Interesting that most respondents who don’t own an N-reg airplane think that we spend less on maintenance by skimping. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that any difference in maintenance cost might go to EASA and its NAAs by way of higher fees and administration charges.
That has been my experience as an N-reg owner – more of the money which I spend goes to into my airplane, and less washes down a bureaucratic sink hole.
But it’s not primarily a question of cost, or even EASA’s stultifying impediments to avionics software updates and airframe safety enhancements (I couldn’t even fit Bushwheels to an EASA-reg Maule, how idiotic is that?). For me, it’s about being part of the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world, administered by people who give the impression that they positively want us to fly.
I will never go back to EASA or G-reg – unless perhaps for an SSDR.
Jacko wrote:
But it’s not primarily a question of cost, or even EASA’s stultifying impediments to avionics software updates and airframe safety enhancements (I couldn’t even fit Bushwheels to an EASA-reg Maule, how idiotic is that?). For me, it’s about being part of the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world, administered by people who give the impression that they positively want us to fly.
100% agree. It is without a doubt the best aviation regulatory system that exists. It is fairly efficient and pragmatic and has an excellent safety record. For me it has never had anything to do with maintenance.
via the FAA route, because you have to give your whole life to the TSA, and a lot of money to some ATPL factory like the ones I do not want in Europe
via the CB IR route, because I want to have a life for the next 18 months (tell me if I’m wrong here), and flying is not all my life
On the FAA side , you explicitly don’t need the big ATOs. Yes TSA is a pain but once they have your fingerprints it is a straightforward admin process and very fast.
Re CBIR, well you have to study to pass. It isn’t 18 months of no life but takes some effort. It is a serious rating and takes some work.
As to age, I got my first IR at 24. Redid the US IR at 42.
Jacko wrote:
That has been my experience as an N-reg owner – more of the money which I spend goes to into my airplane, and less washes down a bureaucratic sink hole.
Dead right. Owning an N-reg is the best option for me over any other option. I would view it as a value-adding factor rather than a negative. If you don’t like the aeroplane it’s got value anywhere in the world, just sell it and move on. Pop wings off and crate it up. My EI reg permit toy is the complete opposite of that, and for that reason, it makes me sick sometimes. I would literally have to groom a customer over a period of years if I wanted out, then humbly pray to the organisation that issues permits here to be allowed to sell it. If I could magic that Cub onto the N-reg I’d be over the moon.
Jujupilote wrote:
Frankly, I abandoned working on the IR….I would be very happy to talk to someone below 35 taking the IR privately
I am doing mine this year via CBIR, I am following @Noe steps (I just flew with him today, not in the same aircraft tough 
), speaking to someone who done it does help 
On CBIR TK, anyone who did PPL TK should be able to score it, to me the hassle was sitting the exams rather than how bad the QB or contents, I am happy to have 40K sh***ty questions than going to Gatwick middle of week, but definitely it should not take anyone 18 months
For flying, I don’t think it will change too much to what I already got from PPL privilege in France or after having IMC rating in the UK, for both I flew to their max previleges but one need currency for that and to exercise full IR privileges, the currency will cost a load of money….
So my ultimate goal is reach the standard one day, do some live fun stuff and then let it decay to a BIR one day? or just a PPL?
I am already decided what to do in my 60’s and IFR touring is not on the menu
Peter wrote:
I can do wholly freelance maintenance (A&P/IA) without needing to ever go anywhere near any company, and this includes any avionics work (covered as appropriate by an STC or a Field Approval, or done under the Minor Alteration regime). This capability is priceless when I look at the hassles I used to get, and which some other owners get.
I would have put it a bit differently, but agree 100% that this is the major reason to go/keep N-reg … in the sense that the owner makes the decisions and the mechanic does the work requested by the owner. The owner/pilot is essentially responsible for compliance to the regs about the aircraft/licence, and the mech is responsible for compliance to the regulations about his work. This is the KEY difference between the two systems, and for the owner is invaluable IF the owner wants to control a) his pocket book, and b) his safety. This requires that the owner recognize that he/she is responsible for the maintenance and safety of his/her aircraft. The authority (FAA) sets the rules, but the owner is responsible for compliance, with most validation/signoff activity (maintenance, check rides, etc) delegated. In EASA-land, the authority is still very active in assuming responsibility for compliance… i.e. the authority wants to validate/signoff most everything…. and charges for it accordingly.
The EASA CB-IR, if done from scratch, not as a conversion of another IR, is still a bunch (7?) of ATPL style theoretical exams.
The FAA IR theory is much more relevant to what it is supposed to cover.
Or am I mistaken, again?
tmo wrote:
Or am I mistaken, again?
You are not, but if you add fingerprinting + doing exam in the US, the scale tilts in favour of sucking it up and doing the test here.
the BIG changes the CBIR brought was:
- You no longer had to take a week or 2 off for “mandatory classroom” – I think that’s what mattered the most to young professionals like me, to whom holidays are precious.
- In the UK, you could use your IR(R) training + your own flying and then leave 15 hours for ATO.
People usually follow the path of least resistance. They also follow the path of most bang for the buck. EASA has largely fixed the first (sort of), and/or the FAA path has become increasingly difficult. This leaves bang for the buck, which is the main problem with IR. It’s mostly for a small niche of private pilots or (semi) professional pilots that also fly privately. Also with GPS, moving maps and EFIS’es (AHRS), VFR has become much safer also in not optimal weather (still fully inside the law, if anyone wondered).
Noe wrote:
You are not, but if you add fingerprinting + doing exam in the US, the scale tilts in favour of sucking it up and doing the test here.
Going to the US isn’t a huge deal these days. We went last month on Singapore Airlines – direct flight from Manchester to Houston cost us about £500 return per person, and the reduction in regulatory hassle (fee-attracting renewals with the local NAA which are done slowly – see Peter’s problem with his IR renewal, versus the FAA’s rolling currency) still makes the US IR much more attractive in the long run.
OK, so I don’t have to pay for an AirBnB or hotel when I go there, but even so – when you consider the fees forms and aggro of keeping an EASA IR renewed then the FAA system wins, and having to go to the US to do the single exam suddenly doesn’t look so bad because it’s a one off – not a recurring event, and you can do a nice bit of tourism at the same time.
The rolling FAA currency is wonderful. I don’t mind the Revalidations (which attract no fee, other than examiner), in the UK, as if you pick the right examiner, they are the opportunity to lean. In fact, I am thinking of doing them twice a year.
Don’t get me wrong, I would prefer the FAA system, but for me and a couple of the same profile people I know (who rent different planes, most of them EASA reg), going EASA seemed more worthwhile. I certainly haven’t regretted switching over at the start of my training.
