Does Annex II really mean no longer IFR and all that? I am not sure. I recall at least one old C35 Bonanza in Switzerland which was Annex II and IFR. As far as I know also the Antique airplanes such as the Super Connie and DC3 here are IFR and both are not Annex I for sure.
Re the Airbus gameplay, I see just one difference between the airplane types concerned and GA planes: There are much less of them. At the time Airbus killed the Caravelle, there were 2 flying plus the Swedish one which wanted to get a flying permit. So 3 all in all. Concordes, 2 operators of which one wanted to kill it and the other relented as they were not making much money after 9-11 either. They were sorry to see it go when it did though because it picked up a lot of business in the last year of operations.
The same kind of thing currently happens with the Vulcan, as RR refuses to support the engines. (Which btw pretty much seals the fate of the renewed Concorde fan movement who wants to get one of those flying again, somehow I can’t see RR or Airbus to change their stance on that…)
But that does not change the fact that Airbus has revoked the airworthiness certificate of 2 operating airplane types and nobody can do anything about it as long as they insist they own that type, no matter that the certificate is withdrawn. I also know that within the Industry this act was discussed with a very high anxiety, regarding lecacy airbus types such as the B4 or even the A310 in mid terms. Yes, it is unlikely that they would withdraw the TB series, but what about the Rallyes or worse, the ST10? That one has only got a few left flying so the “outcry” would be relatively small.
I am pretty sure that in the US it is different. Not only do companies there support their heritage fleets as much as they can or at least won’t stand in anyone’s way who wants to try, even in the case they want to ground a plane as Beech did with the Starship, unless the owners sell them back to Beech they can’t simply revoke the certificate and ground the remaining owners as Airbus did without any compensation given to the airlines who lost working airplanes.
For me that is one reason to avoid French made airplanes which are only done in small series. Clearly, for the TB series there is safety in numbers, even Airbus would feel the impact of a lawsuit by all TB owners who would fight such an act, but small series would be in real danger if the same applied.
Lawsuit on what grounds? Airbus has no contractual obligation to support the TB fleet and it couldn’t care less if it alienates small GA as they have a grand total of zero sales.
Quite unlikely as you will receive a restricted certificate. Most often these certificates don’t allow commerical operations, sometimes no IFR. There are quite some orphaned aircraft which fly around all over Europe VFR. For the average VFR private pilote little will change.
You might be able to find an alternative means of compliance to show that your aircraft keeps in good condition for IFR. While the usage is restricted, it is far more practical than grounding which you seem to suggest.
OK, Jesse, but that is more or less exactly what I said to start with 
i.e. in Europe you do need the TC holder to exist for the aircraft to fly usefully.
VFR-only may be OK for a rag-and-tube type but useless for something like a TB20 – or any number of Pipers, Cessnas, Mooneys, etc.
Whereas in the FAA system there is zero loss of privileges if the TC holder vanishes. If Socata vanished and nobody took over the TC, I could fly my N-reg TB20 for ever, with full privileges.
PMA is very difficult. I looked into making something under PMA a few years ago. You need the whole works in the way of a QA system and your factory has to be FAA approved and inspected. You would need to host a delegation from the USA for a week or more. It’s impractical for a startup business, in Europe, for a specialised part. Of course “documentation based” QA systems like ISO9000 are a sham in most cases but you still have to go through the process to get approved for PMA and for that you need more than ISO9000.
In practice, speaking of that antenna assembly, I suspect people would just fabricate something… and given the failure rate of those antennae (bad connection at the base) this must be happening already. It would also be easy enough to advertise the product on a website “for homebuilts only” and obviously you don’t ask questions about who buys it 
After all, Socata buy a lot of homebuilt-market parts and recertify them (e.g. brake master cylinders).
@ Peter: where did you get the info that Socata has stopped producing parts? Is there any sort of official communication?
Alboule wrote:
@ Peter: where did you get the info that Socata has stopped producing parts? Is there any sort of official communication?
I told him I was at the factory last week and asked two of the support/service staff. I initially asked where the TB series jigs/fixtures were and they said they no longer make those parts but keep a stock and coordinate the worldwide service centers. I asked twice to be sure.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Does Annex II really mean no longer IFR and all that?
No, though those kind of limitations are quite common.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
But that does not change the fact that Airbus has revoked the airworthiness certificate of 2 operating airplane types and nobody can do anything about it as long as they insist they own that type, no matter that the certificate is withdrawn. I also know that within the Industry this act was discussed with a very high anxiety, regarding lecacy airbus types such as the B4 or even the A310 in mid terms. Yes, it is unlikely that they would withdraw the TB series, but what about the Rallyes or worse, the ST10? That one has only got a few left flying so the “outcry” would be relatively small.
When a TC Holder wants to end their task as type certificate holder (that is under EASA and FAA to support the aircraft by issueing bulletins etc, not by supplying parts), this is only possible when the authority (EASA or FAA) agree with this. The TC holder must make all engineering data available. EASA does send out a certification information bulletin to try to find someone interested in the TC. Example is found here: EASA Certification Information – Request by Turbomeca to surrender TC ARRIEL 1A turboshaft-engine Would this be for Socata TB series, then that would be where a well organized owners group could step in, and ensure that useability of the aircraft.
achimha wrote:
I told him I was at the factory last week and asked two of the support/service staff. I initially asked where the TB series jigs/fixtures were and they said they no longer make those parts but keep a stock and coordinate the worldwide service centers. I asked twice to be sure.
Was that conversation in french ?
Is it possible that you might have mis-understood ?
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
Lawsuit on what grounds?
Presumably due to financial damages caused by the TC getting revoked, making perfectly airworthy aircraft suddenly useless. If the TC holder arbitrarily decided to revoke the TB type certificate it would cause significant damages to those who owned the aircraft.
The problem is, in Europe, generally, you can sue only for economic loss, which limits the options if you are a private owner. American-style class actions are not possible.
This was very “useful” during the original Thielert saga, AIUI. Private owners could not sue (because there was no economic loss), and those who bought via a company (which includes a lot of private owners; you would be amazed how many people buy via a company or even just a business-like name) could not sue anyway because they had no recourse under consumer laws which would have otherwise outlawed the separation of airframe and engine warranties. There is a view that Diamond would not be here today if it wasn’t for these factors.
