Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Homebuilt / ultralight / permit (non ICAO CofA) and IFR - how?

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)

Last Edited by Ibra at 20 Nov 13:47
ESSEX, United Kingdom

Ibra wrote:

he still refers to the Super Cub as Group A aircraft

Are any Super Cubs still EASA Aircraft? Piper still exists.
Some old aircraft exist in both forms – EASA and Annex1 – depending on their history.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

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

ESSEX, United Kingdom

Bolkow BO208 Junior in the UK are some EASA, some LAA Permit.
For historical reasons. (I think??)

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

This post is relevant to IFR in homebuilts in Germany.

I wonder if anyone could summarise that German doc?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

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.

Bremen (EDWQ), Germany

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.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

No, it is not mentioned

Bremen (EDWQ), Germany

Good translation, a_kraut. Indeed its a sensation that the LBA is moving. It is dep. T3, qualified and quick. Not always the standard at LBA. There has been a lot of work previously in the background I’m sure. The first planes could be some Vans. They fly for years and years under IMC in the states. Time now has come for Europe.

KHQZ, United States
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top