Peter wrote:
OK; is this EASA PTF a time-limited permit?
This is a typical question which can be answered with yes and no.
Yes, for example, it could be for a one off ferry flight for maintenance. An approval flight. But as in this case in question – i.e. an approval to conduct non commercial flights with a non complex aircraft where the safety of the design is not at question and where a type certificate or restricted type certificate is not considered appropriate – then the actual EASA part of the permit is actually permanent. If you look here at the Form 37 which needs completing, you can ask for an unlimited duration if you are requesting in conjunction with paragraph 4.2, item 15..
However the EASA part might then NOT be limited, however the actual permit itself still needs annual extension by the local authorities, in this case, the LBA. Here, the wording is a little disconcerting because it says the competent authorities MAY issue a Permit to Fly; and as we all know, MAY is different than WILL / MUST.
In case the aircraft is sold, the new owner has to request new flight conditions because these are linked to the owner. Thereafter the process of applying for the actual Permit issued by the competent authority takes place.
arj1 wrote:
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.
That’s not how I see it. If you check the requirements on the EASA form 37, you can also request a set of EASA Flight Conditions and an unlimited validity Permit to Fly even if not a DOA; however you would have to complete the form 18b.
Ah ok; thanks.
I thought this was some new certification category 
Peter wrote:
OK; is this EASA PTF a time-limited permit?
12 month max, according to the documents… Can be extended.
OK; is this EASA PTF a time-limited permit?
Peter wrote:
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?
I don’t think if is cheaper. In the end it all depends on the organisation that has issued the PtF.
If they allow the use of the parts they haven’t approved it will be on them if something happens.
To my knowledge PtF is issued when the certification has not yet completed, or to ferry the a/c or the CofA lapsed etc.
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?
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).
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?
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.
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.
