A PtF means the aircraft is not airworthy, but is permitted to fly on certain terms in a limited time.
It can mean that – e.g. when an aircraft with defects needs to be ferried to a maintenance base. But it can also mean that the aircraft can’t meet the requirements for a full CofA but it still considered (sufficiently) safe to fly.
It is really a “permit to fly” within specified airspace and subject to specified conditions.
It has nothing to do with that at all. It simply means it is flyable, it’s built quality is OK. It can be maintained in a reasonable way (necessary for continuing airworthiness without having to recheck it by the authorities or whatever). It got this and that performance numbers as tested and written in the hand book (tested while being on PtF by the way). There are no restrictions implicit or explicit other than those naturally restricting the performance and (lack of) equipment. While being on PtF during the test phase, there are those restrictions you are talking about.
One restriction exist, it cannot be used commercially because it does not have a ICAO compliant CofA. If other countries put restrictions on foreign non certified aircraft, this has nothing to do with it either.
There are lots of contradicting aspects when it comes to non certified aircraft. One is to make experimental aircraft (in particular) “as safe as” normal aircraft. So far there is nothing pointing to less safe aircraft technically. However, due to higher performance, sometimes more difficult or different handling, maybe unorthodox levers and instrumentation, they usually require more training and familiarization. This means for an average GA pilot who has flown only certified type aircraft, who doesn’t care all that much about familiarization and training, a non certified aircraft is less safe, maybe even downright dangerous. Lots of accidents due to this, it is one of the largest, if not the largest factor that differentiate non certified from certified. IMO this is no reason to change anything, except to make it clear that some aircraft requires much more training than other. The main reason to have non certified aircraft is to get something that does not exist in the certified world due to all the restrictions and standardization. There is no free lunch.
But it can also mean that the aircraft can’t meet the requirements for a full CofA but it still considered (sufficiently) safe to fly.
Never mind what a “full” CofA is supposed to be, EASA leans toward either a CofA or nothing. PtF is to be used for what it is intended to be used for: To temporary allow an aircraft to fly even though it lacks a permanent CofA, or damage, lack of equipment etc prevents it to fly according to normal legal procedure.
This permit thing is an oddity IMO. Not even microlights have a PtF. They don’t need any, because they don’t need to be airworthy because they are too light, literally. They fly according to EASA basic regulation and whatever “system” each country has made for them. They are more related to paragliders than aircraft in a legal sense.
LAA Permits come with a mandatory sticker saying the aircraft has not been built to a ?? standard. Even for former C of A aircraft, which are only not maintained under that regime.
Never mind what a “full” CofA is supposed to be, EASA leans toward either a CofA or nothing.
LeSving, you are contradicting yourself now. It is you who have repeatedly stated that Annex I aircraft with a CofA will need permission to fly to other countries and that the new ECAC recommendation will facilitate that. The document you linked to talks about PtF and “restricted CofA”. So a full CofA “is supposed to be” one which is not restricted. Higher up in your post you yourself talk about ICAO-compliant CofAs.
AFAIK a Restricted CofA is an EASA thing. Somewhere between a PtF and EASA or ICAO compliant CofA. I have never heard about it being used for non certified aircraft, but I guess/assume it could be used for those vintage aircraft by some countries. Not sure why though.
I was confused by the share numbers, 10k, but that was cleared up in the other thread.
Still, what is a “full” CofA? Is it ICAO compliant or EASA compliant? EASA has lots, some are “above” ICAO, some are “below”. LSA, VLA, ELA 1/2
It may also be that ECAC is as confused as anyone about how the terms are used, and PtF and Restricted CofA merely represents “something” that is not EASA and/or ICAO compliant. More like a worst case scenario.
Today I bought out 2 of our Bolkow Junior syndicate for £5,000 each, and now own 75% of £20,000, with Mode S and 8.33, and a spin-on oil filter.
I’m planning to upgrade, then offer shares for sale. The 25% partner agrees with me.
Great! Why did you buy them out?
The Group became crazy once we had the aircraft. Two low hours middle age guys, whom we let become Trustee/Treasurer and Tech Control.
Two old guys, who’d been in the same syndicate before.
One of the younger guys, senior aviation management, tried to dominate our first meeting, and got upset when I swore back at him.
Then they didn’t agree on basic maintenance – oil change and brake bleeding. One spent money on a lawyer. We spent money on an engineer, and got flying. They offered to buy us out at the start. Then gave up, and agreed to be bought out.
They only flew 30 minutes in 9 months. I had most to gain as I wanted to fly most.
Good things turned for the better for you!