Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Non EASA aircraft - an exact definition?

Peter wrote:

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

EASA is not Europe. Which is a main part of the whole thing here. In Norway, it makes no difference either way regarding operational aspects. A whole set of regulations came in 2007 for how to deal with aircraft not subject to EASA basic regulations (how to import, how to maintain, how to repair etc in essence how to keep them airworthy). This includes everything (TC or no TC, private or commercial) except experimentals, microlights (and other super-light stuff) and military aircraft. They have separate regulations.

I’m sure other countries have similar arrangements. How else are you supposed to deal with circumstances like Cessna going bankrupt and no one willing to take over?

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

I’m sure other countries have similar arrangements. How else are you supposed to deal with circumstances like Cessna going bankrupt and no one willing to take over?

On N-register (i.e. for many or most of light aircraft in the world) there is no requirement for ‘support’ by a Type Certificate holder, and many current standard category certified aircraft were made by manufacturers now long bankrupt. As long as the aircraft is maintained by the owner in compliance with the FAA TC it is not relevant on N-register whether the manufacturer is bankrupt or whether anybody else took over their business. Certified aircraft in the US are not downgraded by FAA as a function of the business status of the company who made them, or whether it is easy to find new parts for them. The thread Peter linked explains how EASA practice differs.

There has been an ongoing discussion in the US about maintenance of ‘aging aircraft’ (that’s the term used) but neither the discussion nor the regulations include changes in TC status. I cannot imagine the reaction if FAA issued a NPRM suggesting they might remove the property rights of an owner through an FAA downgrade of his aircraft’s TC based on availablity of ‘support’, or if FAA awarded a monopoly on parts supply for a given aircraft type The solution is PMA aftermarket parts, standard parts, used parts, repaired parts, ‘owner produced’ parts and field-approved modifications to utilize different parts…. all of which maintain the certified aircraft within standard category C of A requirements.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 23 Mar 14:46

LeSving wrote:

EASA is not Europe. Which is a main part of the whole thing here. In Norway, it makes no difference either way regarding operational aspects. A whole set of regulations came in 2007 for how to deal with aircraft not subject to EASA basic regulations (how to import, how to maintain, how to repair etc in essence how to keep them airworthy). This includes everything (TC or no TC, private or commercial) except experimentals, microlights (and other super-light stuff) and military aircraft. They have separate regulations.

Of course all countries have rules for Annex II aircraft. The problem is that the lack of a TC holder does not make an aircraft type into Annex II.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

What-is-a-non-EASA-aircraft? LINK

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

Silvaire wrote:

The thread Peter linked explains how EASA practice differs.

I know that, but EASA is only EASA. They care about a small subset of all GA in Europe, at least private GA. Each individual country specific AA would be more comparable to the FAA than EASA is to the FAA. There is no requirement for a “support” by the factory in Norway either, and it would be very strange if that wasn’t the case elsewhere. I just cannot imagine Swedes and Frenchmen being content with “EASA TC” as the only valid TC for instance. Germans and Englishmen is another matter of course

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Airborne_Again wrote:

The problem is that the lack of a TC holder does not make an aircraft type into Annex II.

Yes, yes , yes The point is, “Annex II” is an EASA construct – only. In Norway it means literally nothing if an aircraft is in Annex II or not. The only thing that matters is ICAO compliant or not. I really don’t know what ICAO say about TC holders being out of business and no one to “hold” it. But I don’t see why that should matter either, as long as it is the AA that has the final saying in the matter.

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

Norway it means literally nothing if an aircraft is in Annex II or not.

So the Basic Regulation does not apply in Norway?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Peter wrote:

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

I wrote a “United B747” to imply an aircraft operator not established in Europe. In either case it matters whether the operator is resident or established in an EASA Member State.

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.

I’m sorry, that wasn’t correct. For the purpose of most of the ANO 2016, an “EASA aircraft” is one that is registered in an EASA Member State. Specifically for the part on Ops, it is one that is governed by the Air Ops regulation (see Art 64), which would include a resident third country SR22.

Airborne_Again wrote:

So the Basic Regulation does not apply in Norway?

It applies when it applies for applicable aircraft with a valid EASA TC. If, for some reason or the other, the validity of the EASA TC should seize, then the aircraft is clearly not in accordance with the EASA Basic Regulations. I don’t see how that should be a concern to us? Norway is a member of the EEC, we are not a member of the EU. Annex II or not means nothing in this case. Anyway, I misread what you wrote, was a bit fast and didn’t see the “not”

I find it hard to believe that an aircraft is grounded, or otherwise made unfit for purpose, just because the TC holder should disappear though, also in EU. Where exactly does it say so?

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

I wrote a “United B747” to imply an aircraft operator not established in Europe. In either case it matters whether the operator is resident or established in an EASA Member State.

This is going off on a tangent but IMHO the way an N-reg 747 is treated in the EU (e.g. pilots not needing the duplicate EASA ATPLs) is not based on whether the US airline is “based” in the EU but is based on them having a permission to fly to the EU (itself negotiated at a high level) and having an AOC accepted by the EU.

I find it hard to believe that an aircraft is grounded, or otherwise made unfit for purpose, just because the TC holder should disappear though, also in EU. Where exactly does it say so?

Can the discussion specific to a non-supported TC go into the other thread please? I can’t move posts which cover that and other topics, but that discussion is really valuable.

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

Back to Top