5 years on… anyone has made use of this?
Peter wrote:
You would be creating a certified aircraft.
To my layman eyes, Annex 8 seems easier to comply with than CS-23 (considering just light aircraft). However, I never bothered to read (or skim through) the 9760.
I don’t know how they did it in the old days, but that is what I have heard. The experimental category for amateur built aircraft didn’t come before sometime during 1960-1970. It wasn’t before 1976 that EAA organized a chapter in Norway. Before that, people just built and the aviation authority had to approve the aircraft. It can’ t have been that many though. The aviation authority still approve the aircraft, but the EAA makes things easier.
Peter wrote:
A homebuilt with a “certificate” can’t do this because it is not an ICAO compliant CofA. In this respect the “certificate” is no different from say a UK LAA Permit or any other bit of paper under which a homebuilt might be flying under.
This is not right. An aircraft receives an C of A when an “ICAO compliant” (or not) authority decides the aircraft to be airworthy. This is a much more fundamental paper than a permit to fly from a club consisting of enthusiasts. After that it is just like any other plane, but with restrictions regarding commercial operations and less strict maintenance regulations. It makes things much simpler for everybody.
Peter wrote:
It would take, ahem, quite a lot of testing… You would be creating a certified aircraft.
Since we’re talking about the past, and as a point of reference, some common production types were long ago certified in a couple of weeks. The Luscombe 8 was designed in 1937, first flown in December 1937 and placed on sale in July 1938. Six thousand were then built over 20 years, of which maybe a third are still flying. The entire design, prototype build, certification, production start and first delivery process took something less than 18 months. It wasn’t certified with reference to ICAO, since that organization didn’t exist, but has always had an ICAO compliant TC from the time ICAO was created. The Piper Cub is another good example.
Aircraft certification was different in many ways in the past, and much less problematic even for certified aircraft that can today be flown anywhere. I think it’s within the realm of possibility that homebuilts got standard TCs in some places long ago on an individual basis, because that’s the only kind of TC that existed. Who knows? 
Could it be that in Norway, homebuilts were once given an ICAO compliant C of A, after extensive flight testing done on a tedious and time consuming induvidual basis? In the absence of much legal structure, as was more often the case in the past, I could imagine that may have been the case.
It would take, ahem, quite a lot of testing… You would be creating a certified aircraft.
The other approach is to do some (what would have to be a) slimmed-down development and testing programme, issue an ICAO CofA, and file a Difference to ICAO. One could check if Norway ever did this; there is some Appendix somewhere which lists all differences filed. But I don’t believe it. ICAO member states would have the right to object to overflight and this shortcut to certification would create a huge opportunity and thus an uproar.
Both Norway and Switzerland are “rich” countries, with plenty of “rich” pilots who know how this game works, and we would have heard about it by now.
I’m not certain but I believe most US piston engined warbirds having a TC do have an ICAO compliant TC.
That’s possible but only because the USA owns the known aviation universe and has done a lot of stuff without filing a Difference 
(starting, I believe, with auto Class C/D clearance upon 2-way radio contact)
I went to a presentation by an FAA lawyer some years ago who just shrugged her shoulders and said What’s been done is done and nobody is going to do anything about it now.
Could it be that in Norway, homebuilts were once given an ICAO compliant C of A, after extensive flight testing done on a tedious and time consuming individual basis? In the absence of much legal structure, as was more often the case in the past, I could imagine that may have been the case.
In most countries, all aircraft have certificates of airworthiness, the concept of an annually renewed permit to fly is relatively unusual. That’s why the UK tendency to call certified aircraft “C of A Aircraft” is inappropriate. Equally, and for the same reason, “certificated” and “certified” are two different things, as discussed in previous EuroGA threads.
All that said, there are definitely operating limitations associated with both the individual aircraft and type of airworthiness certificate. Homebuilts do not typically have an ICAO compliant C of A. I’m not certain but I believe most US piston engined warbirds having a TC do have an ICAO compliant TC.
homebuilts in Norway were also type certified from what I have heard, one type each aircraft. There were no experimental type.
This terminology issue keeps coming up…
Just because something is “certified” doesn’t mean it has an ICAO compliant CofA.
An ICAO compliant CofA means that the aircraft has, under the treaty, the right to fly worldwide provided that the pilot has papers issued by the State of aircraft registry. VFR or IFR as appropriate (unless restricted to VFR on the TC etc), NON commercial. Examples include a Cessna 150, PA28, SR22, TBM850, A330, etc…
A homebuilt with a “certificate” can’t do this because it is not an ICAO compliant CofA. In this respect the “certificate” is no different from say a UK LAA Permit or any other bit of paper under which a homebuilt might be flying under. These aircraft have no international flying rights. Examples include a Spitfire, RV8, Lancair 320, Vulcan bomber, etc.
Interesting. At first, homebuilts in Norway were also type certified from what I have heard, one type each aircraft. There were no experimental type.
@LeSving, it was a regular practice for US piston engined warbirds to have an FAA type certificate. That’s one reason many of them were sold for civilian service after their military careers were over. Some do operate in Experimental today because it makes maintenance easier.
Here are the AT-6 and P-51 Mustang type certificate data sheets.
Peter wrote:
Plenty on a G-reg CofA, £250k… One owner told me recently there are none left, however.It was done by taking an ex-mil one (a mere snip at £80k) taking it to bits, printing off an EASA-1 form for every part, and putting it back together.
OK, but you cannot do that if the aircraft has no civilian certified counterpart. An EASA-1 form is a piece of paper stating the part was indeed produced according to approved (civilian) design data. You wont find many such parts on a Dassault Mirage III for instance. The main issue to start with is what to do when you cannot find parts that are produced according to design data, hence you have to produce it yourself.
Peter wrote:
If it wasn’t for this requirement, it would be “trivial” for (in this case) any half competent electronics design engineer to knock up a superior fuel level measurement system. Also you could substantially rebuild all kinds of other bits. You could build your own autopilot – even if the regs required the user interface to be identical. Clearly that cannot be allowed
Indeed, and this is what experimental regs are for (also, in addition to homebuilt). Besides, I don’t see why you need design data, if all you are going to do is to produce something identical. For a mechanical thing this would mean a material certificate and equal shape and dimensions, or simply replacing standard nuts and bolts and rivets. Surely there must be something similar for individual electronics components?
