As this thread shows, the individual countries don’t want that, so there is no way EASA would implement it.
There is some kind of rearguard action going around Europe now, to keep Annex 1 stuck in their home countries, as far as long term parking goes. France and the UK did it in a seemingly coordinated action a while ago, limiting them to 28 days.
Peter wrote:
There is some kind of rearguard action going around Europe now, to keep Annex 1 stuck in their home countries, as far as long term parking goes. France and the UK did it in a seemingly coordinated action a while ago, limiting them to 28 days.
Wasn’t that about homebuilts and not all Annex 1 aircraft?
Yes, a subtle distinction though.
Peter wrote:
Yes, a subtle distinction though.
Not so subtle… Cubs and Comanches (to only name two) are Annex I but certified and not homebuilt.
Only a concern if you want to park your Concord more than one month 
Peter wrote:
As this thread shows, the individual countries don’t want that
How do you come to that conclusion? I think the point here is that EASA doesn’t really care, as AA points out. That is also evident in the so called “EASA GA Roadmap” or here local copy It has very little to do about GA, and all to do about the GA industry, if anything at all (GA vise).
LeSving wrote:
Maybe as a first step there should be a “minimum EASA Annex I standard”, some simple technical and administrative specs that each owner could apply for. All that is needed really, is some kind of verification, a simple note on a piece of paper, on EASA level, that the aircraft is airworthy, given this or that restrictions. Shouldn’t be too difficult IMO.
You can’t be half pregnant – either EASA can regulate this part of GA or not. A “minimum Annex I standard” would not help, because either you still can’t fly with “minimum only” in all member states (thus not improving today’s situation) or “minimum is enough” to fly in all EASA countries factually creating a EASA-regulated segment with all implications.
That “simple note of paper” that an aircraft is airworthy in all member states would require full EASA airworthiness standards and not only “some minimum requirements”.
Malibuflyer wrote:
full EASA airworthiness
There is no such thing as “full EASA airworthiness”. EASA has several standards (CS-LSA, VLA, ELA1,2 etc). Mostly bureaucratic nonsense, but one more shouldn’t be too difficult to create.
LeSving wrote:
There is no such thing as “full EASA airworthiness”. EASA has several standards (CS-LSA, VLA, ELA1,2 etc). Mostly bureaucratic nonsense, but one more shouldn’t be too difficult to create.
If an aircraft is designed according to a certification standard then it is, if you want to put it that way, “fully airworthy”. All countries have different standards, e.g. for light GA and transport category.
ELA 1 and 2 are not certification categories/standards but categories for continuing airworthiness (maintenance/modification).
Airborne_Again wrote:
ELA 1 and 2 are not certification categories/standards but categories for continuing airworthiness (maintenance/modification).
The same thing for practical purposes. Lots of aircraft are designed according to CS-LSA, but are built and used as UL for instance, or sold as kits.
