Peter wrote:
Is a PA-18 not ICAO CofA?
It’s ICAO, but not EASA.
You mean a PA-18 is a normal certified aircraft but it never had an EASA TC, so is not an EASA aircraft ?
That’s quite a useful category then. See e.g. this.
hypoxiacub wrote:
Airborne_Again Do you know if Sweden accepts FAA STCs like Norway?
For Annex I? AFAIK it doesn’t. but then I have never managed an Annex I aircraft.
@Fly310 would know.
Peter wrote:
There is no substitute for acquiring knowledge, when you need knowledge
And you wonder why I get a bit lost.
For all of the reasons the OP mentions yes N reg. I have been through all that on the Bo, but as I stated thought it too difficult with the PA18. I wish to put full Tundra kit, but when I began research I stopped. Money being one issue to complete everything. Anecdotal but I met a guy recently with a similar PA18 to mine. G reg based Channel Islands. His aircraft had been grounded for months due the shops inability to interpret the rules and had refused to sign his return to service for the aeroplane.I left with him saying they were going to break into the hanger and steal his aeroplane back. All of this stuff is super great, but when you get caught, as the owner, as we all do, it is no longer any fun. So……..think very long and very hard. Most shops have not a clue
This all sounds so exhausting… The N register for me unquestionably is the simplest, if anything because the aftermarket mods come from there. I am still navigating what the 50 and 100 hour inspections under EASA rules are all about. For N register, it is annual. For EASA, it is 50/100/annual + ARC + CAMO + random surprises in foreign languages.
One reality about an N register conversion is that things that do not matter while on the N register matter for the DAR process. For example, to fly an N registered airplane, no one needs the history of the prop – it just needs to be installed properly, in spec, and signed off. To move to the N register, conversely, requires a full history of the prop back to manufacture. Important for a constant speed twin, not so critical for a two blade fixed pitch. Sigh.
Licenses are not a problem. I maintain both FAA and EASA with twin medicals and revalidation/BFR for each.
A lot of stuff in GA is difficult; one has to work out a path of least resistance and stay on it. Much of this is sorting out a “maintenance team”, especially if you are N-reg. Flying the plane is the easy bit 
First thing I would do is establish whether the PA-18 is treated in Europe as
This makes a HUGE difference to everything. The only country AFAIR where an uncertified N-reg can be based more or less permanently is Germany – see the Non Certified section for some long threads. And remember that owners of the non certified types get rather defensive (at best) or live in cloud cockoo land and a total state of denial (at worst).
Yes; registry transfers are often difficult. Even intra-EASA, which everybody says is a trivial paper exercise, might not be, if the accepting authority finds some “irregularity”; I know a case where the value of the aircraft was probably halved, so the discovery was covered up quick (with the co-operation of the avionics shop whose mistake it was, years previously) and the aircraft quickly sold.
My transfer to N-reg is here and the bulk of that writeup is still current. It was a gold plated job, supervised closely by an FAA inspector from Frankfurt. Various irregularities by the Socata dealer were discovered and had to be recertified on the spot. Unfortunately the DAR I used is dead, and the A&P/IA who coordinated the whole thing got busted by the FAA years later
If you want an N-reg, why not buy one from the US? Then the only special step is getting proof of import VAT paid (C88 or whatever – see here).
The PA-18 on N reg has an ICAO certificate of airworthiness, regardless of whether or not it is EASA certified. Lots of similar situations exist, e.g the Piper Apache (of which several are in the UK on N reg).
Peter wrote:
If you want an N-reg, why not buy one from the US?
I was also going to suggest that. In the long term perhaps simpler and more cost effective. Still got the maintenance issue though. During my transfer journey the DAR wanted the Fire Certificate for the interior leather upgrade. I called up the EASA shop who had done the work. They denied they had done it. Even when I produced the invoice from them to me for the cost. Nope certainly not us. I eventually got 16 MOR’s against them, CAA inspector took me aside and asked me to reconsider….he went to see them and nothing happened. This the same lot that took a prop off my friends N reg Archer, stuck it on their G REG EASA Club aircraft for ‘’the weekend’’. Friend turned up and asked why his prop was off? The story then goes on….
As Peter indicated get a regime, stick to it, and pray that the maintenance team are up for it. It is not just a UK problem…..also rife in EASA land
Airborne_Again wrote:
I don’t know that operating abroad would do any difference to the maintenance regime, but it is true that the Swedish CAA has proposed rule changes that will considerably complicate maintenance of normal category Annex I aircraft such as the PA-18 and make it more expensive.
The Norwegian CAA just did the opposite for these aircraft (certified Annex I). I haven’t really studied this in detail, and I have no intention to except stuff that is related to experimental aircraft , but gone are the EASA style “organization” as far as I can see (but could be mistaken). The wording has definitely changed from “organisation” to individual persons. It seems to me also that for instance a US mechanic (FAA) or other foreign one may very well do the work (after an application). This makes N-reg moot of course. The alternative has always been to transfer these types to the experimental register, but the CAA never liked that for some reason.
Peter wrote:
First thing I would do is establish whether the PA-18 is treated in Europe as
- ICAO-certified aircraft, or
- Annex 1 or similar.
It is a normal category aircraft with an ICAO-compliant CofA so it can fly anywhere in the world without special permits as regards airworthiness.
At the same time it is not an EASA aircraft, thus by definition Annex I and thus governed by the national regulations of the state of registry.
