I doubt the risk in modifications done in the past would feature strongly in the decision.
Not so fast – I posted earlier in this thread the very unfortunate situation concerning a Piper Cub bought in the UK then it’s new French owner tried to transfer to FAA reg – a complete fiasco that left the owner with a net loss of 8,000€ and an un-airworthy & grounded plane, all this because of the modifications !
OK, but would that not be because he didn’t do his homework?
I am regularly warning people of the risk in ending up with a plane that’s been deregistered and cannot go onto the new register, which is why I wrote up my notes
You can end up with a near-worthless plane in other ways too. A guy posting here in the early days did it with a Beech twin of some sort. He didn’t say much but from my reading between the lines it sounded like he used a bad paint shop (the paint came off a year later) and a bad refurb shop (the leather was not fire rated).
Almost any major work done to a plane worth under say €100k could turn it into a “project aircraft” if it goes wrong.
and nobody will argue with an STC-backed 337
ONLY if that installation was executed with strict regards to the STC instructions & documentation.
I know of a plane that had dual GNS430Ws installed, but when the DAR inspected the acft for airworthiness, he noted that the distance between the 2 GPS antennae was less than N inches and Garmin’s Installation Instructions clearly state that a minimum distance must be observed.
Needless to say, the AW Cert was not issued and the antennas had to be moved and another Inspection organised and paid for.
Once again, this situation SHOULD have been avoided if only the A&P/IA had done a more thorough job before bringing out the DAR. …
OK, but would that not be because he didn’t do his homework?
This is precisely why I advised one prospective owner (mentioned earlier in this thread) NOT to transfer to FAA since he had zero English language capabilities.
Once again, this situation SHOULD have been avoided if only the A&P/IA had done a more thorough job before bringing out the DAR. …
ONLY if that installation was executed with strict regards to the STC instructions & documentation.
However, would that not get you on any registry transfer?
I reckon most TCAS installations are not strictly IAW the STC IM, in the antenna location. Most IFR planes already have more antennae sticking out of them than the USSR embassy in London 
and the customer normally likes to, ahem, “negotiate” with the shop on how many of them are to be moved. One avionics guy said to me, only half tongue in cheek, that he hasn’t yet seen a plane on which the system can be installed totally IAW the IM.
Another reason I chose to not go to N-reg is the rolling IFR currency. Being located at a VFR only airfield, it would be very difficult and inconvenient for me to always maintain the required currency. I would end up begging ATC for holds or flying instrument approaches in good weather which I wouldn’t normally fly because a cancel IFR gets me there much faster. One could argue it’s good for training but I don’t believe that flying an ILS in CAVOK really adds much for me. Most of my flying is in good weather (destination at least) because it’s 90% pleasure.
I personally prefer the EASA yearly checkride system. More convenient for me.
ILS in CAVOK really adds much for me.
Just to add to that: an ILS flown in CAVOK does not even count to the 6 approaches needed for FAA IR currency. You would have to simulate IFR conditions (hood) and that in turn requires a safety pilot on board. Many people don’t know this. Mainaining FAA IR currency is indeed not that trivial for the leisure time private pilot who cancels flights when the weather is bad. I just about manage to do that, but occasionally I have to go out and fly a couple of approaches to remain current.
It’s a bit of a moot point of course, since nobody would ever take your logbook and check what the weather was actually like when you did your aproaches. The vast majority of rampcheckers and even insurance experts in Europe don’t even know there is such thing as a rolling currency rule if you have an FAA IR…
Do you have a reference for the actual required weather for the approaches to count for rolling currency, bosco?
FAR 61.57(c) seems pretty clear to me.
“Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performed and logged at least the following tasks and iterations in an airplane … in actual weather conditions, or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device”
The FARs (61.57) say that the approaches have to be flown under actual or simulated instrument conditions.
The FARs don’t say what “actual instrument conditions” are in this context, but I remember an FAA opinion clarifying that this is to mean that at the moment you pass the FAF you need to be in instrument conditions.
