Reverting 'G' back to 'N'

[Victorian]

Sorry to raise a hoary old chestnut, but searching this subject doesn't yield much partly because the search doesn't work on single letters!!!

I'd be interested to hear any recent experiences of converting originally 'N', currently 'G' aircraft back to 'N'. In my case PA-28-161 which was 'N' until imported to UK in 1993, converted to 'G' at the time. The reasons for investigating change include FAA IR and the morass of CAMO etc., but I do not harbour any realistic prospect of saving money on maintenance overall (although that would be nice!). The aircraft will remain in UK and be flown throughout Europe on FAA stand alone licenses. It does have a cert of free circulation.

There has been radio replacement under 'G' (430) and experience of this area would be interesting if there are particular problems. Otherwise it's pretty much 'as was' with US origin engine and prop. It does have the CAA starter warning light mod.

Thanks in anticipation - any advice appreciated.

[IO540]

This (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/faa-nreg/index.html) might help.

If you have a continuous paper trail (of maintenance etc) all the way from N to G to N, that should help considerably because you will have evidence that the plane met FAA requirements originally.

[Fuji Abound]

When I last nearly did this the key was finding the type on the FAA register - which obvioulsy in this case is not an issue. That assured the transfer should be straight forward (although costly) and you will of course require either a trust or be a qualifying person.

[A and C]

It would seem to me that it is probably the maintenance company that needs to change not the letter painted on the side of the aircraft!

CAMO fees are leveling out now that the system is up and running and should cost you less than the price of a trust company in the USA.

[IO540]

The problem, A&C, is that not everyone has the expertise to sort out the honest people from the crooks :)

After 8 years of ownership, I am still learning. It's been a steep curve at times, and I was dead lucky because I bought a new plane, so for the first 2 years I was able to harrass Air Touring (who hated me eventually, but actually many/most of their recent customers ended up threatening litigation pretty often, anyway) and even to this day I have not had to have any significant work done (manageable individual avionics issues excepted).

Somebody who bought a 25-30 years old plane (which is most people, on average) as their first time buy will have a double learning curve: learn about aircraft engineering, and learn about how to spot the crooks. Such owners usually end up bent right over the nearest barrel :)

Being on the N-reg does not significantly reduce scheduled maintenance (except the 150hr check - IF you fly 150/year) but there are peripheral gains: it is easier to avoid the crooks because you choose who does the work, and the whole maintenance deal is more portable. And you can buy overhauled parts with an 8130-3 whereas on a G-reg an OH part would need a Form 1 which is money for old rope (basically it is a 145 company flogging you a bit of laser printer toner for a few hundred quid :) ).

[englishal]

The FAA system (maintenance) system is FAR easier to understand and keep on top of. Unlike JAR/EARSEA...For example we have just spent ANOTHER month grounded due to EASA paperwork. We brought our annual forward 6 months so that it could be done in the winter, and allow unbroken flying in the summer...EXCEPT...you can't bring the ARC renewal forward 6 months (god knows why), only 3 I believe, so now it is out of step with our annual.

So in the middle of the summer the ARC renewal is due which should go straight through (£700 worth of paperwork) but they find an "issue" with the mags. The Mags had a 500 hr overhaul last annual, when in fact they should have had a somethingother overhaul (don't ask me, it is not much different though). So the result is the ARC paperwork can't be completed and we can't fly until the mags are overhauled AGAIN. Does my f***ing head in sometimes. It is a full time job keeping on top of EASA paperwork (and hence probably the £700 ARC RF).

But anyway, back to the original question - If the aeroplane was originally N registered and currently on G then the process is quite straight forward. Ours wasn't originally N reg, but was exported straight to Switzerland and then onto the UK a year later, so it is a little more complicated. Our FAA IA has it in hand though and I'll let you know how smoothly it went (or not) soon!

Good luck!!

[A and C]

Some one at the CAMO or subpart F company is pulling your pi**er, the ARC should be a paperwork exercise just so long as the maintenance has all been done.

Slick mags require a 500 hour inspection (points change Ect) so as long as you have not done more than 500 hours since the last 500 hour inspection this should not be an issue.

If they sent the mags off for a 500 hour inspection when they had less than 500 hours to run to a full overhaul it is time to go asking why?

I think that you need a new CAMO !

Oh! I should have added that Slick mags are best exchanged at full overhaul so most good parts companys will get them to you overnight.

[Victorian]

Thanks very much for all the helpful replies chaps. I'll report back if I take it any further. One issue is that I don't have any FAA logbooks or documentation from the 'N' reg period so I've ordered copies of what the FAA has on file (for the princely sum of $4.50).

As someone who flies around 50 Hrs per year in the US and comes back to this EASA shambles each time the idea of converting is gaining attractiveness!

Obviously the overhanging risk is the one identified in IO's paper about the so-called 'Basic Regulation' whereby the bureacrats have found yet another way to choke the life out of us. I wonder how active AOPA (UK) will be in standing up for UK FAA licensed pilot's rights and the their investment in 'N' reg aircraft. (Yes I am a member).

[englishal]

Apparently the ARC stuff went backwards and forwards with the CAA and there was no way we could bring it into line with the Annual. Someone else delt with it, not me, so I don't know the full facts but I know there was a lot of discussion with the CAA which resulted in us being grounded.

Apparently there is a 4 year "overhaul" requirement on the mags and as such the 500 hr doesn't cut it and the CAA are insisting we have them overhauled again.???

Confused...:confused::confused:

[A and C]

Quite right, you cant bring the ARC in line with the annual but the ARC should only be paperwork if the maintenance is planned correctly.

I assume these are Slick mags you are talking about? if so you need to ask why the subpart F company sent a set of mags that were so near overhaul for a 500 hour inspection.............. it is just a daft thing to do and it is costing you money. It is not an EASA thing it would have happend on the BCAR if the maintenance company had done this.

I think you must ask the maintenance company to fit these mags for free as if they had chosen to think ahead thay would have only fitted these mags once!

[englishal]

Thanks for that. Yes I believe they are removing the mags and re-fitting for free, and the company doing the overhaul will do it at a discount. Not all is lost though, we have decided to bring forward the 6 monthly by a month so they can do that when they re-fit the mags. At least then we won't be down again in September!!

Would have been nice if the ARC could have been brought forward so that we would have picked this up at the time.....