Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Need for Complex Endorsement N-reg

they don’t have a handy FAA A&P / A&P/IA to do/supervise work and sign off Annuals (more common an issue in southern Europe)
they are “non-involved” owners who just drop the plane off at the dealer with a blank signed cheque on the seat (fairly common with certain brands) and this is not great for N-reg which is ideally suited to pro-active owners and on which you tend to get ripped off by companies if you don’t watch it
N-reg is constantly slagged off (mostly jealousy because at any given airport, the N-regs tend to be the best / best maintained planes) Quote

I think these are one of the most important points for going to the N-reg.
FAA truly want owners to be involved in the maintenance of their aircraft, because they should be the person that knows the most about the aircraft. Not the A&P. He hardly see the aircraft. And being allowed to work on your aircraft under the supervision of a A&P is a great way to learn how things actually work.

On the other side you have EASA regulations. Owners are hardly allowed to touch a screw legally. And most don’t. So what is the end result?

A super safe aircraft because no inexperienced owner has ever touched it, OR
a minimum maintained aircraft doing only required repair/maintenance because the owners can’t really afford a Mechanic to climb all over their aircraft at 100€+ an hour???

Going N-reg opens a lot of opportunities.
For me is not just about flying the aircraft.

Last Edited by spirit49 at 01 Dec 22:32
spirit49
LOIH

The reason I asked if the AIC forbids Norwegians to own and operate N-reg’ed aircrafts, is that I have meet a lot of owners that just doesn’t dare change to or keep their N-reg. The whole N-reg for Europeans is clearly proven, so I was wondering if the Norwegian Caa or government had made any special rules I wasn’t aware of.

N-reg in Norway will be complicated/impossible due to that AIC, which is rather straight forward and to the point. But from October 28 this year part NCO started working, and from November 13 this year SERA started working. This changes things more or less dramatically. The reason is BSL D 3-1 point 2.1.c that is no longer valid because BSL D 3-1 is no longer valid, replaced by part NCO and SERA.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

N-reg in Norway will be complicated/impossible due to that AIC, which is rather straight forward and to the point. But from October 28 this year part NCO started working, and from November 13 this year SERA started working. This changes things more or less dramatically. The reason is BSL D 3-1 point 2.1.c that is no longer valid because BSL D 3-1 is no longer valid, replaced by part NCO and SERA. Quote

I bet that AIC wouldn’t work in a Court-case. If it works in the rest of Europe, I don’t think the Norwegians can just add a special rule as they want. Ref the EU/EEC rules they have to follow. And one doesn’t own the aircraft. Just a part of the US Trust.
But I can understand why most Norwegians shy away from this, as a lengthy court battle isn’t very tempting. However I must say that it seems like the Norwegian CAA/Government mostly look the other way. Must be.

spirit49
LOIH

I think most owners who are not N-reg are not N-reg because

There are more reasons:

  • The aircraft does not meet FAA requirements without expensive work (e.g. avionics with ETSO but not TSO)
  • Moving to N-reg costs a lot of money (changing the tail number alone can be expensive)
  • There is a risk involved with the move, who knows what a DAR might find in an old aircraft?
  • An FAA IR has to be obtained and kept valid in parallel to the EASA IR
  • Keeping an FAA IR valid can be very difficult for somebody not flying frequently and not located at an airfield with instrument approaches, the yearly EASA checkride is easier

Keeping an FAA IR valid can be very difficult for somebody not flying frequently and not located at an airfield with instrument approaches, the yearly EASA checkride is easier

That is difficult for me to understand. To maintain FAA currency, one may fly with another private pilot rated in the aircraft as a safety pilot. The 6 approaches, holds, and intercepting and tracking courses can reasonably be accomplished in a couple of hours with a private pilot as the safety pilot. An IPC is not required if this is done once a year and legal currency can be maintained continuously if one does such a flight every six months. Of course legal currency for IFR does not equate to proficiency.

Edit: The private pilot only needs to be rated in the aircraft, so for a Bonanza, single engine land, they need a current medical as they are considered a required crew member. They do not need a complex or high performance endorsement. They do not need to have an instrument rating unless they are also acting as PIC and the flight is conducted under an instrument flight plan. In the latter case, they must meet all requirements to act as a PIC for the specific aircraft, including the complex, etc. endorsementss.

Last Edited by NCYankee at 02 Dec 15:10
KUZA, United States

I have to agree with NCYankee, I can’t see any scenario under which staying legal (not proficient) for IFR is easier in Europe. Surely a ride with a safety pilot once a year must be simpler than a checkride.

EGTK Oxford

I have several times acted as safety pilot in that role for a friend in his G1000 equipped DA40. While I am FAA rated to fly the plane, I am not instrument rated and have no experience with the panel. Its worked out to be a good experience and a win-win for both of us.

I can’t see any scenario under which staying legal (not proficient) for IFR is easier in Europe.

N-reg in Europe requires me to maintain my EASA FCL license current so the FAA currency requirements come on top of the EASA requirements. That makes it more difficult, doesn’t it?

For me, it would be rather difficult and a lot of hassle to comply with the FAA 90 day currency requirement for IFR. The yearly EASA IR checkride is a lot of hassle (and expensive) but that I have to do in every scenario, N-reg or not.

N-reg in Europe requires me to maintain my EASA FCL license current so the FAA currency requirements come on top of the EASA requirements. That makes it more difficult, doesn’t it?

Actually your underlying licence doesn’t have to be current just valid.

EGTK Oxford

Actually your underlying licence doesn’t have to be current just valid.

That’s an interesting line of argument. Is there a reference somewhere, Jason?

Fortunately it is moot for the average PPL or PPL/IR holder because the PPL has to be revalidated every 2 years and the IR every 1 year, and provided you do that, the only currency requirements are for passenger carriage.

The State of Registry papers (FAA for an N-reg) have to be both current and valid. And if you are out of FAA BFR or out of FAA instrument currency, the EASA papers will save you only in the airspace owned by your EASA license issuer (ref FAR 61.3 – notes here).

For example I no longer maintain the FAA 3+3 night passenger carriage currency, because my EASA IR covers me for that automatically. But that is only for arrivals/departures in UK airspace. If I did a night procedure (sunset+30mins) in say Germany, I would be illegal because my EASA IR was issued by the UK, not Germany, so doesn’t comply with 61.3.

Keeping an FAA IR valid can be very difficult for somebody not flying frequently and not located at an airfield with instrument approaches, the yearly EASA checkride is easier

Very true and often mentioned, but I would be concerned about flying with somebody whose currency is so low.

If you are not located at an airfield with an IAP, why not do your regular “currency flight” over to the one next door that has an IAP? One should fly every few weeks, or more often. I know many pilots fly much less than that but are they really instrument pilots?

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

Back to Top