Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Extending aircraft life beyond what is published by manufacturer

The CAA have thought about this, even the FAA You are only allowed to do “yearly” (or 100 h or larger) if you have actually built the aircraft yourself – and – have taken a course in basic maintenance.

Yes, something like that. Those are the rules for FAA Experimental Amateur Built. For factory built aircraft it’s a bit different: while standard category FAA aircraft can in fact be moved indefinitely into Experimental (or in and out again), annual inspections must be signed off in the maintenance logs by an A&P mechanic (although no longer an IA). Moving to Experimental actually doesn’t get done a lot with normal ‘touring’ aircraft, because under FAA rules they are far easier to maintain in the conventional manner than under EASA rules, no such thing as ‘orphans’ and no recognition of any organization to provide ‘support’. Where you do see planes moving into Experimental is with aerobatic aircraft, where the owner modifies the airframe and/or engine for increased performance. For instance, a friends factory built Pitts was moved into Experimental Exhibition before he bought it. He’s an IA so the annual inspection is not an issue for him (he could sign off his own plane either way) but he can and does modify it now with only a logbook entry. Sailplanes also get moved over occasionally, although in their case the aircraft is often imported without FAA certification in the first place.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 12 Oct 15:54
The big question mark is: Will the national aviation authorities accept more liberal rules issued by EASA ? In my view you can´t expect much help from this discussion club in fighting your own NAA which is very quick putting in force more restrictive regulation ideas from EASA but very reluctant when some liberation is demanded. Has anybody ever had help from EASA in such cases ? I suspect they don´t have much legal power in real life. Vic
vic
EDME

If I had time I could dig up the UK CAA publication which basically said exactly what I said!

As I said, not correct, although not entirely wrong The point is Peter, this “permit” stuff makes no sense other than in the UK. I cannot fly my experimental on a “permit” other than in the test period of min 25 hours. When that is finished the aircraft have to receive a special C of A to be allowed to fly. Microlights essentially fly on a permit, since they never receive a C of A and never can, because they are not airworthy according to the definition. They have to renew the permit each year. You can build a microlight as an experimental though, and receive a C of A when the test period is over.

then somewhere between 90% and 99% of the European GA fleet would do it immediately.

The CAA have thought about this, even the FAA You are only allowed to do “yearly” (or 100 h or larger) if you have actually built the aircraft yourself – and – have taken a course in basic maintenance. If you buy a finished homebuilt aircraft you will never be allowed to do a yearly by yourself. The course is probably different from country to country. In Norway it consist of a weekend of theory and to do the “yearly” on your own aircraft 1 or 2 times together with a certified mechanic. If you have not built it, you can still do a lot of stuff like modifying and changing things, but you can never sign the book for a yearly that shows the aircraft is airworthy. The original builder can also do the maintenance with the correct permissions.

In the UK with this permit system, I don’t understand how this even is supposed to work, because the permit has to be renewed. Only an official person of some sort can renew the permit each year by doing some form of inspection. Since the aircraft does not have a C of A, any inspection and/or maintenance to keep it airworthy is also irrelevant. It will be like a microlight. Then it doesn’t really matter who has built it or who is maintaining it, the aircraft is not airworthy (according to definition) in any case, it is only flying on a permit.

These are very different systems. For practical purposes there aren’t much differences I guess, other than a permit aircraft will be more restricted. Typically no NVFR or IFR and restrictions for long distance over water etc.

According to the latest rumors EASA will ease up on this draconian need for maintenance organizations for light and non complex aircraft as well as CAMO. They will make it simpler and go from organization based approval to individual based approval. To me this sounds like maintaining an EASA reg will be as simple as maintaining an experimental (for someone that has not built it themselves). There was also talk about delegation of inspection work to user organizations (I guess this means EAA and/or NLF in Norway) and LAA? in the UK (don’t know about other places). The specifics are yet unclear, but huge simplifications are in fact coming. I am positive that the fears you have that experimentals will take over the GA fleet are unfounded

Last Edited by LeSving at 12 Oct 10:26
The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

the company who built it no longer exists, and spares can be challenging to get sometimes :)

Their are quite some aircraft types for which this is true. Suchs as Piper PA-30, General Avia F22 etc.

With the PA-30 their is a club who does do some spares and modifications or at least they try to coordinate things, to keep them flying at a reasonable cost.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

I do think this was possible in the past. I do know some older certified aircraft which fly under PFA as they are restored by non certified company or people. The same is true for the Netherlands where a few certified aircraft fly as experimental as they have been restored by unlicensed people.

I think this is no longer possible. These aircraft I do know are all Annex II aircraft, and where put on experimental before EASA. Experimentals are under NAA control, so on should contact NAA on this.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

Isn’t there some rules about Orphaned aircraft too? Like the Bulldog for example. I don’t fully understand this, but take our Commander, the company who built it no longer exists, and spares can be challenging to get sometimes :) Out of curiosity could this be moved to a CAA permit?

EGHS

The general rule is “if it can have a CofA it must have a CofA”

This is not correct, although not entirely wrong

If I had time I could dig up the UK CAA publication which basically said exactly what I said!

If you could just move a certified aircraft (say a PA28 or a TB20) to what is for all practical purposes a “homebuilt” category, with the only cost being

  • can’t fly abroad without obtaining permissions (well… in theory )
  • can’t do any paid work in it

then somewhere between 90% and 99% of the European GA fleet would do it immediately.

If you can’t use a spanner, you can still use a company to maintain your “homebuilt” and I have actually come across 2 people who do.

So I think there must be some massive wires crossed in this discussion.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Your aircraft has service life limited by manufacturer – by number of flight hours. You are reaching the limit. Initial idea was to move the aircraft into “experimental category” and kept if flying – but this is not accepted by CAA “the wing will fail as the wing has no knowledge if it is in experimental or normal category and we will not let you do it”.

Well. All (I think, or at least most) RVs by Vans have service life limitations on the main wing spars. I don’t remember exactly what it is, but 10-15 thousand hours or something. You can also purchase anodized spars. Anodizing is good for corrosion protection, but bad for fatigue. RV’s with anodized spars have a couple of thousand hours less service life. This of course makes the point of anodizing pretty much obsolete, but must people somehow wants anodized spars no matter what. People do crazy things Being experimental, the builder/owner is the “factory”, so all such things are considered recommendations, they are not mandatory in a legal sense. The local CAA can make it mandatory however, and in Norway such recommendations from the kit manufacturer are all mandatory. It’s the CAA that decides if the aircraft is airworthy or not.

In Norway there would be no problem moving that aircraft into the experimental category, since as I understand it, it is no longer airworthy. It will then become an experimental restoration project. You would still have to make it airworthy though, and that would mean at least stripping the structure and look for cracks, but most probably it would mean building new wings or at least fixing the structure in some way that extends the life. For a Cub, building a new wing takes a couple of weeks (It’s a whole industry out there making Cub parts), but for more complex aircraft, such repairs may not even be worth considering, unless you can find a low time wreck with the parts you need.

The general rule is “if it can have a CofA it must have a CofA”. This protects CAA and maintenance industry revenues.

This is not correct, although not entirely wrong. Experimentals in most parts of the world does indeed get a C of A from the authorities. It is certification or not certification that is the issue. When an aircraft leaves the “certified world”, it can never go back. For the CAA, a certified aircraft is much less work than an experimental. Experimentals are per def one offs. Each experimental aircraft receives a C of A based on inspection of each individual, while a certified aircraft receives the C of A based on the certification (pure paper work for the CAA). So, if an aircraft can remain in the certified world, it must remain certified world. Each country has slightly different rules, but for an aircraft to be moved to the experimental category, it generally has to have lost the airworthiness as a certified aircraft (crash, old age and similar). It could also be that certification is not possible, like many Russian aircraft, then the experimental category will be the only way to keep them airworthy.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Which European CAA allows a certified aircraft to be moved to the non-certified route?

Eg. Sweden. I know a guy there wo moved his ST-10 to experimental status and installed a 4-blade-prop, among other things.

LOAN Wiener Neustadt Ost, Austria

Which European CAA allows a certified aircraft to be moved to the non-certified route?

European in purely geographic sense – Russia, for example. There are plenty of private “experimentals” there that are none other than superannuated CofA aircraft from the First World countries – including even such machines as C421.

LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic
16 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top