Is N reg now really dead with EASA IR?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NE England
Age: 53
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is N reg now really dead with EASA IR?
There has been a lot of talk over recent months about the demise of the N reg in Europe. The proposals as I understand them at the moment are that the operator of an N reg has to be non European resident in order to fly an N reg aircraft around Europe with just an FAA PPL and IR?
So, assume the NPA on FCL becomes law in 2014 / 2015 or whenever it may be, it would certainly appear that hours flown with an FAA IR would be credited in some way towards the EASA IR. Obviously no-one knows yet what TK or differences training / ground school would be required in order to effectively convert from an FAA IR to an EASA IR. BUT, assuming it is relatively simple to do, my questions are:
1. Does it seem likely that the maintenance / mods / parts (and costs?) advantages of flying an N reg in Europe will outweigh the additional burden of staying current on both EASA and FAA PPL's and IR's?
2. What exactly would be required to maintain the two licences and ratings simultaneously? ie could you make double entries for the same flights in your EASA log book as well as your FAA logbook?
3. Given the above - and assuming the upkeep of two licences is not too much of a burden - then would it make sense for someone looking to buy an aircraft in the not too distant future to still consider buying an N reg?
I realise there are a lot of assumptions to make in this, particularly because no-one really knows if the NPA will be adopted as drafted.
So, assume the NPA on FCL becomes law in 2014 / 2015 or whenever it may be, it would certainly appear that hours flown with an FAA IR would be credited in some way towards the EASA IR. Obviously no-one knows yet what TK or differences training / ground school would be required in order to effectively convert from an FAA IR to an EASA IR. BUT, assuming it is relatively simple to do, my questions are:
1. Does it seem likely that the maintenance / mods / parts (and costs?) advantages of flying an N reg in Europe will outweigh the additional burden of staying current on both EASA and FAA PPL's and IR's?
2. What exactly would be required to maintain the two licences and ratings simultaneously? ie could you make double entries for the same flights in your EASA log book as well as your FAA logbook?
3. Given the above - and assuming the upkeep of two licences is not too much of a burden - then would it make sense for someone looking to buy an aircraft in the not too distant future to still consider buying an N reg?
I realise there are a lot of assumptions to make in this, particularly because no-one really knows if the NPA will be adopted as drafted.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Won't make any difference to most people, I have run dual licences since 2001 (FAA CPL IR and JAA PPL IMC) and just log my flights in one logbook. If you can maintain a JAA license then you will easily be able to maintain an FAA one at the same time (IR is rolling currency and if you maintain your JAA IR then by default the FAA one will remain valid).
As I could convert the IR relatively easily that would be an option. (I also have a Mexican visa stating that I am "a tempory resident of Mexico" on the back
)
But I would not go back onto the G reg now we're on the N reg. Had all this been around when our aeroplane was G reg then possibly we wouldn't have re-registered but I am pretty glad to be out of the "that will be £1000 please sir for your 50 hr" maintenance reigme.
As I could convert the IR relatively easily that would be an option. (I also have a Mexican visa stating that I am "a tempory resident of Mexico" on the back
)But I would not go back onto the G reg now we're on the N reg. Had all this been around when our aeroplane was G reg then possibly we wouldn't have re-registered but I am pretty glad to be out of the "that will be £1000 please sir for your 50 hr" maintenance reigme.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definitely staying on the N.
It gives me a lot more control, for my policy of zero-defect and zero-downtime maintenance regime, regardless of cost. I can use high quality highly reputable U.S. companies for part overhauls, instead of chancing e.g. a mag overhaul on some UK EASA-145 shyster who uses secondhand parts with fake paperwork, and which the CAA know about but are not interested in doing anything about.
For somebody new coming into the IFR long distance flying game, things have gradually changed over the last few years, with the US checkrides saga etc.
It gives me a lot more control, for my policy of zero-defect and zero-downtime maintenance regime, regardless of cost. I can use high quality highly reputable U.S. companies for part overhauls, instead of chancing e.g. a mag overhaul on some UK EASA-145 shyster who uses secondhand parts with fake paperwork, and which the CAA know about but are not interested in doing anything about.
For somebody new coming into the IFR long distance flying game, things have gradually changed over the last few years, with the US checkrides saga etc.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point is a bi lateral bringing both sets of licences closer together and a mutual recognition of licences with simplified conversion.
It always seemed crazy to me that to convert an N reg private jet to G could cost £200,000.
We need to see how things pan out over the next few years! forget 2014 (wont happen)
Pace
It always seemed crazy to me that to convert an N reg private jet to G could cost £200,000.
We need to see how things pan out over the next few years! forget 2014 (wont happen)
Pace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NE England
Age: 53
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So with the lower relative cost of an N reg compared to a G reg, it would still seem to make sense to look for the former - Even taking into account the initial pain of doing dual licences and ratings?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
instead of chancing e.g. a mag overhaul on some UK EASA-145 shyster who uses secondhand parts with fake paperwork, and which the CAA know about but are not interested in doing anything about.
and assuming the upkeep of two licences is not too much of a burden
All flying time counts, all aproaches that you may fly count etc etc.
I'm sure you can find a dual rated instructor in the UK that can sign off both requirements with one ground session and a flight.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's very true, but for ab initio cases I suspect they will find the FAA side of it too much bother, relative to the benefits - except at the higher end of IFR GA and/or where you are importing a plane from the U.S. with particular equipment installed.
Even just the checklist for the U.S. paperwork (not sure if that one is quite current anymore) is nontrivial.
Even just the checklist for the U.S. paperwork (not sure if that one is quite current anymore) is nontrivial.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would get both European and FAA license here in the US, in one go.
You can do the JAA PPL and the JAA CPL in the USA, as well as, I assume, type ratings (and in any case ICAO TRs are acceptable to EASA), but not the really vital piece of the touring jigsaw - the IR
There are loads of FAA A&Ps and IAs over here. I know several straight off, all of whom can be trusted.
