He said that people who know him would say he was fiddling his taxes if he was N-reg
I guess everyone would call him an antisocial “Abzocker” in germany if he ever admitted to owning an airplane, no matter what registry 8-)
Mooney Driver isn’t quite correct IMO that this “Appendix to the CofA” needs to be renewed yearly, it doesn’t have an expiry date anyway. What needs to be renewed yearly is the ARC (Airworthiness Review Certificate), which needs not necessarily be done by FOCA, any CAMO can do this (which my maintenance company can do for CHF 635; which is at least slightly cheaper than FOCA, which used to be CHF 800). The ARC doesn’t list flight rules, it needs to be done for VFR only too. And no, the ARC doesn’t list serial numbers, neither does the radio license (it lists equipment model descriptors, though), not even the periodic transponder check lists serial numbers.
Peter,
no idea weather serial numbers are checked every year or whether it’s just a carryover from the previous year’s document.
What I find bizzare is why doesn’t the whole German IR community doesn’t just go N-reg en-masse.
Let me elaborate a a bit on this one. I see several reasons, all playing a certain role.
1. is sheer ignornance / incomplete information. Many people just don’t know that it’s rather easy and don’t know how significant the benefits can be. To a certain degree, one cannot blame them…obviously, there is no official EASA-guidance material on “how to operate an N-reg. aircraft and save loads of money and hassle in the process”. 
So, one has to get together all the various bits and pieces from people, the internet, etc. In fact it isn’t totally trivial to go on the N-reg. (but neither is dealing with EASA on a continuous basis…)
But even that has its problems…just a few days ago, I had an email exchange with a fellow german pilot and owner of a Cessna T182T. One of the reasons he cited for being on the D-reg. was that he read on the internet that N-regs. are being given a hard time in France. Of course, I told him that
-he shouldn’t believe something just because someone was written something in his internet blog
-that no special “treatment” whatsoever was really happening from the French in recent years.
Many many people even still think – believe it or not – that with the EASA basic regulation, N-regs. will shortly be forbidden (!) in Europe. Of course, this comes from an overly superficial reading of the rules, magazines, internet fora, etc.
But even those who understand that there is only some extra licensing requirements (but nothing on the operations side) coming up, mostly don’t know that – when contemplating D-reg. vs. N-reg. – it really doesn’t make much of a difference because receiving an FAA license based on an EASA license is an easy, on-off bureaucratic task. Again: lots of ignorance / false information.
2. is a mix of lack of knowledge and, let’s says, “attitude”. IME, many first time aircraft owners in Germany think that, if living in Germany, with a german pilot’s license, putting their aircraft on the D-reg. is the only logical thing to do. They don’t even consider anything else (at least as long as someone doesn’t make them aware of the differences…). This has nothing to do with german nationalism or so. It’s more a matter of not giving any further thought to it, coupled with point 1. The truth is: many people have lots of money to waste, and the fear of doing something semi-legal or being faced with “hassles” overrides anything else.
3. the need to change maintenance outfits / the prospect of no longer being able to have the aircraft serviced by the “buddy’s” shop at his local airport. This is true to some degree, i.e. being N-reg. poses certain limitations on the shops that can be used.
I will try to sum up the most important pros and cons of D-reg. vs. N-reg. in a separate thread.
Tom,
thanks for the correction, you are quite right. So yes, we do have the IFR Certification in Switzerland but the currency is obviously handled differently than in Germany (thank God if I read how it is done there….). As I understand it, the renewal of the ARC (done by the CAMO as you rightly say) would include a verification that the equimpent listed in the radio license (which in turn is one of the base papers for the issue of the IFR Certification on the CofA) are still there and in working order.
I did not know until reading this thread that there are EASA countries who do not have this kind of certification, let alone that EASA does not require it! That alone is quite eyebrow rising. I have to admit total ignorance in this regard, for me I never knew that there is such a thing in Europe at all. It would mean that Germany and Switzerland (as well as others who demand this) would be in non compliance and I wonder if this could be challenged? Or, at least, get some of the gold plate removed which make a new certification for IFR so extremely expensive?
And how is it handled in those countries, where NO IFR certificate for a plane is issued? In order to fly IFR, the minimum requirements would still have to be met, so one would have to determine in some way if the equipment an aircraft carries is sufficient. That is comparatively easy for a owned plane but how about a rental.
In fact, it brings me to another question: Are there “flags of convenience” within EASA? Meaning countries within EASA where one could register one’s airplane and get significantly less hassle and cost than others? Because alone the IFR certification requirement would be a reason to think about that.
Phillip,
you are perfectly right, it has a lot to do with ignorance and also with the simple fact that to many people it does not occurr to them. They live in country x, have their car registered where the live and therefore the airplane gets registered there as well. Add to that the recent war of words by EASA against the N-Reg community AND the forum discussions on the subject, and a great many folks who do not read well informed forums such as this one simply believe that N-Reg will be prohibited or at least severely hindered in the future.
Most of them hold licenses they made in the local flying club or school, MANY do not even know to day that with a JAR/EASA license they can fly other European registered planes without validation. Lots of them also resist going N-Reg because they are not willing to or misinformed about the way you get an FAA license. And quite a few which did go the US way now are in dire straits because they need to do the dual license or loose the use of their aircraft. All this is not confidence inspiring for a lot of people, and quite a few have thrown the towel.
and the fear of doing something semi-legal or being faced with “hassles” overrides anything else.
That is one other very vital point and it has to be said that there is a lot of psychological warfare in that regard against N-Reg flying in the local clubs and also via authorities. Add to that the germanic (also very present in Switzerland) desire to be a “good model citizen” or face the consequences.
Regarding FAA licensing: I understand you can get a PPL validation relatively easy based on an easa License (did it once years ago but it’s lapsed validity I think) but not an IR? My understanding was that you will need to do the IR (again in case you have it in Europe) in the US? For many people today, the very idea of going through the visa hassles and TSA mill in order to get a FAA License seems intimidating.
That is why educated posts and forums/publications with high quality information are so important. There is a LOT to be learned in this crazy legal world of European aviation and not many people coming up the traditional way know about any of these things.
So thanks all of you for bringing forth this information.
Best regards
Urs
My understanding was that you will need to do the IR (again in case you have it in Europe) in the US?
No, if you want the IR on your “based on” license, all you need to do is the IR written test for foreigners, i.e. 40 instead of 50 questions.
I haven’t done it (yet), but it looks quite manageable, compared to the silly EASA written tests.
Good afternoon,
My plane is right now in for the annual. As it is IFR equipped ALL avionics needs to be checked annually. It is around 50 Euros for each “clock”.
For VFR purpose you need to have them checked every 2 years. So IFR again is about double the price.
When I bought my plane I decided against N-reg because I am not willing to take any risks of a trustee or company going bankrupt or some trustee
dying. I rather pay a bit more and don’t have to worry about it.
regards Detlev
Croatia doesn’t.
Are there any updates on this topic?
Detlev wrote:
When I bought my plane I decided against N-reg because I am not willing to take any risks of a trustee or company going bankrupt or some trustee
dying. I rather pay a bit more and don’t have to worry about it.
Good one.
“I will remove my N-reg at once.
Never thought about that.”
I rather pay €€€€€€€€€€€€ each year, and go looking for Form 1’s for all required parts, and paying the “great” 145 shops shitloads of money, so I don’t have to worry about some Trust running away with my plane.
Obviously, you know a lot more about these high end Trusts than all the N-reg owners in Europe and the rest of the world.
You sound like someone rather staying on the ground, since something might happen.
Sorry to say Detlev, but you are missing out on a great ownership possibility with that attitude.
As far as I’m aware there is no such IFR certificate issued in Sweden. As PIC you are responsible to make sure that you have the required instruments for the approach you are to commence.
I think this is the relevant piece of EASA regulation:
NCO.GEN.105 Pilot-in-command responsibilities and authority
(a) The pilot-in-command shall be responsible for:
(4) only commencing a flight if he/she is satisfied that all operational limitations referred to in 2.a.3. of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 are complied with, as follows:
(iii) instruments and equipment required for the execution of that flight are installed in the aircraft and are operative, unless operation with inoperative equipment is permitted by the minimum equipment list (MEL) or equivalent document, if applicable, as required in NCO.IDE.A.105, NCO.IDE.H.105, NCO.IDE.S.105 or NCO.IDE.B.105;
