boscomantico wrote:
I would get rid of the YR registry and put it on D-reg. All things considered, this is the most highly valued EASA-reg (good for resale).
Why exactly is D-reg more valued?
boscomantico wrote:
Without knowing any specifics, I would not have bought a YR-reg, no matter how good the deal was, but rather would have found one on D-reg or PH-reg.
Again, why is this the case? As far as I and my inspector can see, the airplane appears to be maintained perfectly. Incidentally, it was on D-reg prior to being on YR.
Why exactly is D-reg more valued?
For one, it‘s the biggest GA fleet in Europe.
Whilst the German LBA is known to have a few weird fetishes sometimes, all in all, they are considered as straightforward, dependable and competent. They are one of few NAAs that understood, even twentyfive years ago, the difference between airworthiness limitations and manufacturer recommendations. It‘s mainly for these reasons that you find D-regs a bit all over Europe, especially in Italy, Austria, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, but also in many parts of Eastern Europe.
Come the day to sell again, if the aircraft is D-reg., it will appeal more to thr biggest GA market in Europe (Germany).
As far as I and my inspector can see, the airplane appears to be maintained perfectly.
Fair enough. My comment was more concerning having to deal with an „exotic“ CAA (either for cancelling the registration with them and transferring it to another country, which always carries some risk, or for keeping and operating this aircraft on that registry in the longer term). I would prefer not to have to do it. At least not if it‘s a TB10, which come on the central European market regularly.
Incidentally, it was on D-reg prior to being on YR.
In fact, the vast majority of oldish SEPs is eastern Europe have previously in their lives been D-reg and based in Germany. A bit similar to cars…
The discussions from the past are worthless.
They are not worthless. Their value is whatever is applicable to one’s particular situation.
GA is full of „subjectivism“ („N-reg is the best“, „EASA is terrible“ bla bla).
That is true to an extent, and reading it p1sses off those involved in the GA business in EASA-world because some see any praise of N-reg as someone spitting in their soup, but there isn’t much one can do about that. EuroGA is a mainly European forum so we have many more EASA Part M business people posting than we have FAA Part 91 business people posting. If we had more of the latter, it would be an eye opener for many.
We need more facts and less opinion
The line is necessarily blurred because a lot of the EASA concessions in recent years (which make EASA-PartM-business people really enthusiastic about EASA/the EU) are not available to a typical aircraft owner. This is due to a number of factors, starting with a combination of airport politics and freelance mechanic availability. So one needs to discuss these things and then someone reading can investigate what options will work for them.
For example this search produces plenty of reading, and a good range of opinions 
Just picking up a few points:
All FAA STC can be approved for a single airframe with EASA. In practice, for mainstream changes, older STCs are grandfathered and new STCs are issued for EASA anyway.
That is not the case, for all practical purposes, due to the procedure involved.
I don’t think the FAA medical is any easier than the EASA one.
A very complex topic. You will never find an AME who does both and who will put in the time to post a comparison, however
Isn’t it the same now with EASA. Owner certified parts.
Owner certified parts (as is implicit in e.g. this process) and described pretty well here is not the same as owner manufactured parts.
Many other differences in practice e.g. the clarity on what is a Minor mod.
N-reg is not the best option for many. Today, getting the FAA pilot papers is hard work unless you simply go to the US and hang out there for a while (probably ok if you are young and have free time). Some, due to their location, can’t find an FAA A&P/IA; however most of those will not find a freelance EASA66 either so their only option will be to use a Company.
Actually for the vast majority – over 90% I am sure – of certified aircraft owners – a Company is the only option due to “geopolitical” reasons, and right away that means they are paying 2x to 3x for the same work. Also if you are syndicating an aircraft, a Company is likely to be the only option which members will ever agree on
And since nobody in the training establishment will be telling a new pilot about N-reg, the only way he/she will find out is via the internet (reading EuroGA ) and thus only a few % will ever go up the learning curve, and all the rest will just end up on EASA-reg.
And a Company is highly unlikely (not impossible, as someone will shortly point out) to accept the latest EASA concessions. Almost daily I get an email from someone who bought something without the EASA-1 or whatever and his part m company refused to touch it. Accepting customer-issued parts is not a revenue generating process.
So for many the choice is moot anyway.
Peter wrote:
They are not worthless. Their value is whatever is applicable to one’s particular situation.
I mean that referencing N-reg as an advantage due to „operating a SEP on condition which is not possible otherwise“ is worthless because it is outdated, incorrect and thus shouldn’t be used to compare anymore.
dutch_flyer wrote:
Why exactly is D-reg more valued?
It’s semantics. A little bit like the german saying „Was der Bauer nicht kennt, isst er nicht“.
It’s less and less of a factor, but still present.
If you ever sell the plane and want to consider it, just write „EASA Registered“ in the ad.
I think boscos conclusion is best…
If a plane is Nreg → leave it
If it’s YR reg → give it a try
Intra EASA transfer is always an option if things do not work out.
I think, for me, the conclusion might differ depending on whether I were a FAA certificated US person (as the OP says he is) and the individual EASA regulated country to which the plane is currently registered. If I were a US citizen and FAA pilot anywhere in the world I would choose an N-registered plane unless there was a strong reason not to do so. If I had no US papers and any level of discomfort with the English language then the issues with FAA licensing, the required ownership trust and with understanding written FAA regulations might send me in a different direction.
Silvaire wrote:
Payment will be in cash, no need to discuss rates in advance, no invoices, no VAT, no nonsense.
There are many differences in detail between n-reg and any EASA-reg – the opportunity to commit tax fraud is non of them, though.
No tax fraud is involved in paying cash to individuals or businesses in the US, no tax is due from me or the service provider as a function of payment for labor, nor are any receipts or transaction paperwork mandatory to comply with law in this case and many others. I am perfectly free to pay cash for services, and the person providing the service is perfectly free to take cash and provide no receipt unless I need it. This obviously provides a vast increase in efficiency for an independent A&P doing work for individuals, and combined with FAA regulations that further support people like that, is part of the reason why owning and maintaining an aircraft is so much more affordable in the US.
Silvaire wrote:
This obviously provides a vast increase in efficiency for an independent A&P doing work for individuals, and combined with FAA regulations that further support people like that,
This has nothing to do with FAA or n-reg but just with the tax regulation of the country you live in. If you were to operate an EASA-reg where you live you could do the very same with an independent EASA A&P.
