Supersonic wrote:
Permission is not required for aircraft registered in the European Economic Area with a Permit to Fly with the exact wording: “This Permit to Fly is issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) 216/2008, Article 5 (4) (a) and certifies that the aircraft is capable of safe flight for the purpose and within the conditions listed below and is valid in all Member States.”
So is written in my CTLS Permit to Fly
Then for my plane in the Flight Conditions Flight Design specifically states daytime and VMC .
Not sure if I could , with avionic and license , to fly IFR in daytime an VMC
All aircraft that don’t have a conventional ICAO CofA are restricted in European border crossings, and often long term parking in a country other than their country of registry, and most cannot fly IFR either due to their Permit or due to the airspace. The exact classification doesn’t change the overall picture much.
As stated previously, most owners are happy with it because it meets their requirements, and in a few places (e.g. the UK with its medical self declaration) there are key benefits. However quite a lot of people found out about the restrictions only after they spent say 100k.
So
" This permit to fly….is valid in all member states "
What should mean ??
I’m speaking of EASA PtF of course.
ormazad wrote:
EASA PtF of course
The difference between NAA PtF and EASA PtF is the flight condition/testing setup, the latter is merely useful for exporting or selling new aircraft designs between states, it just make getting PtF easier…
I think you still need to check with the other states NAA before flying, this applies whenever PtF is involved and will not cost you more than an email (or just do it without as someone told me, he still refers to the Super Cub as Group A aircraft)
Ibra wrote:
he still refers to the Super Cub as Group A aircraft
That one is non-EASA on PtF, it is Annex II which is called Annex I now days…
Maoraigh wrote:
Some old aircraft exist in both forms – EASA and Annex1 – depending on their history.
It can as production continues after 1975 cut-off date (tough the bulk of prod happened before)
I don’t think they are any PA18s that still on EASA CoFA, at least not on GINFO database, for sure if you like to call it L4 it will be on PtF 
Bolkow BO208 Junior in the UK are some EASA, some LAA Permit.
For historical reasons. (I think??)
In very, very short terms: they classify failures by the resulting danger from nuisance to catastrophe. Then they analyze the units leading to the failure. Risk and technical details of every relevant potential failure have to be separately documented.
They principally will certify a homebuilt for IFR, if
-standard aviation material and method is used
-non-important parts don’t interfere
-navigation and communication are redundant and independent
-attitude and altitude are redundant and certified. If the same manufacturer provides the exact same product as certified as well as non-certified, a non-certified product is acceptable.
Thus well documented professional build to aviation standards/workmanship plus truly redundant nav/com plus certified (or non-certified sibling) truly redundant attitude information and altitude information plus a detailed risk analysis will be sufficient. That’s a sensation.
That sounds a bit like the UK LAA IFR scheme except the LAA does some flight testing and has stability and control response requirements. And which has more or less ground to a stop due to a lack of manpower.
Is there anything about lightning or electrostatic resistance? The LAA system describes in its reports (produced by an outside consultancy I think) that the risk is negligible.
