2 REG
 

From "Flyer" news:

Guernsey and Jersey are to introduce a joint aircraft registry under the name �2 REG�.
According to Fergus Woods, Director of Civil Aviation Guernsey, this registry will be open to owners of private aircraft of any size, stationed anywhere in the world. The launch for the Registry is planned to be the third quarter of 2013.
The Registry will be administered under a private-public-partnership with Guernsey and Jersey by SGI Aviation, a company based in the Netherlands.


Great news for owners of N registered aircraft who are not confident of EASA's plans for them. Note (unlike IoM registry) this is for any private aircraft - not just bizjets

That's really great :ok:

EASA is going to learn about competition from a second source closer to home it seems. You cannot indefinitely legislate away the marketplace of ideas.

There is no 'competition' from a new registry. EASA control European airspace full stop. To operate in that airspace you will have to be compliant with the rules they set. I also don't believe the CI will start their own FCL division as its currently done by the UK CAA on their behalf.

What it might mean is that they will adopt a lighter touch to maintenance and the associated regulatory fees. But the big incentive I see for people going onto the new reg is the more friendly tax schema.

So what about CI Register maintenance then? That is (potentially) the closer to home competition EASA regulations will face, just as they face it now from N-register and always will. To me as a non-IFR pilot, EU pilot licensing, medicals etc would be a hassle but not to the same extent as Part M.

I think for almost any aircraft owner the biggest thing would be any possibility to escape the EASA Part M nonsense. If you can't do that, then I agree that N-register would continue to make a lot more sense.

My own plan is never again to have European registered residence.

Well it cannot be any lighter than the utter shambles of EASA Part M, and the cowboys who partake.......

Ditto.........:ok:

2-Reg
 

Before we all start think about putting our PA-28's and Cessna 150's on the 2-Reg, look at the potential cost....

From either N-reg or G-reg, the aircraft will almost certainly need an export C of A. Now, if you have ever had the CAA anywhere near your aircraft recently, you will know this is not an enjoyable experience and could be expensive (what is this tiny switch? do you have an STC for it?? where is the Form 1???).

Unless you are resident in the CI, you will still need an EASA Part FCL licence.

The IOM allow FAA or EASA maintenance but then send a surveyor to issue the C of A every year - that's not cheap, I bet.

The CI based companies that offer N-reg trusts are the most expensive for this service so I doubt the CI trust, if that's how it will be run, won't be cheap.

The CI will not let a bunch of old undermaintaned aircraft into the register, if you think you are getting out of Cessnas SID's checks forget it!

Maxred..........not all in the maintenance business are cowboys !

Presumably, they're creating this register for a reason and that reason will undoubtedly be to make money. With volume in mind they are making their register available to small aircraft... so they will need to make it advantageous for the owners of those aircraft if they are are to attract them in volume.

Otherwise just stay or move onto N-register and operate in the logical world, with rational maintenance, by that existing method.

To move from the world of "cowboy" Part M maintenance with a small old under-maintained aircraft is surely going to cost a large chunk of the aircraft's value. The only way that could happen is if the CI register issues a C of A without requiring an Export C of A from the UK.
Who, with a £40k PA-28 (yes, I know even that is ridiculous value), is going to cough up maybe £5k to £10k to get an export C of A (A&C, you must know the risks of inviting the CAA to look at an aircraft, gawd know what they might find, especially on a Cessna 172 with all the new SIDs) followed by another chunk to satisfy whatever requirement the CI register imposes to issue a CI C of A.
The CI Governments might not intend to charge much but I bet the company running the system from Holland will include enough paperwork to ensure they earn a good screw.

However its all a moot point. The register is not being aimed at spam cans, it will be for CI residents and the big players as a CI equivalent of the Manx reg.

Why does it matter what the aircraft is worth, unless you're going to sell it?

What's being described above is a death spiral: the reason the aircraft value is low is EU over regulation of certified aircraft, very much including Part M maintenance. If you're not planning on selling the aircraft, its beneficial to cut costs looking forward, and break the decreasing radius spiral.

Otherwise you sell the aircraft and switch to non-certified... Which is probably EASA's world view for 'hobby pilots'. The utility and freedom of private transportation aircraft moving around Europe is obviously not their 2020 vision!

Put me down for 2GOOD, 2RICH and 2SEXY.

I think that is a very correct analysis.

And if something goes wrong with the venture then you have to go back again... to face either the UK CAA inspector, or the £1500/day FAA DAR.

My DAR buddy would charge $500 for a conformity inspection. Maybe he needs to buys some airline tickets :)

The CI register is going to have to go a long way to catch up with the lead that the IOM register has already established, which in just five years is now the second most popular aircraft registration domain in the WORLD. That is quite an achievement, and one which is raising eyebrows among those who are closely aligned with, or working within the bureaucratic nightmare that is EASA.

Quite why the IOM have been so successful is due to several reasons, most notably of which is the quality of service that they offer to their target audience of biz jet owners and operators. Their service is OUTSTANDING, and unlike most authorities they offer direct contact to decision makers, and generally speaking the decision makers make an effort to help their clients rather than hinder them with obstacles. The UK CAA has a LOT to learn from the very well qualified and customer orientated staff of the IOM, and so too do many European authorities. The guys working in the IOM under the charge of Hartley Elder are top notch, and they really do know their stuff!

The bureaucrats in EASA may have good reason to be a little "miffed" by the success of the IOM register. Private operators who choose to reside outside of the EU and register with the IOM will escape much of the new Basic Regulation, which when analyzed has little or nothing to do with safety regulation, but instead is an attempt to regulate for the sake of creating yet another empire filled with trough swigging eurocrats.

Regrettably though, for the owners of small light singles, I doubt if the CI reg will be of help. As previously mentioned the costs associated with export CofA's may be prohibitive, and most importantly the "operator" will have to a resident outside of the EU in order to completely escape the clutches of EASA. Most light singles are not "operated" by anyone other than the owner/pilot, and the residency of the operator is what the new Basic Regulation hinges on.

Fergus Woods - CI -ex CAA

Brian Johnson - IOM - ex CAA - Re'td

Hartley Elder -IOM - ex CAA

Gatwick boys done good :ok:


SGC

Not so simple maintenance
 

As a further input into the view that this is not going to be the escape from EASA that light GA is looking for, I have it on good authority that the CI maintenance regime will be based on a validation of 145 approval.
As I expect most light GA on the N is being signed off by an A&P and an IA (a situation that is unlikely to change with the current TSA block on new FAR 145 approvals) and on the G is being signed off by an engineer under Part M, your CI reg might need a higher "standard" of maintenance approval that now required if the CI look for validating organisations rather than engineers.

Looking more and more like a clone of the IOM idea.

I have direct experience of two FAA 145 repair stations here in the UK, and both did really crap work. The second one left a couple of life threatening bodges, which I did a video of (e.g. a control linkage cutting into a cable harness) but they weren't really interested... both are EASA 145 of course too.

FAA 145 isn't actually blocked if you have the right contacts. One firm I was at on Monday is getting its 145 finalised in 2 weeks' time. It's just that the normal Tom Dick or Harry can't get one just by applying for it.

So actually I am very happy with my very good A&P/IA. In fact I have now gone totally away from "companies" and rent a hangar for the Annual, where the IA and I do it in a few days, working solidly. The best possible job done and half the price of a "company".

Does the IOM accept planes without an Export CofA? What exactly do they do?

Totally agree. 145 means you pay more for paperwork and bull:mad:.
You maintain your aircraft the way it should be maintained to your satisfaction as it is your neck on the line.
If CI are looking for 145 approved maintenance, then it will not be the register for light aircraft. Better be a Channel Island resident and have your light aircraft on the N.

But you can have your plane on N anyway.

EASA has not imposed long term parking limits on foreign reg planes.

So... the difference is exactly what?

Saving the FAA trust cost, and eliminating the risk of the FAA trustee dying and then somebody undesirable grabbing the trust and preventing you from selling the plane.

The latter is routinely solved with the 25%/75% Delaware trust company; it just costs more money. Bizjets use that.