Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Where is your plane registered recommendation? (EASA)

Hi all,
I am interested in where (EASA country) your plane is registered and if you would recommend it?

EASA Registration is EU law so theoretically it shouldn’t matter, but we know there are always „national peculiarities“.

How is the interaction with the respective aviation authority?

Responsive or slow?

Digital (sending documents via electronic means) or analog (snail mail)?

Proactive (solving problems) or troublesome (creating problems)?

Anything you specifically like or dislike?

Reasonable costs or robbery?

Thanks for your input!

always learning
LO__, Austria

My plane is currently registered in the UK but I will probably move it to Czechia where I live. I am also a contractual local operator of a Czech plane owned by a German guy (a local operator is required if the owner has no presence in Czechia), so I am familiar with the environment.
So, for the Czech CAA:

Responsiveness: not very fast when you correspond with them, but if you come directly to the office, most things (e.g. license issuance) are done while you wait.

Digital: by Czech law, national secure electronic messaging system called ISDS takes precendence over snail mail – that is, if you have a mailbox in it, they will always communicate with you electronically. Every Czech company has a mailbox assigned automatically; foreign companies and any individuals, whether Czech or foreign, can request one for free by coming to the post office and showing identity documents.

Solving or creating problems: depends on who you are communicating with and whether you are trying to cooperate or to fight. Once you learn their way of thinking, generally positive.

Likes: instant gratification when visiting the office; always willing to clarify the regulations.
Dislikes: nothing major, though a few officials are difficult to deal with.

Costs: very reasonable for most regular transactions. Examples (converted to euros for clarity): aircraft registration or deregistration under 10 tonnes MTOW: €115; permit to fly under 5700 kg, over 60 days: €384, under 60 days: €115; maintenance program under 5700 kg: €192; full set of theory tests for a pilot license: €192; skill test by a CAA staff examiner (as opposed to an independent one): €19; license issue: €38; license reissue/amendment: €4.
Breaking the rules and geting fined is a different story: a maintenance company I collaborate with made a safety-related mistake (but no actual incident) and was fined several months’ worth of its profits; the CAA ruling explicitly stated that the amount of fine was set to be painful but not drive the company out of business.

Last Edited by Ultranomad at 25 May 22:20
LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic

Thanks @Ultranomad for the detailed response!

Hoping for many more to compare.

always learning
LO__, Austria

Isn’t Austria (i.e Austro Control) one of the better / best ones ? I only had dealings with their crew licensing department, but certainly compared to the UK CAA they were a model of efficiency and the costs were ok.

Snoopy wrote:


I am interested in where (EASA country) your plane is registered and if you would recommend it?

Sweden, I can recommend it as easy and efficient.

How is the interaction with the respective aviation authority? Responsive or slow? Digital (sending documents via electronic means) or analog (snail mail)?

They are prompt in replying and it’s via e-mail mainly, although once a year they send letter via snail mail for filling in statistics. In addition, they send various aircraft documents (noise certificate, radio licence etc.) in paper via snail mail.

Proactive (solving problems) or troublesome (creating problems)? Anything you specifically like or dislike?

I can’t say much because I didn’t have any problem with them but I also didn’t have any tricky situation that would require their involvement.

Reasonable costs or robbery?

Yearly cost: €60 registry fee plus €45 radio licence fee.

Last Edited by Emir at 26 May 09:11
LDZA LDVA, Croatia

I’m registered in Luxembourg. The small size of the CAA (and small distances in the country…) makes contact quick and efficient.

However, as a registration country, experiences vary for initial airworthiness. A non-EASA-standard requirement is that the identification plate on the plane has the street address of the operator <shrug>. Beyond that, I hear it depends on the whim of the inspector you get. Some people are very happy, others had more drawn out experiences. I got one of the deeper inspections. Not only physical inspection of the plane, but very detailed inspection of paperwork (POH and supplements latest version, customised for the plane, …).

I’m uncertain whether they have procedures to deal with non-local people (that is, sending certificates by mail).

ELLX

I would be interested in how different CAAs deal with on condition items. For example if I remember correctly the Swiss CAA (BAZL) will not allow the engine to be on condition (be it years or hours) when flying IFR.

Switzerland

PepperJo wrote:

I would be interested in how different CAAs deal with on condition items. For example if I remember correctly the Swiss CAA (BAZL) will not allow the engine to be on condition (be it years or hours) when flying IFR.

Are we talking about approved (with CAMO) or owner-declared maintenance programmes? In the latter case, my understanding is that no such restrictions are permitted. But it may be that there is a loophole in the Swiss treaty with the EU or that they don’t care if it is permitted or not.

In any case — Emir mentioned Sweden and the Swedish CAA permits an engine on an approved maintenance programme to run on condition in noncommercial ops up to the lowest of 3000 h or 50% over TBO. No difference between flight rules. With an owner-declared programme there is of course no limit.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

Are we talking about approved (with CAMO) or owner-declared maintenance programmes? In the latter case, my understanding is that no such restrictions are permitted. But it may be that there is a loophole in the Swiss treaty with the EU or that they don’t care if it is permitted or not.

I’m not sure. Maybe @Mooney_Driver has some insights.

Switzerland

Airborne_Again wrote:

In any case — Emir mentioned Sweden and the Swedish CAA permits an engine on an approved maintenance programme to run on condition in noncommercial ops up to the lowest of 3000 h or 50% over TBO. No difference between flight rules. With an owner-declared programme there is of course no limit.

What about the prop? Is that the same thing?

EGTR
33 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top