Does anyone have a good comparison for national registration in various countries ?
I am looking at planes with regs that I cannot easily maintain, so I have the chance to pick the one with the best compromise…
PH-, G-, OE-, D-, F- I have on my list so far.
Someone mentioned Malta the other day…
While in theory an ELA1 plane should not have too much variation in EASA-countries, I hear and read partly unconfirmed “facts”, e.g.
additional inspections every 6 years in France, easy IFR-certification there
easy certification for everything in Netherlands,
difficulties with engines on condition (beyond 12 years)
etc etc
The actual process with steps & conditions is usually easy to find on the internet – but the strings attached are not.
Can anyone point me to a good source ?
When I give seminars at Friedrichshafen (which are mostly about IFR), there are often comparative discussions, and it seems that G- is a more liberal regime than most.
The UK do seem to be leading the process of liberalisation.
Can you post any detail, Timothy?
The UK still has
None of the above have a technical basis.
This may also be of interest.
I have a table here which deals with N-reg versus G-reg which I think is still up to date, more or less.
In Friedrichshafen, I was only comparing G with other EASA brands.
In that case, it has mainly been about the need in some countries to have some “IFR authorisation” (I don’t know what its called) and various bits of equipment gold plating (compulsory autopilot? Multiple 8.33? I can’t remember all the details.) Looking at the Red Tape Challenge work in the UK, a lot of it is really good stuff, not being considered in other States. It has rather stalled as CAA has focussed on Shoreham, but I am confident that it will go back on course after that has been put to bed, which will not be too long now.
The one big advantage of G (or any other EASA reg) over N (if you want to use it) is the cost sharing deal, which can put all other financial considerations in the shade.
Timothy wrote:
The UK do seem to be leading the process of liberalisation.
Hmm, that need some explanation for a reg that has the most draconian experimental aircraft regime on earth.
I think that was a joke, like the GA Red Tape Challenge itself.
Thanks for some helpful bits so far.
The N-reg is something I have considered – but unless it’s on, I would probably not transfer a plane there after reading Peter’s write-up.
(as always, individual needs and considerations).
What I am missing so far is actual experience form the various EASA regs.
I noted the 8.33 issue for PH and D. Small but cumbersome issue.
Any other stumbling blocks for other regs ?
Or additional regs for consideration ?
thanks
Chris
ch.ess wrote:
I noted the 8.33 issue for PH and D. Small but cumbersome issue.
Well, this is not that easy. I have very recently purchased new radio for my Onex experimental aircraft. Both Avinor and LT (Norwegian CAA) have said that there will be no need to change to 8.33 for VFR, because all the frequencies will be on 25.0 kHz frequencies in the future. This is not the case other places, so an aircraft with 25 kHz will be restricted to flying only those places where 25 kHz is used exclusively. Then I talked to NKOM (the bureau in charge of radios and transmissions), they say they will not accept new radio licenses that are not 8.33. The change is to happen in 2018, but as of yet it is not decided if old radios need to be changed, and how (if only one radio need to have 8.33, or both, if two radios are installed). My gut feeling is that there will be an exception for Scandinavia at least, there will be no requirement for 8.33 kHz, but all new radios are 8.33 already, and you will be restricted when flying on 25 kHz separation depending on where you are )outside Scandinavia), as well as altitude restrictions.
I mean, if you are doing research into which reg you want, and want to purchase an aircraft, I would have considered “upgrading” to 8.33 a mandatory cost (on both radios, if there are two), or your aircraft will somehow be restricted.
The one big advantage of G (or any other EASA reg) over N (if you want to use it) is the cost sharing deal, which can put all other financial considerations in the shade.
I would suggest that if you own a plane but need to cost share (i.e. fly with other people who contribute financially for the flight) to fly it, you have not done the right thing.
You have got yourself into a situation which is likely to turn into a disaster the moment you find yourself without somebody nice to fly with, or a previously nice person stops being nice.
The main huge advantage of ownership is that you are in control. You can choose who you fly with, without having to compromise.
