Getting back into flying (should one go N-reg now, etc)

The CAA was apparently one of the biggest proponents of the anti-FAA rule so I think people are naive if they think this issue will be better after Brexit.

But I have waitied and continue to do so and now after four years it is still delayed. I suggest flying on the FAA certificate and if they decide that this time it really is going to happen do the checkride and get an EASA IR.

vmc-on-top wrote:

I’ve glanced through Peters website and a couple of threads on here and read that Brexit would immediately halt any likelihood of the CAA enforcing the “non-EU-based-operator-flying-N-reg-nonsense”.

I think we can say this is a very subjective standpoint and a result of wishful thinking. Nobody will know until after the negotiations.

There is a “Brexit” thread here which contains links to other stuff.

The main “EASA FCL derogation” thread is here

The CAA was apparently one of the biggest proponents of the anti-FAA rule so I think people are naive if they think this issue will be better after Brexit.

Historically it was the DfT; the CAA normally said they are neutral on it. I was a very close follower of it over the years. The French proposed a 90 day parking limit in 2004 (which got killed in “French political fashion” soon after, with the guillotining of some junior public servant, when it was realised it was completely mad ( = Dassault, the owner of the French Govt, would lose a lot of sales)) and the UK proposed the same in 2005 and managed to run with it for a year before killing it.

The later project within EASA which led to the EASA FCL “EU based operator” has been widely reported as a private project by four individuals. I don’t know if they are still there but it got dug in so deep that nobody is able to climb down now without a massive loss of face.

Also most countries don’t want to be overrun by a large N-reg population. Europe already has lots of N-regs (most of the PPL IFR community is N-reg) but it has stopped growing, due to various bits of EASA regs getting easier and due to the FAA route getting harder, especially with the damage done to the checkride options.

read that Brexit would immediately halt any likelihood of the CAA enforcing the “non-EU-based-operator-flying-N-reg-nonsense”.

I suspect the project will eventually get kicked into the long grass, but nobody knows, and the whole point of the way it WILL be done is that nobody knows, so with apologies to Donald Rumsfeld, this will always be an unknown unknown

Of course all those who are upset about the Brexit vote will wish the UK to collapse and become a 3rd World country (anybody on facebook??) but that’s wishful thinking too. The UK is big enough and ugly enough to stand up on its own. The CAA has stated they will follow EASA regs (there is a thread here with the reference) but some of the EU legislation will self evidently no longer apply automatically as it does presently.

As a matter of interest, how many people have gone down the route of getting an EASA IR as an insurance policy

I did it in 2011. I did the then 15hr ICAO IR conversion route, with various trials and tribulations, having got shafted over by one crazy FTO (no longer around). I even bought an Ipad to do the computer revision. That writeup is actually not far off for somebody doing an ab initio CB IR today; most of the “logistical” and political stuff has not changed. I passed the IR in early 2012, revalidated it a couple of times and then stopped. I think my 7 exam passes will be lost after 7 years of not revalidating but the ICAO IR to CB IR conversion route doesn’t need any exams anyway (it is oral + checkride).

I know of assorted others who did the JAA IR conversion but it is probably no more than 50-100 in all of the UK, and that includes a famous group of about 30 who did it en-masse and most of whom never used it afterwards.

My plans were left off at, being a UK based pilot, N-reg was still the way to go as an owner. With a piggy-back 61.75 PPL and an FAA IR, that was clearly the most pragmatic solution?

I would still go N-reg today. It is a wonderful system, with freedom from all kinds of crap. The IR has a 6/6m rolling currency so is easy to keep valid. N-reg isn’t for everyone though. It is not suited to people who want to drop their plane at the shop with a key and a blank cheque on the seat and don’t want to get involved (the majority of owners). And you need to get an A&P/IA to do your plane, you need BFRs, etc. It’s a good system for pro-active owners, especially with access to a hangar where maintenance is permitted.

Peter wrote:

Also most countries don’t want to be overrun by a large N-reg population. Europe already has lots of N-regs (most of the PPL IFR community is N-reg) but it has stopped growing, due to various bits of EASA regs getting easier and due to the FAA route getting harder, especially with the damage done to the checkride options.

I would confirm this.

I am also starting to see FAA reg’d going “back” to EASA reg, particularly Flight Schools.

I work with one in France that has “exported” (moved from FAA reg to F reg) 5 of the 7 aircraft that they had on N reg in their fleet.

On one, they were unable to put on EASA reg the particular serial number of this model NOT being on the EASA TCDS .

I would also say that the DARs are getting much more difficult, particularly with older planes.Clearly, there is a sense that “people” are making it difficult for poorly maintained planes to be simply “exported” to FAA reg, which is completely understandable.

I am also starting to see FAA reg’d going “back” to EASA reg, particularly Flight Schools.
I work with one in France that has “exported” (moved from FAA reg to F reg) 5 of the 7 aircraft that they had on N reg in their fleet.

That’s really interesting because this would not have been possible in any other European country I know of. In the UK you would never be able to event think of starting a flying school with an N-reg plane.

I wonder if they had to maintain them under Part M and flown by DGAC licensed pilots only?

I would also say that the DARs are getting much more difficult, particularly with older planes.Clearly, there is a sense that “people” are making it difficult for poorly maintained planes to be simply “exported” to FAA reg, which is completely understandable.

The idea that you could put a piece of wreckage onto the N-reg used to be popularly quoted but it was never true in the time I have been flying. The DARs have always been incredibly fussy.

We had this before. Whether N-regs can be used for primary EASA training in Europe was and still is highly country (read: CAA) specific. Most countries don’t allow it. Actually, France is the only one that I know does.

It would be interesting to know why that school changed all their aircraft to EASA reg, since the advantages of being N-reg are still unchanged. What I can think of is the difficulty of flying abroad, which would only be legal if all pilots had FAA licenses and ratings.

boscomantico wrote:

It would be interesting to know why that school changed all their aircraft to EASA reg, since the advantages of being N-reg are still unchanged.

That’s a good question. Unfortunately, I don’t know the full details of the motive, but there are a few:

- No need for the Trust

- No need for the A&P/IA (!) (they have a integrated certified Mx shop)

- They already maintain all of their planes to EASA Standard, so no economies in Mx.

- They are installing an EASA only STC’d on-board flight tracker payment system in the whole fleet.

They already maintain all of their planes to EASA Standard

I did wonder if they had to maintain to Part M, not just Part 91. It is very likely – otherwise the whole of the French PPL training fleet would be N-reg (well, except the Robins which don’t have an FAA TC).

In that case what is the point in being N-reg, if the plane is bog standard and has no special avionics, mods, etc? I wonder if those N-regs were originally leased from private owners?