Microlights are in some parts certified. In Germany they have a CofA issued by the DAeC or DULV. (Although both seem not to take the certification very serkously. Hence the constant findings by the BFU)
Indeed, but aren’t virtually all planes “certified”. For example UK homebuilts are certified by the LAA. Bigger Annex 2 stuff is certified directly by the CAA since it falls outside LAA expertise. Even kitplanes which have no “CAA” involvement after the initial registration (N, and PH?) have a “certificate” (the Permit). But these are not ICAO compliant certificates.
With no input on #6… would it be correct to say that all planes without an ICAO CofA must be one of
I think we all agree what a “certified aircraft” is. In Europe it is an aircraft that falls into some EASA category, some CS. Non certified aircraft does not fall into a EASA CS, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are non-certified in the correct sense of the word. Annex II will soon be Annex I, so that will be confusing, but more correct. CS-LSA and CS-VLA are not ICAO as far as I know, yet they are EASA certified aircraft. ICAO doesn’t have a meaningful meaning inside Europe, and I can just as easily fly to America or Australia with my homebuilt as with an ICAO compliant certified aircraft. We are into GA, not international airline traffic. But even if we were, there are lots of airlines that are black listed, and prohibited to fly in EASA land. They all have ICAO compliant certification for their aircraft.
Since we are all in complete agreement on the terminology, I will leave the existing section title 
Silvaire wrote:
Certification as a regulatory concept applies to the design, not individual aircraft.
Thant’s an excellent explanation – thanks!
