N to G reg.

[Rimmers]

Anyone know what is involved in converting a simple light aircraft like a C152 from an N register to G? i.e. Change the altimeter...... likely costs involved?

[IO540]

There are potentially loads of issues. You need to get advice from a clued-up engineer who is currently putting aircraft through an initial G-reg CofA. I am not up to date but believe there is for example a 12 year engine life issue.

On a "cheap" plane like a C152 the cost of a "suprise" could make it uneconomical.

[Wrong Stuff]

IO540 is right - you need to look into it very carefully to avoid inadvertently ending up with a very expensive aeroplane.

To give you a ball park idea, I was quoted £5k as a minimum, with a likely £7k as the final bill (including VAT) for a seven year old aircraft which wouldn't need any physical changes other than the registration re-painting.

I was advised to keep it on the N-reg and haven't regretted the decision yet.

[Keef]

If anything, the way maintenance requirements are headed post-EASA, it will reduce its value significantly to put it on the G-reg.

[IO540]

If anything, the way maintenance requirements are headed post-EASA, it will reduce its value significantly to put it on the G-reg.

Yes, funny one that.

When the DfT was going to chuck out N-reg planes, the talk was that they would lose a lot of value, and the bottom end types would end up being scrapped (uneconomical to export back to the USA).

Now that's been abandoned, this one has gone away but EASA will be pushing for something similar, so it's going to come back. OTOH the EASA maintenance regime (if implemented as proposed, and if I understand yesterday's impenetrable presentation, which I doubt) is going to make G-reg life at least as complicated as it has been previously, which (if EASA are also slow in kicking out foreign reg planes) would work the other way on N-reg values.

However, assuming private use, aircraft maintenance is not an item on which any big savings can be made, no matter how you play it.

I also don't think EASA can afford to screw EASA-reg owners that badly, otherwise the move to N-reg will speed up. FAA Part 91 maintenance is a straightforward procedure which isn't any cheaper but has very nice options to use a trusted competent freelance A&P/IA, no need to use some CAA/EASA certified cowling screw chewing-off outfit.

And kicking out N-reg planes is politically awfully hard. The UK DfT failed (it seems like it failed very rapidly indeed but delayed the announcement for a year, to save face), France failed very rapidly too (but didn't bother to save face; they just blamed it all on a "junior official acting beyond his authority" ;) ) and nobody else has tried it. I believe Denmark or Sweden have a law banning foreign reg for > 6 months but it clearly isn't enforced.

So the future of aircraft maintenance will be interesting, and won't pan out the way proposed, for sure. And EASA know that. I am sure they are playing a clever game. They are French after all ;)

[A and C]

I don't see the change to EASA maintenance as to much of a problem, things will change a little but there are ways to reduce the price of some parts of the maintenance task if the company approval is well writen.

To me the big problem is that EASA was found to be "an accident in the making" by the House of Commons transport select comittiee, the report by the MP's was the most damming that I have seen and used some very strong remarks discribing EASA as "half baked" and "half cocked".

The final recomendation was that no more power should be given to EASA untill the the get there act together, this is all very well but the uncertenty leaves mantnance companys unsure if it is worth the cost of getting the paperwork for EASA Approvals in place when EASA is in such a mess and Westminster select comittee is recomending that the CAA should not hand over any more powers to EASA.

No doubt IO540 will see this as all the more reason to stay with the FAA system and I can see his point but the constant slagging of UK maintenance companys should be seen in the light of labour rates that are about a third of what a BMW dealer would charge.
Quality maintenance is avalable in the UK but most owners won't pay the extra few pounds an hour to get it.

[IO540]

That's right A&C this is all the more reason to remain on N for as long as one possibly can.

I don't think that the often suspect maintenance standard is in any way limited to G or even to aircraft. It is just the nature of the business and the limited career options within it. Sure my local main BMW dealer does a good job but most car repair shops are russian roulette.

The traditional solution, from an individual's point of view, to a lack of career options is to start your own business or work freelance. I must confess that talk about the details of the various existing and proposed maintenance procedures does my head in and you must understand it far better than I do, but it appears that the general trend in Euro-land is to make it hard or impossible for small businesses, never mind freelance engineers, to operate. This is a very bad thing because these are the very best people around. Like in any other business, with say ISO9000, the moment you give somebody a big company and a QA regime to hide behind, the QA goes down the pan (why? because it can).

It isn't cheaper to be on N-reg (contrary to much disinformation to the contrary) but it is sure as hell easier to find very good people to do the maintenance.