You still have t described it.
I assumed your curiosity would have moved you to pull up the EASA regulations and compare them to the FARs. My past discussions on this topic consisted of multiple copies of EASA regs which is both time consuming and a bit off target to most PoA members. So that is the reason for not getting into more detail. As to veiled insults, I reread my post several times and do not see it. If you feel insulted by how I discuss things, well so be it.
Very few recreational GA aircraft over there are trying to maintain an N number, AFAIK. Do they when imported?
Don’t know where you get your data from but there are 1000s of N reg private/rec aircraft domiciled and owned by foreign nationals abroad. It’s difficult to publicly search the registration database as all these aircraft must be registered under an aircraft trust. However, there are private/paid listings available if you are interested.
Which FAA regs would make at least a 25% increase overnight in European recreational GA?
Let me try this another way starting with Part 61. If you want more details feel free to look up the EASA version of the process.
One driving force behind operating N reg in the EU is the simplicity of obtaining FAA pilot ratings especially an instrument rating. It’s been said that one could travel to the US, get an FAA IR, return home, jump in his N reg aircraft and fly an IFR approach before his EASA IR application makes it through the system. And while the EASA has been trying to break this “loop hole” I haven’t heard of any success lately.
The same goes for pilot medicals. Given the discussions on PoA, my guess is a 1/3 or better of the practicing pilots here could not get a medical in the EU. Look up the EASA medical requirements sometime.
Moving to Part 43, I already gave examples of mechanic certification differences. However, one issue is the level of regulatory requirements to maintain the aircraft airworthiness currency. In the US and with N reg EU aircraft it’s the same, find any FAA AP/IA and you’re good to go. And there are 100s throughout the EU and the world. Or fly your own AP in from the States. EASA mx requirements have multiple organizational levels that go way beyond the Part 43 APIA infrastructure.
For example, pilot mx is more limited and requires oversight by a maintenance organization; there is no field approval process like the FAA; there are more levels of inspection requirements above the FAA annual like repetitive avionics inspections, 150 hr inspections outside the annual requirements; and, every 3 years a new AWC/CofA is required. There are dozens of other items.
On Part 21 the often described “overly-burdensome” FAA STC/PMA/TSO process pales in comparison to the EASA processes. So while PoA members (and EU N reg pilots) hotly discuss what new toys they want to install this year due to the plethora of new STCs and PMAs available every year, their European fellow EASA pilots can only wish as very few new equipment ever make it past the EASA process.
Actually, more foreign businesses bring their aviation parts to the US for certification due to the US system is more flexible and is quicker than their national system. After wards these companies simply use one of the available bilateral agreements and have the FAA STC converted to a national STC, if needed. It’s also probably the reason the Corsair boys above are completing the FAA STC process in order to sell their engine kits to foreign certificated aircraft. It seems counterproductive, but the FAA STC is the most flexible, cheapest, fastest thing out there that can be used globally.
And this is only the surface. But yes, you change the EASA regs to the FAA regs listed above you will probably see a dramatic increase in GA activity of EU registered aircraft based on what I’ve been told by those who actual live it. Or perhaps ask Kat what the difference would be flying/maintenance wise on his WTW trip if his aircraft was under a different registration than N reg?
