Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

EASA Permit to Fly - transferring from one register to another

Thanks Steve for your time, and sorry for my crude remark.
This PTF seems a legal niche. Are there other planes flying under this reg ?

All this paperwork seemed worth the Virus’ spec. Your friend must be very happy with this little performer

When I was a young kid, my dad said his plane if he were to buy one was a Europa. Then he told me a Virus.
Now, reading EuroGA, I realize he has great taste for efficiency (cost per Nm and kt)

LFOU, France

Could you say something more about this EASA ptf? Where is it mentioned in the regs etc.

IMO there seems to be lots of things about EASA that we take for granted, but does not reflect reality. For instance, in Norway, the competent authority for gliders is NOT the CAA, but the national gliding association itself. From what I have understood, the competent authority is not limited to one nation (but could be wrong). This means we could have one EASA wide independent competent authority for all “special” aircraft, for instance experimental homebuilt. They would then become EASA planes like a VLA for instance (doesn’t mean that this necessarily is a good thing however).

It makes me wonder. How much of all this bureaucratic nonsense is EASA made, and how much is the national authorities clinging to power and making stuff up simply to remain in charge.

In the Nordic countries, IFR in homebuilt has, and is, allowed. Still, maybe 95% of the pilots taking advantage of that are commercial pilots also flying in their spare time, and very few PPL pilots. PPL pilots rather go PPL H if they need to get around instead of IR. IR is pretty useless except a few summer months unless you also have a twin TP, full de-icing etc, which extremely few can afford in any case, and by then the aircraft is useless for local flights anyway.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Steve, what does the CofA look like?

This is really interesting.

Getting a D-E*** reg is not in itself a confirmation of an ICAO compliant CofA.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Steve, what does the CofA look like?

This is really interesting.

Getting a D-E*** reg is not in itself a confirmation of an ICAO compliant CofA.

This is where the confusion seems to arise, for example why the logbook had to be modified from having an ARC stuck into the logbook, being replaced with the statement:

‘I hereby certify that an airworthiness review has been performed in accordance with EASA approved Flight Conditions’

As far as I understand it, the plane will never be issued with an ICAO compliant CofA; EASA has issued Flight Conditions which permit / restrict the flying which can be undertaken, hence the plane is then eligible for a Permit to Fly which can be issued by each individual member state; this needs to be renewed annually.

The Permit itself is a document that accompanies the plane as well as the approved Form 18b instead of an ARC / and aircraft registration documents. As the Permit to Fly is issued based on EASA established Flight Conditions, the aircraft is considered safe to fly over (and in) all EASA member states, without restriction (except the limitations noted in the Flight Conditions).

EDL*, Germany

Jujupilote wrote:

Thanks Steve for your time, and sorry for my crude remark.
This PTF seems a legal niche. Are there other planes flying under this reg ?

All this paperwork seemed worth the Virus’ spec. Your friend must be very happy with this little performer

When I was a young kid, my dad said his plane if he were to buy one was a Europa. Then he told me a Virus.
Now, reading EuroGA, I realize he has great taste for efficiency (cost per Nm and kt)

Oh yes, my friend is extremely happy, especially because the plane is significantly less than half as expensive as the previous mount, as a side benefit, landings are easier because of high wing allowing a better peripheral view toward the runway – my friend is on the smaller side and landing a Cirrus was tricky because of a lack of vision allowing to judge how far above the runway the plane was. Now each landing is a doddle because everything is visible…

My friend went flying with a flight instructor to fulfil the minimum requirements for the insurance and the instructor was gob smacked – 130 knots true at 22liters…. he couldn’t get over it; everyone he’s been speaking with, he was commenting about the performance.

The aircraft also has the optional airbrakes fitted; when using them, landing on 150m runways – no problem…. so yes, the task may have been arduous but my friend says it was well worth it….

Are other planes flying in this niche? Yes, for example I know of a couple of Breezer B600 which, although now have been type approved, in the past they weren’t, hence they were flown using an EASA Permit to Fly. I would hazard a guess that most aircraft which were registered as UL here in Europe but could be ordered as a VLA / LSA in the US with 600Kg MTOW would also have been flown with such a permit…..

Last Edited by Steve6443 at 19 Jun 13:24
EDL*, Germany

LeSving wrote:

Could you say something more about this EASA ptf? Where is it mentioned in the regs etc.

IMO there seems to be lots of things about EASA that we take for granted, but does not reflect reality. For instance, in Norway, the competent authority for gliders is NOT the CAA, but the national gliding association itself. From what I have understood, the competent authority is not limited to one nation (but could be wrong). This means we could have one EASA wide independent competent authority for all “special” aircraft, for instance experimental homebuilt. They would then become EASA planes like a VLA for instance (doesn’t mean that this necessarily is a good thing however).

It makes me wonder. How much of all this bureaucratic nonsense is EASA made, and how much is the national authorities clinging to power and making stuff up simply to remain in charge.

In the Nordic countries, IFR in homebuilt has, and is, allowed. Still, maybe 95% of the pilots taking advantage of that are commercial pilots also flying in their spare time, and very few PPL pilots. PPL pilots rather go PPL H if they need to get around instead of IR. IR is pretty useless except a few summer months unless you also have a twin TP, full de-icing etc, which extremely few can afford in any case, and by then the aircraft is useless for local flights anyway.

Here is the link to basic information on the EASA permit to fly.

Here local copy you can find a fact sheet about when, for the purpose of issuing Flight Conditions, EASA is the partner and when not. So, in the case of my friend’s Virus, it did not conform to an approved design. Therefore, when filling out the EASA Form 37, in Box 4.2 the choice was 15 → For non-commercial flying activity on individual non-complex aircraft or types for which a certificate of airworthiness or restricted certificate of airworthiness is not appropriate. Here, the validity of the permit is 12 Months, not a couple of weeks.

Last Edited by Steve6443 at 19 Jun 13:21
EDL*, Germany

Jujupilote wrote:

Are there other planes flying under this reg

I own a beautiful Flight Design CTLS with Easa PtF and I know there are a few flying in Europe .
As Steve said this way you have a plane with almost all the privileges of a certified one with a fraction of the costs.

Pegaso airstrip, Italy

Can anyone list the aircraft types which can be in this “EASA PTF” category?

And are these “EASA aircraft”? That is a key to this sort of thing.

If you can get an aircraft type which can be used with the UK NPPL and its medical concessions but which can fly abroad without any permits etc (with a RHS holding a Class 2) that is a big advantage. Currently you can do this with an “EASA aircraft” (i.e. any ICAO certified aircraft) but Brussels wants to kill off this option, effective even post brexit since the UK wants to do a treaty with Brussels.

with a fraction of the costs

What are the factors enabling this?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

What are the factors enabling this?

AFAIK EASA PtF can only be requested throught Design Organisation Approval (DOA) holder, i.e. a company that can legally design an aircraft.
And they would normally produce a PtF for an aircraft they designed.

Sorry DOA or AP DOA (Alternative Procedures DOA).

EGTR

I means what factors in an EASA PTF aircraft enable lower costs.

For example, can you do your own maintenance, can you use uncertified parts, etc?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top