Ok I see things are not so clear its a shame. I really have a few choice words for the idiots that are running the show. But unlike some others who are guests Im not going to try to change the system to conform to my beliefs and customs. When confronted I will just take my marbles and go home.
The point is, this is different from country to country. As far as Norway is concerned, everything airworthy made in the USA is also airworthy in Norway, and the other way around (like there are lots of aircraft made in Norway ) This is made through an agreement originally made in 1933 and renewed every now and then.
Under US law, the Nowegian manufactured and certified aircraft would receive a ‘based-on’ FAA type certificate, and then be issued a standard/utility FAA category airworthiness certificate based on the new US type certificate. Same thing under a similar agreement with Germany/LBA. That’s how Extras and some other German aircraft get their FAA Type Certificates, but there is not a direct legal acceptance of the non-US type certificate, partly because non-US type certificates sometimes contain requirements that are contrary to US law. An example would be a non-US TC requirement (via maintenance manual limitations) to replace broken structures with new, factory built parts versus FAA DER approved repair. Those items (are supposed to) get scrubbed out of the US TC and documentation by FAA.
Obviously this is massively confusing stuff, but it occurs to me that there are quite a number of N-registered standard category types that would not transfer to to European national registers as “EASA Aircraft”. These would include types with no existing manufacturer and no support organization, e.g. Luscombes, Porterfield, Culver, Stinson, Globe/Temco, Interstate, Ryan, Micco etc etc. Are there actually none of those types operating permanently on N-register standard category in Europe?
The point is, this is different from country to country. As far as Norway is concerned, everything airworthy made in the USA is also airworthy in Norway, and the other way around (like there are lots of aircraft made in Norway 
) This is made through an agreement originally made in 1933 and renewed every now and then. Any aircraft (including components, modifications etc) made in the USA and with a valid C of A from the FAA will automatically receive a C of A in Norway. When it is made, and by who is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant if the aircraft is possible to enter the EASA system or not. If it has a C of A in the US, it will also get a C of A in Norway – period. This also include experimental certified types, but only if a build log with pictures is available if I remember correctly.
Newer aircraft will automatically enter the EASA system if applicable, but I don’t think they absolutely have to, I don’t know.
C of A is a key point. An aircraft without a C of A is not an aircraft according to any regulations. But, once it has a C of A from a governmental authority, there are no problems anymore. ICAO or not? The only possible difficulty here must be commercial operations, if any. It is only EASA (and possibly the UK?) who is somehow obsessed with ICAO, not the individual nations worldwide. Annex II aircraft is just like any other aircraft here. It can be used for private purposes or commercially. The only difference is Annex II aircraft are maintained according to national regulations, not according to a rigid EASA bureaucracy.
Ironically, in Norway N-regs cannot be operated for more than 12 contiguous months, because there are no equivalent agreement for operations as there is with “hardware”.
So, let me get this right… You could have a V-tail Bonanza, N-reg, flying IFR worldwide, on FAA and EASA PPL/IRs and medicals. You could have a V-tail Bonanza, Annex II, flying only VFR, only nationally (crossing borders needs a permit), on a locally issued (non-EASA) PPL and medical.
A Bonanza is a standard (utility?) category certified aircraft everywhere, as far as I know, but I think the situation you describe would be genuine for aircraft like a Bellanca Cruisemaster, Howard DGA, Globe Swift and other IFR equipped/operated aircraft.
Peter,
Annex 2 does not equal “permit”. As I said several times now, there are loads of Annex 2 aircraft operating on a standard CofA. Such as the (early) V35s. No way to operate them on a permit.
Did you ever really scroll through the Annex 2 type list? I think that yould clear up a lot of confusion.
So, let me get this right…
You could have a V-tail Bonanza, N-reg, flying IFR worldwide, on FAA and EASA PPL/IRs and medicals.
You could have a V-tail Bonanza, Annex II, flying only VFR, only nationally (crossing borders needs a permit), on a locally issued (non-EASA) PPL and medical.
The bulk of the “EASA FCL / N-reg issue” is of course for IFR operations – because of the work involved in getting the EASA IR, and secondarily the medical issue.
Boeing Stearman next to my plane in the hangar is N-reg Annex II, permanently in Europe. Beech Bonanza V-tails (35) are Annex II – there are a lot of them here which are N-reg.
So are the American Champion 7 series (like Citabria which I owned before) …
Just to be clear, all of those types on N-register would be on a standard airworthiness certificate, not Experimental, “Annex II” or any such similar thing. The best thing to do if you had one in Europe would be to leave it on N-register, even more so than for other types, and I’d imagine that’s why owners do it.
Yes there are. Boeing Stearman next to my plane in the hangar is N-reg Annex II, permanently in Europe. Beech Bonanza V-tails (35) are Annex II – there are a lot of them here which are N-reg.
So are the American Champion 7 series (like Citabria which I owned before) …
