Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Permanently basing a D-Reg (LSA) Aircraft abroad?

I can speak only for Italy
I own a D- E xxx CTLS based in Italy since 2009 , year of construction .
No trouble with LBA or with Italian CAA when I renew my PPL .

Pegaso airstrip, Italy

HELLO

Is your aircraft EASA CS-LSA certified or with PERMIT TO FLY or coming with the new CS23 (CS23 LSA) (which allows more future evolutions (night VFR, IFR, re-motorisation, increase of the payload, direct opening to a greater number of countries.) ?

Anyway, with CS LSA EASA or CS23 EASA , your aircraft can fly in all the EASA country…and that is rather the same with the “permit to fly” zone wich is a temporally incomplete certification but EASA recognizes that the aircraft can fly safely.

For your information, I buy a D-REG BONANZA at Karlsruhe in 2011 which is based LFPU France…but my plane stay D-REG, because it is more intelligent than F-REG (OSAC) in the EASA RULES.

So I visit my CAMO at EDTG BREMGARTEN witch is not so far from LFGA (COLMAR).

That Europe and EASA !

COLMAR is nice airport (BP automate, RNAV approach, concrete, NVFR PCL) and the Rhin valley is nice.

Adls
LFPU, France

@ADLS you can use any EASA CAMO for your aircraft, there is no restriction :-)

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

HELLO MH

My German CAMO know my BE33 because he had this plane in his mechanic shop many years ago…I am happy with him (our relation, trust and advices, EDTG airports..)

With my first plane (HR10 FGIBD) I was in contract with GSAC (ex OSAC)…and they always have theirs own interpretation of EASA rules especially when this rules are adapted to a light aircraft (by example they do not agree the term “on condition”).

in practice I have not approached the French authority (DGAC) and OSAC if their “experts” (we still do not say CAMO which is yet the term EASA) concerning the airworthiness review of a D-REG maintained “out of framework approved as mechanic shop” that is to say by its owner.

But thing are changing slowly but surely.

Perhaps some pilots have some other experience..?

Adls
LFPU, France

that is rather the same with the “permit to fly” zone

Can you give an example of such an aircraft?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Hello

Before any research, we have the example of PIPISTREL ALPHA ELECTRO wich is flying with EASA PERMIT TO FLY and tested before being a school aircraft by FFA (Aeronautic French Federation wher all the Aeroclub are meeting)…yes, everybody don’t fly this aircraft (for the moment).

Another PIPISTREL, VIRUS SW121 just became CS LSA EASA first one with Night VFR..

EVECTOR HARMONY is LSA certified by FAA but does not seem certified by EASA..and in this case, in France, it could meet for the moment in permit to fly

I must confess that, now, there is practically no LSA in permit to fly because with the new EASA rules within the framework of the GA ROAD MAP the manufacturers ended up certifying their production first in CS LSA which makes it a selling argument.

It seem that with the CS23 for a LSA the aircraft manufacturers are more comfortable with future development than with CS LSA EASA (example new ELIXIR is coming directly CS23..

Adls
LFPU, France

Peter wrote:

France indeed prohibits uncertified aircraft being based there for more than 28 days

That isn’t what the french regulation say. Admittedly my google-french is only as good as google can be, but what it say is:

Publicly Affected: Owners and operators of amateur-built aircraft registered in a Contracting Party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area or in Switzerland.
Purpose: To authorize such aircraft to fly temporarily across French territory without prior request to the French authorities to validate their non-ICAO level airworthiness document.

Then it goes on to specify the details of this standing authorization.

Obviously this will be OK for > 90% of all such cases. For cases that for some reason don’t fall into those specifications, this regulation say nothing, except that the French authorities require a prior validation of the documents. A prior validation of documents is not the same as a prohibition.

What’s odd is that they specify the EEA + Switzerland instead of ECAC states.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Our aircraft is a Breezer B600 built in 2010.
Since the B600 only got its EASA Restricted Type Certificate in 2016 and as such, only the build numbers after round about that year are true certified CS-LSA builds (at least that’s how I understand the matter). So our plane flies on a Permit to Fly.

Anyway, thank you all for your input.
My take-away so far is that the German LBA doesn’t appear to have any issues with D-regs stationed abroad.
France has restrictions for certain “amateur-built aircraft”, which don’t appear to cover our PtF case however.

So, unless I am missing sth it should be possible to station our machine across the border…

EDTF

Mathias wrote:

So, unless I am missing sth it should be possible to station our machine across the border…

Why don’t you just write an email to the French CAA and ask them? That’s the oddest thing about these non trivial/special cases. People have a tendency to ask everybody and everywhere – except the one and only entity that can give a definitive answer; the national CAA. Warum?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Many would say never ask a question to authority for which you may possibly not like the answer

Last Edited by Silvaire at 09 Jul 14:23
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top