I don’t see anything new in this opinion by the FAA General Counsel opinion. This is holding out, clear and simple and has never been permitted for a non certificated operator.
Since the EASA introduced the (IMHO exceedingly silly) rule that it was not enough that an aircraft has been certified at some time, but that someone must be prepared to take responsibility for that certification now. Simply put, an aircraft such as the Piper Cub is not regarded as certified under EASA regulations. All regulation as regards flying such aircraft are left to the national authorities.
I see that as a good thing, not a bad thing. I don’t want to be lumbered with EASA’s asinine maintenance rules on my antique Auster. The permit system works far better for us and owners of most other classic aircraft. That it is on a permit doesn’t make it any less useful than on a CofA. As the LAA works to get permit aircraft able to fly night/IFR (not that our aircraft is likely to ever do that) the distinction becomes even less important.
It occurs to me that there might be a business in selling N-registered light aircraft into the EU, on a normal FAA certificate of airworthiness, particularly if the sale included full service for the trust and you focused on one type of plane. In the 80s a guy did a similar thing with Luscombes into the UK for G-registration on Permits to Fly. I’m thinking of modest, nice condition VFR planes worth $50K or (much) less in the US.
If you could arrange for a traveling A&P IA to inexpensively supervise maintenance of the fleet, as well as the trust service being included with the sale, that would help too. You’d be competing with the LAA system in the UK, but I think the product could be more advantageous for the buyer. Just a thought.
I see that as a good thing, not a bad thing. I don’t want to be lumbered with EASA’s asinine maintenance rules on my antique Auster. The permit system works far better for us and owners of most other classic aircraft. That it is on a permit doesn’t make it any less useful than on a CofA. As the LAA works to get permit aircraft able to fly night/IFR (not that our aircraft is likely to ever do that) the distinction becomes even less important.
As far as I understand, it is up to your national authority to decide if you can fly an Annex II a/c on an EASA PPL or if you need a national PPL. It is even up to your national authority to decide if flight time in an Annex II aircraft counts as flight time on an EASA PPL (e.g. for the purposes of renewing a SEP rating, necessary experience to get higher ratings/licences…). And vice versa of course. This could be a real bother for people who fly both Annex II and EASA certified aircraft.
Wouldn’t if be better of you put your Auster in the experimental category? That would also relieve you of the EASA maintenance rules.
If your national authority is cooperative, then fine. Otherwise…
It occurs to me that there might be a business in selling N-registered light aircraft into the EU, on a normal FAA certificate of airworthiness, particularly if the sale included full service for the trust and you focused on one type of plane. In the 80s a guy did a similar thing with Luscombes into the UK for G-registration on Permits to Fly. I’m thinking of modest, nice condition VFR planes worth $50K or (much) less in the US.
What about the transport costs? Normally shipping (or ferry) is not worth doing for a plane costing less than about $100k, unless it is a rare / desirable type.
I don’t want to be lumbered with EASA’s asinine maintenance rules on my antique Auster
Doesn’t that work both ways, potentially?
If you have a CofA then you can fly internationally without a restriction (well, not into much of e.g. Africa, but that’s for different reasons like overflight permits).
I don’t believe IFR authorisation will ever come for types which are not wholly metal, due to static / lightning protection issues to which the solution (bonding) is not technically feasible.
So it comes down to how many people want to fly Annex 2 internationally. Probably not many, I admit…
In the UK, the long standing approach has been: if it is capable of having a CofA then it must have a CofA. That protects the CAA income stream.
What about the transport costs? Normally shipping (or ferry) is not worth doing for a plane costing less than about $100k, unless it is a rare / desirable type.
Wings off, multiple planes per container if possible. Not that I have experience shipping planes between continents, but that seems to be how its done. I have zero affiliation or knowledge of this company, but they have some photos and info: Link
The cost would be added to the price, obviously, and you’d have to do the calculation to see if it would work. The utility and maintenance cost of a N-registered C of A plane would be the attraction and the competition would be comparable Permit registered aircraft in the EU.
PS FWIW you can buy pretty nice lowish time Cessna 150s locally for $20K, or £12K, no SIDS required on N-register.
Probably the other big issue is that you need an A&P (a problem for some people) and an A&P/IA for the Annual (a big problem for some people). Most smaller Part M maintenance companies don’t have an A&P on their staff and many IAs are freelancers. And while a FAA Part 145 Repair Station doesn’t need the IA, it can work only on types for which it is approved (and each approval costs money) and there are very few 145 companies in Europe.
Ultimately there is a massive amount of disinformation on the whole N-reg scene and it gets slagged off by the various assorted axe grinders, and has been ever since I started on that road more than 10 years ago. I was fed 99% pure bullsh*t by the “establishment” and even now when I read stuff about it, most of it is either wrong, or deliberate disinformation.
When you have a pilot community in which a large % still believe GPS is illegal for “primary navigation” (yeah, I don’t know what that expression means either) then you have an uphill job…
It would be clever to set up a management organisation which does the maintenance also, and that would sidestep some of the above issues, but most pilots don’t want to travel too far for maintenance. Most use a local outfit even if the firm is crap and has proved itself to be crap. So it would have to be “distributed” – maybe working out of a van? Not a nice job.
Yesterday I spoke to a well regarded avionics and general maintenance firm which was based at a large-ish airport with a big runway, ILS, long opening hours, and a £30 landing fee. He found that most customers refused to fly there, because £30 is too much for UK GA. He moved to a grass place where they pay £10 and is busy. The average job value is in four figures… Today I spoke to another similar outfit, based at another £30 airport with pretty good facilities, who told the same story: a large % of his customers refuse to fly there on principle.
So I think it would be complicated to do this at the low end of the market.
And the higher end of the market is sensitive to the “froth economy” (banking etc). The SR22 zero equity setups which were once quite busy have all (or nearly all) collapsed.
That’s the “black hat” view 
For one thing, risk is a function of both probability and consequence. To maintain the same risk level in a situation with increasing probability of an accident, you can try to reduce the consequences. The new rules for cost sharing will permit flight operations that were previously illegal in some countries, thus increasing risk. I believe that the seat limitation is such a consequence limiter. Likewise, I believe this is the reason for the four person limitation of the LAPL.
You have a point. But risk is first and foremost a function of the probability that the “risky business” actually will happen in the first place. And if it does, what other “risky business” does it replace? Besides, if there is any thoughts behind the 6 seat limit, these thoughts are purely consequence driven. There is no way EASA could have found accident data for shared flight with more than 6 persons, and therefore no way they can have calculated any sort of probabilities, not even the probabilities for this occurrence to happen. It’s yet another risk averse regulation from EASA based on consequence alone with no regard for the probabilities involved, in my humble opinion of course
Frankly, I think the reason for the 6-seater is much simpler, inasmuch as six seats sort of divide personal airplanes from commercial ones. AFAIK there aren’t many a/c that are flown privately that have more than six seats. Not too many privately operated C208s or similar around in Europe.
Peter, thanks for the feedback on the plane importation idea…
It would be clever to set up a management organisation which does the maintenance also, and that would sidestep some of the above issues, but most pilots don’t want to travel too far for maintenance.
Yes, definitely. You’d need some level of volume to support it, but making things work would be key to any idea like this. It would be interesting if you could get the idea started with a sale of several aircraft to a club. Or set up the club to vertically integrate the whole thing and sell the planes out of club stock, maintaining N-registration for the buyer.
Kicking around business ideas is really very useful – it does surface the issues. I have a friend who has a pretty nice transatlantic retirement business renting BMW motorcycles. Maybe this could work similarly, particularly with time split between US and EU. Who knows…
