Hence my Gazelle example; it has to be dismantled, inspected by a 145 outfit, and put back together.
This doesn’t mean it is a certified aircraft in EASA or ICAO sense. A typical vintage aircraft , like the Gazelle, can receive a CofA in two categories, both Annex I. One is what we call the “normal” category, typical for “orphans”. This means it is exactly as private aircraft was before EASA. It can be operated as before, maintained as before, but with certain relaxed parameters since certified parts are impossible to purchase new. They must be made from scratch or cannibalized or whatever.
The other category is the experimental category. It is more relaxed, but not necessarily so. The main difference is it cannot be used commercially.
None of them are certified like a C-172, but they have received CofA. However, what seems to be a bit lost on people here is that a vintage aircraft with a CofA in the “normal” category (annex I) is much more restricted regarding crossing borders than an experimental aircraft. It was not until 2016 that ECAC made a similar recommendation as they made for experimental in 1981. Just flying to Sweden from Norway in such an aircraft required up front permission and a fee of more than 600 euro. This is only very recently changed.
How many years will it take before Germany, UK or France accept that recommendation?
LeSving wrote:
However, what seems to be a bit lost on people here is that a vintage aircraft with a CofA in the “normal” category (annex I) is much more restricted regarding crossing borders than an experimental aircraft.
How can you be restricted with a CofA? Was it not ICAO compliant?
This doesn’t mean it is a certified aircraft in EASA or ICAO sense. A typical vintage aircraft , like the Gazelle, can receive a CofA in two categories, both Annex I. One is what we call the “normal” category, typical for “orphans”. This means it is exactly as private aircraft was before EASA. It can be operated as before, maintained as before, but with certain relaxed parameters since certified parts are impossible to purchase new. They must be made from scratch or cannibalized or whatever.
A lot of the stuff you write LeSving must be Norway specific; it is certainly not generally applicable around Europe.
The ECAC recommendation is just that, no more, with partial adoption around the place. BTW the “new” one you referred to is 2016 and already extensively covered on EuroGA. It has no legal validity and is not a basis for planning anything. One has to look in each country’s regs for what one can and cannot do if the plane doesn’t have an ICAO CofA. There is a lot of “regional freedom” e.g. UK-France, Norway-Sweden-etc, but the detail is in the national regs, not in some recommendation.
The CofA Gazelle had an ICAO CofA. Nothing lesser, like one can’t be half pregnant.
How many years will it take before Germany, UK or France accept that recommendation?
Since this recent development probably never… This is the quid pro quo of the relaxed operating regime.
The CofA Gazelle had an ICAO CofA
Yes, had, as did all older aircraft.
If the aircraft had initial design before 1955 and production ended before 1975, it is an Annex I aircraft. It’s approximately 10k of such aircraft in Europe today, and it is a huge problem, because even though they have a “normal” CofA they cannot fly freely. Hence ECAC recommendation ECAC/35-1 that came in 2016. A few have implemented it, most have not, not officially anyway.
Peter wrote:
A lot of the stuff you write LeSving must be Norway specific; it is certainly not generally applicable around Europe.
That depends entirely how this type of Annex I aircraft are handled today. Remember they all once were fully ICAO CofA, and it’s not awfully long ago since EASA said “screw all these planes”. People tend to forget fast, and treat/pretend the current status quo as if it has existed forever. What Norway did with these aircraft was to do as little as possible, business as usual. They are treated like any other aircraft, since that is what they are after all. This is the same as is done in the US, Canada, Australia and just about anywhere else in the world. Once ICAO, always ICAO.
What others European countries have done, I don’t know, but I find it very odd they should all be written off “just like that” all over Europe for no good reason at all. That may be the case however? It probably is, which is why ECAC was brought to the table once again.
From ECAC site:
ECAC RECOMMENDATION ON HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT – 2016 (ECAC/35-1)
At their Special Plenary Session held in Paris on 18 May 2016 (ECAC/35), ECAC Directors General adopted Recommendation ECAC/35-1 on the mutual acceptance by ECAC Member States of ‘permits to fly’ for specific types of historical aircraft. The aircrafts concerned by this Recommendation (approximately 10 000) are usually called ‘Factory National Restricted Permit to Fly (FNRP) aircraft’.
They were factory-manufactured, designed before 1 January 1955 and their production ended before 1 January 1975. Previously, they held an ICAO-compliant certificate of airworthiness. Now they operate under national rules as they fall within the scope of Annex II of the EU Regulation (EC) 216/2008 (related to aircrafts for which EASA does not have competence). The newly adopted Recommendation should contribute to sustaining the historical knowledge of the FNRP aircrafts, which is of great interest to many across Europe.
@LeSving, as pointed out, the ECAC paragraph you quote has nothing to do with any aircraft, regardless of manufacture date etc, unless that aircraft has had its C of A removed by the country of registration, and is instead operating on a renewable short term national permit. No restrictions on international travel apply to aircraft with a standard C of A, regardless of date of manufacture.
Why governments would remove an individual aircraft’s C of A based on commercial support status for the type is another issue – it would be totally impossible (legally) in the US, where no assumptions are made about how (commercially) the aircraft is maintained in accordance with the TC, only that the owner must figure out how to do it – which is generally not a problem given the type enthusiast networks that develop. It would not be legal to base airworthiness status of private property on the existence of a non-government commercial company.
Silvaire wrote:
as pointed out, the ECAC paragraph you quote has nothing to do with any aircraft, regardless of manufacture date etc, unless that aircraft has had its C of A removed by the country of registration, and is instead operating on a renewable short term national permit. No restrictions on international travel apply to aircraft with a standard C of A, regardless of date of manufacture.
That’s what I thought as well, but is it the case? I find it odd for sure, but looking at the number 10k one has to wonder what has happened. According to wikipedia:
In 2005 the GA fleet [in the UK] comprised 9,000 fixed-wing aircraft, 4,100 microlights, 1,300 helicopters, 1,800 airships/balloons, 2,500 gliders and some 7,000 hang gliders.
10k is more than the entire fixed wing GA fleet in the UK. Besides, knowing how other countries handles something as simple as an experimental aircraft (with all kinds of ifs and buts and odd restrictions), I do not find it inconceivable that most of the recent vintage fleet is written off as “permit”. If not, then what is so “Norway specific” about how these aircraft are handled the way I mentioned?
I’d guess that the “approximately 10,000” number of aircraft is incorrect, although it might refer to a projection of the total number of aircraft that might someday be removed from European C of A status and placed in a national short term permit category. I don’t suppose a high level of discipline was used in defining the number, this is the product of what amounts to a ICAO-based lobbying group.
Although the term is used by people in different ways, I do find it amusing to see the word ‘vintage’ applied to aircraft made in the 1970s! ‘Used aircraft’ is more appropriate. Aircraft manufactured between 1946 -1960 are classics, although some people have a problem with pre-1960 nose wheel aircraft being given that status, and pre-1946 planes are antiques.
There are several categories of aircraft which the DGAC has responsibility for issuing C of A’s in France. 1) CNRAC covers collection aircraft eg old warbirds and those of historic interest.2) CRNA = amateur built aircraft 3) CNSK = kit built aircraft 4) CDNR = orphans 5) CDN and CDNS both of which are ICAO compliant with the CDNS the “S” stands for special and deals basically with type certificates which have been dropped. 6) ULMs which themselves are divided into five categories.Some aircraft might fit into more than one category.All have one thing in common and that is that the DGAC can only give permission for them to fly in and over France and its territories (except for the ICAO CDN/CDNS which have the right to fly over all territories which have signed the Chicago Convention). France also does have bilateral deals with some other countries for flight in one anothers airspace. I believe there is one with the UK on several categories of aircraft under their respective National CAAs.That might throw up a strange anomaly in the event of a no deal Brexit. ie that a pilot with a UK CAA licence should still be able to fly his LAA permit to fly Jodel for example all over France whereas they might not be able to do the same with a EASA certified aircraft.
10k is more than the entire fixed wing GA fleet in the UK.
I think you picked up an obsolete wiki page. This one is more in line with CAA numbers:
Of the 21,000 civil aircraft registered in the UK, 96 per cent are engaged in GA operations,
That might throw up a strange anomaly in the event of a no deal Brexit. ie that a pilot with a UK CAA licence should still be able to fly his LAA permit to fly Jodel for example all over France whereas they might not be able to do the same with a EASA certified aircraft.
I wonder where these cases would be, because a holder with a UK issued license can fly any G-reg. If the said G-reg is certified, he can fly it worldwide and no ICAO signatory can take that away. 3rd World countries can and usually do require overflight permits.
The issue, on current Brussels position, is that the said pilot won’t be able to fly say a D-reg or F-reg – because Brussels threatens to invalidate UK issued licenses on 29th March 
