Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Best EASA Country for PA-18 Super Cub Registration?

Well, the OP flies a Super Cub and writes lots of blog articles which get published around the place. He is well known but seeing that his profile here is empty (not a good idea if looking for advice, but it is what most people do) I am not going to post the link.

I guess the aircraft suits the OP’s mission profile, and importantly makes it more interesting than just another writeup from somebody flying an SR22 or a TB20 etc right across the mountains. Notice that all aviation mags have these “traditional” types on their front cover, 99% of the time, and there are good reasons for that.

Regarding legality, sure, there is negligible monitoring. If one wanted to be really obnoxious, and wanted to p1ss off some wealthy and well-connected “businessmen”, one could post FR24 tracks of “amateur built” aircraft flying obviously illegally around Europe. Also the applicable regs are buried in national laws, and some of these are incredibly hard to locate.

Regarding the N-reg stuff, that is just the usual aviation bollocks and sour grapes and incompetent maintenance companies which don’t know the rules and/or try to milk the customer.

However, AFAIK, the OP’s plane is certified so this doesn’t matter. Maybe @hypoxiacub can confirm the CofA.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The current aircraft I am operating is an N Registered Cub. I am a US citizen and have had no problem anywhere in Europe. Both the Cub and the Super Cub are certified (not LSA/ULM, not experimental). I have FAA and EASA licenses.

My preference for the N register is a) owing to being American b) fear of draconian rule changes in a foreign language that come out of nowhere (Swedish regs, for example) c) I’d like to make many Alaska STC’d mods and d) because I will be flying the thing to Central Asia and some other ridiculous places, where EASA in my view fades out of significance and the N register is useful to me in case anything unexpected happens.

I am going to follow the lead of the maintenance shop and get the PA-18 off the Swedish register and on to another EASA one soon. From talking with people in Germany, the process is easy and straightforward to the D register, though my only preference is to make sure it is the most flexible EASA register to deal with. For example, I am aware that Norway accepts FAA STCs (from shopping another Super Cub). I also dove into the morass of grandfathered STCs pre-EASA (as I wish to add about 5 of them) and can’t get a conclusive answer on whether or not the country of register within EASA matters. Ie, can I take a German pre-EASA grandfathered STC for the PA-18 and apply it to a PA-18 registered in France, or must it be German registered to avail of the old STCs? Etc Etc Etc

As for DARs, some Germans told me Tommy Malone passed away recently. There was one in Toulouse that weeks have gone by without a reply. Not many on the list. The Germans said “it is the worst time to move GA aircraft in Europe to the US register” and to “plan for it to take a long time.”

Unless you know it, or it’s actually off the market, possibly your solution here: https://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=46349
You would likely have to pay EU VAT though…

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

The one I am shopping is much cheaper (as well as EU VAT paid). And that color scheme is stomach churning. I had seen it before and passed…

hypoxiacub wrote:

I also dove into the morass of grandfathered STCs pre-EASA (as I wish to add about 5 of them) and can’t get a conclusive answer on whether or not the country of register within EASA matters. Ie, can I take a German pre-EASA grandfathered STC for the PA-18 and apply it to a PA-18 registered in France, or must it be German registered to avail of the old STCs? Etc Etc Etc

As far I as understand, “EASA grandfathered” STCs only apply to EASA aircraft, not Annex I aircraft. So for a PA-28, you can apply a pre-EASA German STC to an F-reg aircraft. For an Annex I aircraft such as the PA-18, it’s up to the state of registry to decide if they want to accept STCs from other states.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 10 Sep 07:33
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

it is the worst time to move GA aircraft in Europe to the US register” and to “plan for it to take a long time.”

or arrange an FAA Export CofA, in the case of one MEP the conclusion was it was easier to fly to the USA to get it done, not an easy option for a PA18 with Alaska BushWheels,

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

@Airborne_Again Do you know if Sweden accepts FAA STCs like Norway?

FAA STC acceptance threads.

Unless there is a recent development, no country in Europe accepts FAA STCs. To do so would be dynamite, politically in both the CAAs and within the industry where firms (a) prefer to install AML STC stuff (Garmin, Garmin, Avidyne, or Garmin) and push everybody into that channel, and (b) a number of companies and individuals make nice money from developing EASA STCs. Non-avionics STCs are a good business because you rarely have an AML option.

The only country I know of which accepts FAA STCs directly is the long-standing case of Australia.

What EASA has is a process for validating FAA STCs. It is far from trivial, and that is by design, for European industry protection. The statement that FAA doesn’t directly accept EASA STCs either is very convenient (Brussels always invokes the “bilateral” angle, even today with vaccination acceptance) but in GA largely disingenuous. Some info here and you can see why most US STC holders are simply not interested.

IIRC there are some concessions in Part-ML where an FAA STC (or TSO?) may be useful. @ultranomad may know the details.

For a US citizen, I would just go N-reg. It avoids the need for a trust (saves a few hundred a year). The Brussels (and now the UK ANO too) dual papers requirement is never checked in Europe, IME (there was one report of a UK ramp check, but no detail). To be 100% straight you need the dual papers but you already have the FAA ones, so this is a non-issue. You just need a BFR flight with an FAA CFI every 2 years, and the FAA Class 3 medical is widely obtainable in Europe. It will be an extremely sad day for me if I ever have to go UK-reg.

There are some interesting routes around the need for an Export CofA if you can get a letter from the manufacturer stating that the aircraft met FAA requirements when manufactured. Yes it does sound bizzare but it is what I did in 2005. A DAR should know all about this.

Be careful with “give me your money; I can get you an STC for this” kind of situation. One example is here and AFAIK that aircraft is still “lost”, ~5 years later. Admittedly that was a particularly nasty scenario; a no-FAA-TC Robin is a ripe area for avionics STC disasters.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

For a PA-18, the whole question of EASA validation is moot, it’s all up to the national CAA.

On the other hand, if you have an EASA aircraft and the non-validated FAA STC in question is classified as “Basic” in accordance with section 3.5.3 of these TIP technical implementation procedures, such an STC can be administratively validated for a single aircraft (that is, a single S/N, not a single type). The procedure is here.

LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic

Single airframe STC validation.

Is a PA-18 not ICAO CofA? If so, N-reg is a very bad option – unless you are in the former communist bloc and have a private hangar

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

Back to Top