Airborne_Again wrote:
It is a normal category aircraft with an ICAO-compliant CofA so it can fly anywhere in the world without special permits as regards airworthiness.
It could be both. Some are certified Annex I, while others are experimental registered. Most, by far, PA-18s are certified, while J-3s are more 50/50 is my impression.
LeSving wrote:
It could be both.
Yes, that’s what I wrote, wasn’t it?
Airborne_Again wrote:
…. At the same time it is not an EASA aircraft, thus by definition Annex I
I meant in relation to Peters comment. It could be treated as:
In Norway it could be either depending on history and restorations and so on. It requires that the actual country has the appropriate regime. I don’t know if every country do, or if these kind of aircraft just pops into experimental category by default some places.
LeSving wrote:
In Norway it could be either depending on history and restorations and so on.
Same thing in Sweden, but putting normal category Annex I aircraft into the experimental category for convenience is no longer possible here, AFAIU.
putting normal category Annex I aircraft into the experimental category
What is the difference between those two, in Europe, in terms of the various privileges?
There may be differences in the area of national CAA oversight, but the flying privileges hang on an ICAO CofA, or not. For example in the UK there is the Permit system but it can be an LAA Permit, or a CAA Permit (a Spitfire or the Vulcan are on the latter, and the Concorde would be if it flew again).
AFAIK most countries in Europe don’t even have an “experimental” category. It is a term borrowed from the US where it is formalised. Other names float around e.g. “amateur built” is a popular one, but obviously the PA18 won’t be that. As I wrote before, the category where you have an ICAO CofA but it is a non EASA type, is very valuable because you get the various flying privileges same as a fully certified type, but some countries allow you easier licensing e.g. the UK allows the self-declaration medical to be used.
I called up the EASA shop who had done the work. They denied they had done it. Even when I produced the invoice from them to me for the cost. Nope certainly not us. I eventually got 16 MOR’s against them, CAA inspector took me aside and asked me to reconsider….he went to see them and nothing happened
That’s hilarious. Was it in the UK? I had the same “CAA inspector” experience in relation to a UK company (no longer there, based near Oxford and well known for selling propellers with forged documents) which refused to send me a work pack, and the inspector told me to visit them and sort it out over a cup of tea. In any country “slightly to the south of the UK” I would have said the company simply bribed the CAA guy. In the UK, and other N European countries, I think it is just a “club” of old chums, made worse in the UK by the CAA getting heavy fees from the company for the 145 or whatever approval.
Peter wrote:
That’s hilarious. Was it in the UK?
Oh yes, and still there. Under the old favourite, ‘’Under New Management’’!
The old management went on to wreak utter havoc at the local International Airport 
by going to war with the existing flying club. Ended with Attempted Murder allegations to the CAA with an instructor accused of deliberately taxying a 152 at the CFI of the other club. Poor Gatwick guys has no clue how to deal with this lot.
Its tough Up North…
Airborne_Again wrote:
Same thing in Sweden, but putting normal category Annex I aircraft into the experimental category for convenience is no longer possible here, AFAIU.
I don’t think it ever has been possible for convenience here either. It’s more a matter of restauring old wrecks that since long has lost their papers. With the new regulations for certified Annex I (or normal category national aircraft as we say here) that came, I’m not entirely sure where the line goes, but a prerequisite for a certified Annex I is obviously that a ICAO type certificate exists and that it is possible in practical terms to keep the aircraft that way without deviating. There were also new regulations for experimental aircraft that should come at the same time, but they were literally slaughtered by everyone, so they are postponed. These regulations has to be viewed together.
Peter wrote:
What is the difference between those two, in Europe, in terms of the various privileges?There may be differences in the area of national CAA oversight, but the flying privileges hang on an ICAO CofA, or not. For example in the UK there is the Permit system but it can be an LAA Permit, or a CAA Permit (a Spitfire or the Vulcan are on the latter, and the Concorde would be if it flew again).
AFAIK most countries in Europe don’t even have an “experimental” category. It is a term borrowed from the US where it is formalised. Other names float around e.g. “amateur built” is a popular one, but obviously the PA18 won’t be that. As I wrote before, the category where you have an ICAO CofA but it is a non EASA type, is very valuable because you get the various flying privileges same as a fully certified type, but some countries allow you easier licensing e.g. the UK allows the self-declaration medical to be used.
Pilot license vise there are no differences. We don’t have any “permit” thing as something that permanently makes an aircraft airworthy after a set of rules/specification, I’m not entirely sure what it means in detail. What we have is:
EASA aircraft is pretty obvious. State aircraft is police/ambulance mostly, but don’t include military AFAIK, as they aren’t civilian at all. National aircraft comes in several flavors:
EASA aircraft and normal category national aircraft are identical from from pilot license point of view, and operations point of view. Experimental category differs mostly in commercial aspects. No commercial flying can be done. Amateur built aircraft has rules and regulations regarding stuff related to building the aircraft. When operational however, there is no difference in principle between an RV-4 and a F-104 or an Experimental registered Pa-18 They all have a CofA in the experimental category. Maintenance vise an amateur built aircraft can be maintained (100h/yearly writing in the books) by the builder.
You could say that an amateur built aircraft is a special sub category of the (much broader) experimental category.
The UL category is very different from either EASA , Normal or Experimental. They are “made airworthy” based on a operations within a “safety system” that the CAA approves, but there is no CAA involvement once the system is approved. Gliders are even more special. The glider association is it’s own competent authority under EASA, in line with the CAA itself. Along with the Austrian gliding association, this is the only non-government competent authority in existence today AFAIK.
The PA-18 is definitely a normal category aircraft, as is my current Cub. I do not do experimental.
From what I am told by my German inspector/mechanic/and CAMO shop, they can do the maintenance, inspections, and CAMO activities no matter which EASA state it is registered under (this in relation to shopping Italian, Norwegian, and now Swedish registered PA-18s). They must follow the rules of the state of register, as it is an Annex I aircraft. That being said, I basically came to the forum to “country shop” and find the easiest EASA national regime to choose, given that the seller’s shop is saying to get it off the Swedish register.
I am leaning toward Germany owing to the amount of people I know there, though it gives me a bit of pause as I fled from there in horror 5 years ago.
The N register is the final goal, though I have no illusions it will happen before the end of the decade. I called three DARs Friday in Europe…all went to voice mail or didn’t pick up (after having emailed some weeks ago). I might have to use my publicity engine to see if I can fly someone from the USA for a fun, unforgettable trip to Europe (riding around in the PA-18 in question in the Alps for fun and “inspection purposes”) and get it done. The DARs based here seem not to be inclined to do any work.
Well, as in maintenance, there are few people left doing it and lots of demand, so it does get difficult at times. But if you have a bit of patience and let all your contacts play, I am sure you will find a DAR who will do the job for you on the aircraft of your liking.
I am sure you will find a DAR who will do the job for you on the aircraft of your liking.
@Bosco have heard some reliable horror story of DARs who practice on heavy turbine equipment being let loose on a puddle jumper, sledgehammer and walnut doesn’t begin to describe it. Basically an airworthy puddle jumper is grounded Beyond Economic Repair or the weight of the paperwork bends the main spar.
Suggest ‘do the job for you’ carry a health warning, although there are one (possibly two) DARs who may adopt a pragmatic approach, just get your due diligence done.
