Sure they are IAW the law But if the law is ambiguous
That is the whole point, it is most definitely not. “Aviation” with foreign aircraft is per law not allowed, that is what the law say. The CAA does not make law, they have to abide and follow it and create regulations so that the air is a safe place. They are however given the authority to make exceptions from this law, by the law itself, as they see fit, and that is what they are doing. They can do this by regulations, or per case basis or whatever they want. How they do it is described in the AIC. In other words, flying around in a foreign aircraft in Norway is not allowed, unless you are explicitly allowed to do so by the CAA. Then there are agreements; ICAO, ECAC, EASA that the CAA also has to take into consideration. There are no such agreement with the USA, but there are other agreements about “hardware” making import and certification easy.
In my experience from the Swedish CAA, which is not the Norwegian one, but close enough, the 6/12 months rule is applied to Commercial operators. If you have an airline and you need to use a foreign aircraft you may do so for 6 months without transferring the “ownership” of the airworthiness monitoring to the National CAA of the airline. That was before EASA-OPS and should have changed now to say that you can operate any EU-reg aircraft for as long as you like. It would still apply to non-EU aircraft, such as Norwegian ones, and vice versa in Norway. presumably.
Exactly what the point of applying these rules to private aircraft is all about is beyond me – we’re all on the same planet. Like Peter says it appears to be mostly about money. One way of solving that issue is to sack everyone in Brussels, adopt the ICAO books across the board and close their offices, register all aircraft to the man upstairs and get on with flying.
I do be considering moving to the F-register,
I wonder why? F-reg seems to be extremely unfriendly to importing any homebuilts.
It is not a homebuilt, it is a microlight. Factory built in Hungary. No country has more liberal ruling for microlights than France, as far as I know. That is to say very much is left to the pilot’s own responsable judgement. No medical, for instance: the pilot will judge her/his own medical fitness to fly. It seems to work, too: there are no more accidents nor fatalities than elsewhere.
If ever I start a homebuilding project it would certainly be a Fox Papa from the beginning.
PS a “double quote” facility would be a worthwhile addition to this forum’s software. Couldn’t it handle repeated bq sequences? bqbq. oldest quote bq. more recent quote
PS a “double quote” facility would be a worthwhile addition to this forum’s software. Couldn’t it handle repeated bq sequences? bqbq. oldest quote bq. more recent quote
I guess the argument against that is that it would make it easy for somebody to post a quote which contains a quote which contains a quote. Yes, I know, that is what you are asking for 
But it is frequently seen on other forums and invariably the result is a huge mess which nobody is going to wade through. One American forum I read, which normally is worth reading, suffers from this badly. A number of posters there toss in massive quotes of quotes of quotes and then toss in a one-liner comment. Sometimes, after all that, they post just “+1” which is the ultimate turnoff for readers. I believe that such a facility plays a big part in the descent into a “pub” type chat site… especially if one can quote text containing images, and when that happens, you cannot turn things around.
IMHO, one should reply to one point at a time, quoting just 1 or a few lines at a time.
BTW if you want to combine multiple paragraphs from the same person into a single quote, just remove the blank lines between the paragraphs. An example from your post above:
It is not a homebuilt, it is a microlight. Factory built in Hungary. No country has more liberal ruling for microlights than France, as far as I know. That is to say very much is left to the pilot’s own responsable judgement. No medical, for instance: the pilot will judge her/his own medical fitness to fly. It seems to work, too: there are no more accidents nor fatalities than elsewhere.
If ever I start a homebuilding project it would certainly be a Fox Papa from the beginning.
PS a “double quote” facility would be a worthwhile addition to this forum’s software. Couldn’t it handle repeated bq sequences? bqbq. oldest quote bq. more recent quote
..And now ladies & gentlemen, back to our usual program :
Changing to N-reg involves an FAA inspector coming to the aircraft. That is always a risk.
@Achima True, but that risk can be – or should be mitigated by the A&P/IA doing the Annual Inspection BEFORE the DAR .
That said, I know of a case where the A&P/IA did the Inspection, pocketed a large sum (x4 the ‘normal’ fee) only for the DAR to tell the owner that the plane did not conform to the TCDS which the A&P should have pointed out from the get-go !
This little fiasco cost the poor owner 6,000€ and left him with his “Cub” de-registered and un-airworthy .
Personally, I don’t see much benefit of N-reg – here’s the summary (at least for Croatia and at least in my case):
- taxes and fees when buying – same for EASA-reg and N-reg
- insurance – same for EASA-reg and N-reg
- yearly fee for airworthiness for EASA-reg is 500€ for CAMO and for N-reg who knows
- maintenance may be more expensive for EASA-reg but in my experience difference is marginal (TB20 is cheap, DA42 is expensive – regardless the reg)
- fees for licences (SEP/MEP and IR for both) – 150€ a year for EASA-reg (including examiner) and for N-reg who knows how and how much – it would be a major hassle plus you have to have both sets of licences
There’s a bit more to it, the biggest items
being maintenance, modifications and regulatory bullshit. I think Peter has a writeup on this website, written from the perspective of FAA reg vs. G-reg. I made a writeup here focussing on FAA-reg. vs. D-reg.
yearly fee for airworthiness for EASA-reg is 500€ for CAMO and for N-reg who knows
For N-reg, zero. The FAA system has zero government involvement in pilot licensing (post initial checkride) and maintenance.
maintenance may be more expensive for EASA-reg but in my experience difference is marginal (TB20 is cheap, DA42 is expensive – regardless the reg)
One big factor is how many lifed parts you have and their cost.
That is also a factor of homebuilts, though on a homebuilt you can go further and disregard all SBs an ADs.
fees for licences (SEP/MEP and IR for both) – 150€ a year for EASA-reg (including examiner) and for N-reg who knows how and how much – it would be a major hassle plus you have to have both sets of licences
For an N-reg, IFR, you need a BFR every 2 years (costs me nothing since my engineer is also an ATP/CFII) and the IR is validated by rolling currency whereas my EASA IR needs an annual checkride – £150 plus the cost of the flight. However EASA FCL forces the EASA IR anyway after 2016.
that risk can be – or should be mitigated by the A&P/IA doing the Annual Inspection BEFORE the DAR
Absolutely so. You need to find an IA who knows the DAR and works with him – and get him to do a 100% check before you deregister. Same with any registry transfer – it’s a huge trap for the unwary. My plane got stuck for about 10 weeks in a legal limbo, and since the hangarage company also did the work, they didn’t give a flying **** about me trying to hurry them up. Eventually I brought in my own 2 people and did it in 3 days. I could not write any of this until recently; the company has now gone and I am hangared elsewhere.
Im not sure if I should start a new thread regarding FAA and N reg maintenance. My understanding is that The FAA office in Frankfurt will be closing down. I also understand that maintenance A&P and IA will have to deal with Dallas FSDO. Not all the A&P and IA licences will be moved there. If that is the case we will have less individuals who will be FAA qualified to do maintenance and write off the work and annuals.
Never had the occasion but I have heard that some of the IAs are expensive. Some of course is justified. Like travel expense over night accommodations and then the work to be done. However justified or not the bottom line is what the owner can afford to shell out. Even if they can afford it some will refuse. So the numbers dwindle and dwindle. If there are less FAA certificated Maint personal then the prices by nature of supply and demand must go up.
Any thoughts on the subject?
Not all the A&P and IA licences will be moved there.
What makes you think that ?
