Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Moving from N-reg to EASA-reg, and EASA acceptance of FAA modifications

BASA IPL is coming Peter. I hope you’re in good appetite. :-)

Can you post detail, @bookworm?

Reference please?

Communications with various Australian pilots.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I’m afraid there’s not much detail to add. The timescales are unpredictable, but it is in the pipeline.

On the Australian automatic acceptance of FAA STCs, something concrete would be really helpful as a precedent for what we’re trying to do in the EU.

Last Edited by bookworm at 06 Oct 06:57

bookworm wrote:

On the Australian automatic acceptance of FAA STCs, something concrete would be really helpful as a precedent for what we’re trying to do in the EU.

https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/awb-00-16-issue-1-acceptance-foreign-supplemental-type-certificates-stcs

EGTK Oxford

I find the CASA approach to foreign STCs particularly enlightened. Note that the linked document is from 2005.

Can someone help with a second question: I am pretty certain that in the case of the FAA, CASA’s approach was/is unilateral – i.e. a CASA STC is not automatically accepted by the FAA. Am I right? There is an Australian firm with an STC for a safety critical part for the Comanche series, and I recall a lot of pain to get it FAA approved.

Well, guess I was a bit OTT (Over The Top) when I started this thread with words like ‘pressure’ and ‘driving out’,
All those more knowledgeable postings are very comforting – but there does seem to be a bit of smoke about.
Guess not enough to open the ‘can of worms’ of moving from N to G.
Thanks all.

Regret no current medical
Sandtoft EGCF, North England, United Kingdom

Should have said the aircraft I have a share in (N-Reg) has a FAA STC camshaft fitted (Lycoming).
Discrete drilling to improve lubrication by a company called Centi-Lube, Loveland, Colorado, was previously known as Firewall Forward.

Regret no current medical
Sandtoft EGCF, North England, United Kingdom

If that camshaft has no EASA STC then you would have a major problem putting the plane on G-reg.

Don’t worry about it WarleyAir – there has beem smoke around since way before my time and there always will be – because there are so many vested interests in screwing people who don’t spend their money locally. Actually N-reg owners spend plenty of money locally, usually they have the best and the best maintained aircraft, they fly the most and thus buy the most fuel, and they are quite liable to get overcharged for work because of the nebulous A&P/IA requirement.

I would not move a plane N to G unless it was technically / modification-wise spotlessly clean, and preferably factory-original condition with zero mods. Anything else, you need to do a lot of due diligence before embarking on it. Once you deregister a plane, you are in a legal limbo, can’t fly it anywhere, and whereever it is has got you totally over a barrel. Been there, done that myself.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Graham Hill’s tragic at Elstree Nov 1975 involved a ‘stateless’ aircraft.
The Aztec had been taken off the N and not at the time instated on the G.

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/14-1976-piper-pa-23-250-turbo-aztec-d-n6645y-29-november-1975

I think with all the wise posting on this subject we will abandoned, certainly for the foreseeable future, any thoughts of ‘going G.

If we as a group were changing or ‘up-grading’ than a G reg aircraft (or at least EASA one) might be the way to go.

Regret no current medical
Sandtoft EGCF, North England, United Kingdom

Obviously EASA would like to see the N-regs go away and every European pilot to have an EASA license and an EASA registered airplane, registered in the owner’s country. That is an understandable goal and there are two ways to get closer to achieving it:

  1. Remove the reasons why people go down that path in the first place
  2. Coerce them via legislation

For the pilot licenses, they chose the coercion path but in a sensible way. Getting the EASA license with an existing FAA license is not difficult.

For the aircraft, they will not be able to use coercion because it’s not feasible, just because the majority of N-reg (or whatever) airplanes will not be possible to convert due to missing approvals. Therefore the only sensible approach is to tolerate the aircraft but work hard to remove the reasons why people buy them. They are inconvenient with the trust, smaller choice of mechanics, VAT etc. For cars, the N-reg option never existed and there is no precedence but really it is the very same thing. Cars can travel across continents as easily as GA aircraft at lower cost. It is possible but difficult, expensive and generally not very attractive.

I believe EASA have fully understood that and are doing the right things. It takes time though.

Last Edited by achimha at 06 Oct 13:11

Graham Hill’s tragic at Elstree Nov 1975 involved a ‘stateless’ aircraft.

Yes – it’s a real mystery how that happened and I cannot believe it was due to a deliberate act by a guy who was obvious not short of money. Various books have come out talking about the incident and while some of them contained stuff which gets some people (notably ATC) hot under the collar, nothing illuminates this aspect.

One suggestion was that there was at some stage an intent to move the plane to another registry and somebody did an Export CofA in preparation of that, and it is known that the FAA have on occassions – and arguably incorrectly – degistered the aircraft. If the move is then abandoned (for whatever reason) you end up with a plane which “doesn’t exist” and nobody knows because the FAA doesn’t necessarily tell you they deregistered it.

There are other ways to end up with an aircraft which “doesn’t exist” – basically to do with screwing up the registration paperwork. On any type where there is not a regular CAA involvement (certain homebuilt registrations but also all N-regs, until the recent FAA move to re-reg every 3 or so years IIRC) this is quite easy. You could even buy one of these, unaware it “doesn’t exist”. It could even be it never did exist – the number is made-up. Obviously you then have no insurance, which is how Graham Hill’s family assets got wiped out.

For the aircraft, they will not be able to use coercion because it’s not feasible, just because the majority of N-reg (or whatever) airplanes will not be possible to convert due to missing approvals.

Well, Africa, Asia (loosely speaking) etc manage to ban them, but those are mostly “AK47 countries” anyway. France tried it in 2004 and the UK in 2005. The French proposal got unceremoniously killed, with a civil servant getting the blame, but probably because the owner of the French Govt (Dassault) was selling about 40% of its jets under N-reg. The UK proposal ran for a year, causing quite a number of N-reg owners to sh*t themselves, before being dropped without any publicity. One guy I know went G to N and then back to G, on a Bonanza IIRC, spending in excess of GBP 10,000. Last I heard he was doing the FAA IR but dropped that also. I am sure some people had good laughs on the back of that one, since he wrote it up on forums. Very sad…

It’s just a very “3rd world” thing to do, and it’s hard to control long term parking. It would drive a lot of people underground. It’s the same issue with homebuilts flying IFR, or foreign-reg homebuilts based beyond the residence time limit… you have to continually stay below the radar, do short quick low level flights.

Therefore the only sensible approach is to tolerate the aircraft but work hard to remove the reasons why people buy them.

True.

For cars, the N-reg option never existed and there is no precedence but really it is the very same thing. Cars can travel across continents as easily as GA aircraft at lower cost.

Not really possible with cars, because short of killing somebody they cannot get you for traffic offences done abroad, whereas under the ICAO framework each contracting state is required to persecute a pilot on behalf of another state. As I know from my 2003 “French thing” Also you cannot collect road tax on foreign reg cars. No parking tickets, etc. Foreign reg cars would cause havoc because you could just park anywhere, drive at any speed, and stick your finger up. It would be a priceless advantage.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top