no Part M maintenance program but the good old annual.
I wonder why she was under EASA regime in Sweden but not in Germany.
Sorry Peter but you are wrong on this again. Annex 2 is not always LAA maintenance. Neither is it necessarily Permit to Fly.
I don’t think I said anything to the contrary. I just simplified it, for the context which was why we have the long standing CAA policy of (their words, from a conference I went to years ago) “if it is capable of being on a CofA then it must be on a CofA”.
I am sure lots of people would be interested to hear what happens when EASA revokes a TC, which is what really matters in this case.
Also some years ago I went to a conference where one of the speakers was a guy from De Havilland who at the time were running a nice business taking over abandoned TCs. No idea if they are still going.
I just find it curious how so many gravy trains are maintained in European GA, supported by the same vested interests. What’s wrong with the FAA system? A big Q I know, but one doesn’t need to have FAA-style taxpayer funding of the national CAA to make the whole scene more user-friendly.
Peter wrote:
“if it is capable of being on a CofA then it must be on a CofA”.
And an Annex 2 aircraft can have a C of A, so, for example. the PA25 would be just the same as the PA18, on a national C of A.
I am sure lots of people would be interested to hear what happens when EASA revokes a TC.
Is there some consultation with possibly interested parties, to prevent the planes from being grounded?
What’s amazing to me is the continued existence of a system in which the property rights of individuals are held hostage to taxes being paid by third parties (the TC holders), many of whom are outside of the EU and have a little interest in the EU!
If taxation to ‘maintain’ the validity of the TC as a document can somehow be justified, why doesn’t the government tax individual EU register owners directly?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Orphaned airplanes are operated under Annex 2 if I understand this correctly.
Dimme wrote:
My understanding from the Swedish CAA representative message is that they don’t automatically become Annex II, this is something that EASA can do if they want, though highly unlikely.
Annex II lists a number of criteria for “Annex II” aircraft. Not having an EASA TC is not one of them, so it seems that Dimme is right.
On the other hand there are age criteria for when an aircraft is considered “historic” and thus automatically Annex II. The Basic Regulation is in the process of revision. I don’t know if these criteria will be updated, but that would be reasonable. If these criteria are moved 10 years (it being 10 years between the first version of the Basic Regulation and the revised one) then the PA-25 will automatically become Annex II.
I think what would be reasonable is eliminating the need for TC ‘support’ organization, and thereby eliminating the arbitrary and unfair process by which a certified aircraft owner has his property right removed.
