The new build Yak 52’s being non annex 1 was/is a massive embarrassment to EASA’s policy. When I raised some searching questions as to where this could lead the then head of EASA General Aviation he told me personally “no because this must never happen again”.

Ultimately its up to the governments NAA whether an aircraft type is Annex 1 or not, but assessed/ agreed against EASA produced guidelines. The Yak52 was an inherited situation i.e. when Romania joined the EU, Aerostar were building an ex military type with no civil certification and selling it to civil operators . EASA grudgingly accepted the Romanian CAA proposal rather than shut down Aerostar (loss of jobs, etc). So this, being an oxymoron, lead to a lot of complication about registration/servicing etc which were eventually overcome.

I’m pretty sure it won’t be allowed to happen again in Europe with say a proposal for an unlicensed serial production of an old type……it’s a red herring to suggest otherwise.

Furthermore I’m sure the CAA would not let a non certified type fly in the UK which is outside of the strict Annex 1/Non Annex 1 criterion.

Note the new build FW190’s are accepted by LBA/EASA as being a continuation of previous production, albeit with a 60-70 year gap, but crucially the production organisation has written agreement from the recognised design authority, EADS which has a direct inheritance line back to FW. Rest assured BAESYSTEMS would never grant such permission.