Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

EASA Intent to revoke TCs for PA-25, Bellanca, Champion 7 & 8 aircraft

I reckon most people deal with this sensibly by being N-reg

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

reopening this – I can´t find the TCDS of AMERICAN CHAMPION AIRCRAFT 7GCBC on EASA´s web page.
However it´s still show here – file updated in December 2018.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/download/easa-product-lists/EASA-PRODUCT-LIST-Small-Aeroplanes.pdf

Shall I improve my searching skills or something happened lately and there is no EASA TC anymore?

local copy – updated 2021

LKKU, LKTB

Silvaire wrote:

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?

Imagine an EU entity imposing direct taxation onto citizens around the world, flying EASA registered aircraft. I’m not aware of any EU organisation currently able to directly tax a private person, please correct me if I’m wrong. If this were to happen, this could be seen as the thin edge of the wedge, of the EU showing it’s true colours – taxing the population to the hilt. Much easier / less stressful to tax the owner of the TC….

EDL*, Germany

Mooney_Driver wrote:

IMHO, it should be illegal for any manufacturer to withdraw a TC he has achieved unless ALL airplanes have been taken out of service voluntarily. If I remember right, this was an issue in the US with the Beech Starship just to quote one.

Planes and engines manufactured by companies that went out of business 80 or more years ago are maintained within FAA standard C or A category. Go to Oshkosh and you’ll see lines of them in the antique area, all in standard category and nobody would ever think of changing that. The Annex II Blah, Blah, Whatever stuff is one of many examples of regulatory complexity breeding more complexity without any useful result.

I’m aware of Beech buying back all but five of the Starships, but I’m not aware of this regulatory issue existing under FAA rules. Once an aircraft is built and sold, an FAA TC serves to guide a direct relationship between the owner and government, laying out the ground rules for the owner to independently maintain his own aircraft, monitored annually via inspection by a government regulated A&P IA. There is no regulatory necessity for any commercial organization to exist in order for the owner to maintain his property. For light aircraft owned by you and I, no 8130s or other paperwork is required to install parts, used parts are fine if the A&P who installs them is happy, standard methods and data are used for most repairs (including those on the used parts!), owner produced parts can be reasonably easily approved, approved data for any really elaborate repair can be provided by any FAA designated engineering representative, and so on.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 01 May 22:47

The Starship was bought back reportedly to get out of the liability for supporting it with parts etc, and perhaps to get out of product liability. Reportedly, not all owners took advantage of the offer though; some kept them and were able to fly them legally.

As usual Silvaire hits the nail on the head from first principles in post #20 but that is not how things work over this side of the pond where approvals have been vested in various organisations and the income streams of these need to be protected… and the whole treadmill goes round and round, until the rat inside it drops dead through exhaustion.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

@Mooney_Driver, this also happened to Cessna CH-1 helicopter, although Cessna at least bought back the existing ones (or so they tell us).

LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic

Silvaire wrote:

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!

That puts it in a nutshell yes.

Airbus turned both Concorde and the Caravelle (and those are only those I do know of) into scrap metal by unilaterally withdrawing the TC of both, while 5 Caravelles were still in use. Those companies were robbed of their aircraft de facto. Which is one reason I will NEVER own a French made airplane where Airbus has their fingers in, as this could happen again. Ok, as the ST10 and some of the Rallyes demonstrates, it does not have the brutal effect it has on an airliner, but it does take a lot of value away. IMHO, it should be illegal for any manufacturer to withdraw a TC he has achieved unless ALL airplanes have been taken out of service volontarily. If I remember right, this was an issue in the US with the Beech Starship just to quote one.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

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.

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.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

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?

Last Edited by Silvaire at 01 May 15:25
27 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top