Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Non EASA aircraft - an exact definition?

A non EASA full ICAO etc, will have to be on a non EASA country register.

Indeed – a good point. But e.g. CofA N-regs can live in most of Europe permanently. Only Denmark and Norway ban long term parking of non EU regs.

I think the “edges” of the “non EASA aircraft” concept are interesting…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

LeSving wrote:

It may theoretically end up in Annex II, but that seems, to me at least, like a very strange thing for the authorities to do when the plane is fully ICAO compliant ?

No, not really. The Piper Apache which is fully ICAO compliant is a non-EASA aircraft. The ones on the G-reg have CAA CofAs, not EASA ones (actually there are some weird cases: for example the Cessna 120 is available with an LAA permit to fly, but the Cessna 140 is on a CAA (not EASA) CofA and can’t be put onto an LAA permit).

Last Edited by alioth at 22 Mar 12:26
Andreas IOM

alioth wrote:

No, not really

Annex II would be a strange place for a ICAO compliant aircraft IMO. But, the Norwegian regulations doesn’t really differentiate between EASA or non EASA for anything but part NCO. The differentiation is between ICAO and non ICAO, and the only difference is maintenance regimes. For a private aircraft there are no differences regarding operational aspects, except if your ICAO compliant aircraft happen to also be EASA “compliant”, then part NCO must be used. Microlights are a special kind, not really aircraft, but follows EASA definitions.

So, any aircraft that is ICAO compliant can be put on Norwegian register, as ICAO compliant. If that also happen to be EASA compliant is for EASA to decide.

Maybe Peter has a point. An aircraft may very well be fully ICAO but not EASA. This does not make them Annex II, Annex II is clearly defined, but simply “ICAO” or whatever one may call them.

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Fly310 wrote:

I am not sure if this list is complete but it was last updated in November 2016. If you know of any other unusual airplanes, please try to find them in the list and we can see what the result is.

I suspect in the case of the Meyers 200, it may have been covered by an FAA/ German LBA bilateral treaty that recognized the standard category Type Certificate both ways. Perhaps the Germans issued an LBA TC in the past that was not subsequently picked up by EASA, as in alioth’s UK examples. The FAA issued a new US TC in these cases, so German planes covered by the treaty are listed on the FAA website, and you can read the FAA TC. Some Bölkow products are one example.

Of course there are lots of European planes that were not covered for N-register by treaty, then or now, Robins being one example. ICAO member countries do not automatically issue TCs based on a foreign ICAO TC.

Peter wrote:

I think the “edges” of the “non EASA aircraft” concept are interesting…

Interesting, and messy…

Last Edited by Silvaire at 22 Mar 14:11

it may have been covered by an FAA/ German LBA bilateral treaty

An interesting angle. Those treaties are still recognised by the FAA but when JAA arrived in 1999 they pretended they are dead. One ex JAA director, Fergus Woods, explained this at a presentation c. 2005. EASA, later, had the authority as an EU agency to block member states recognising them.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Those treaties are still recognised by the FAA but when JAA arrived in 1999 they pretended they are dead. One ex JAA director, Fergus Woods, explained this at a presentation c. 2005. EASA, later, had the authority as an EU agency to block member states recognising them.

Which brings to mind my idle dream of putting a Bölkow 207 on N-register for operation in the US. There is no FAA TC for the particular type, meaning it normally would go in Experimental, probably in this case as a warbird given its derivation from the 1940-ish Klemm 107. I wonder if I could personally invoke the LBA/FAA treaty to put it in N-register standard category?

Last Edited by Silvaire at 22 Mar 14:40

If the Meyers 200 no longer had manufacturer support, it would be put on Annex 2. (Manufacturer or some company holding the Type Certificate.)
Our DR1050 was factory-built. The French Companies holding Type Certificates for the CEA and SAN lines were not interested in holding it. It became Annex 2. They held onto the DR250, so it is EASA. Some owners are arguing for a change.
Some aircraft types which were on CAA or EASA P to F have been taken on by the LAA.
The situation is fluid.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Why is TC support needed in Europe is worth a read, and maybe a discussion

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Are you asking about the aircraft that are subject to the EASA Basic Regulation, or about the phrase “non-EASA aircraft” as used in the ANO 2016?

Peter wrote:

The latter, I think

In which case, an EASA aircraft is any aircraft subject to the EASA Basic Regulation, and a non-EASA aircraft is anything else. Where the ANO wants to differentiate a G-reg aircraft in Annex II from a United (N-reg) B747, it specifies a non-EASA aircraft registered in the UK.

For the ANO purpose, is there a difference between the US 747 and an N reg SR22?

I didn’t realise the expression has two meanings.

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

Back to Top