"Ready to fly" permit Sportcruisers?

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Fri May 01, 2009 3:49 pm

May LA mag (page 8 ) has an article about Sportcruiser's new UK agent.
It says "they expect to be in a position to market ready to fly aircraft on a EASA permit by the summer."

Who wrote this twaddle and what's it doing in our mag?

gasax · Post by **gasax** » Fri May 01, 2009 5:35 pm

There are a number of EASA permit ready builts already on sale in the UK. These are the for runners of the ELA1 category - check up on the CTs.

Pete Morris

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Fri May 01, 2009 5:57 pm

ELA ain't here yet is it? If you are telling me manufactured non microlights are legally flying here without complying with VLA then I guess I missed a whole stack of new regulations

Steve

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Fri May 01, 2009 6:10 pm

Sorry I didn't realise that you were now the
LAA's expert on EASA Steve, should have run the news item by you I suppose. Fact is that as Gasax says, EASA is now issuing EASA Permits to Fly, crazy as that seems to many of us. The Remos is already flying here for example.
Must make a mental note - no more twaddle unless I have Steve's permission.

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Fri May 01, 2009 6:23 pm

Where is this written?

For example how will they get them from a uncertified to certified maint regime when ELA comes along. Are they operating under Part M?

Gasax is referring to a microlight isn't he?

I'll ignore the sarcasm.

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Fri May 01, 2009 6:58 pm

”Gasax is referring to a microlight isn't he?”

No, do keep up! There will be a stream of aircraft becoming available, but if Brian can indicate how the LAA are involved (if at all) I would be interested. I am not at all sure what the inspection rules are! Am I right in thinking that there will be 4 seat aircraft as well as 2 seat? What happens if a factory built aircraft is EASA approved and an identical kit version is available, is it automatically approved or not?

Rod1

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Fri May 01, 2009 7:22 pm

I would if you tell me where the regulations that allow this are written. EASA Permit to Fly does not appear to cover production runs of aircraft.

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Fri May 01, 2009 9:45 pm

EASA is as confusing to me as it is to most I suspect, and I am certainly not going to pretend I understand its workings. All I know is that it used Permit to Fly to solve a problem of approving the Remos, and it wasn't so long ago that it wanted to do away with our Permit to Fly system because they deemed it an unsuitable nomenclature for other than a single flight approval.
At this moment in time I believe ongoing maintenance is via CAA, but in due course LAA intends becoming a 'Qualified Entity' and a CAMO, which would enable it to take on the ongoing airworthiness role for these PtF, and ultimately ELA aircraft. Nothing is final at this moment in time however, and we need to remain flexible in order to manoeuvre ourselves as necessary to take best advantage of the final outcome.
Barry Plumb has a much deeper understanding than I and may be able to shed more light on the EASA PtF arrangements, and the kit equivalents of factory built PtF aircraft.

Donald Walker · Post by **Donald Walker** » Fri May 01, 2009 9:48 pm

SteveNeale wrote:I would if you tell me where the regulations that allow this are written. EASA Permit to Fly does not appear to cover production runs of aircraft.

The EASA Permit to Fly for the Flight Design CTLS, which you can buy from P&M Aviation, was granted in accordance with Decision 2007/6/R of the Executive Director of EASA dated 4 April 2007, GM 21A 701 (a) example 15 : "For non-commercial flying activity on individual non-complex aircraft or types for which the Agency agrees that a certificate of airworthiness or restricted certificate of airworthiness is not appropriate”.

Donald

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Fri May 01, 2009 10:58 pm

That reference is simply to the EASA permit to fly document. When ELA is enacted these types will be certified. I do not dispute what you have been told but how on the one hand can EASA say DR200's and other Robins cannot go onto a permit but must remain on CofA or RCofA when these new aircraft types that have current production facilities clearly could be certified now (at a cost) to VLA is beyond me. However the mag accurately reported what appears to be a fundamental reinterpretation of the regulations concerning PTF and I apologise to Brian.

So anything goes now. Anyone fancy starting a company bashing out EASA permit RV-10s? [Rhetorical]

Ian Melville · Post by **Ian Melville** » Sat May 02, 2009 8:39 am

What happens if a factory built aircraft is EASA approved and an identical kit version is available, is it automatically approved or not?

Since approval covers the build manual and stages of inspection then I doubt it would be automatic, but it could be a hell of a lot quicker and cheaper.

gasax · Post by **gasax** » Sun May 03, 2009 6:05 pm

Wwell Steve now you're in listening mode. The RV10 does not fit into the new ELA1 category so you're not going to be able to 'knock them out'.

Certainly there is a great deal of uncertainty over what rules do apply to EASA permits. as you correctly note the majority of EASA information on permits actually applies to CofA aircraft one off flights.

But within a year the mess of the present Part M interpretation of maintenance will be significantly simplified and the role of CAMOs significantly downgraded.

Keeping up with all this is by no means easy and finding official releases of the information is not easy.

But EASA permits do look like offering very interesting possibilities, ELA1 was initially an American 600kg alternative, then 750 and now - I'm not sure looks like 1 tonne!

So at the moment never say never!

Pete Morris

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Sun May 03, 2009 7:06 pm

“I'm not sure looks like 1 tonne!”

The French think it will be 1200kg (to help Robin) but not sure if this is just France or all of EASA.

It would be interesting to know how many people are waiting for clarification and putting off buying aircraft/kits because of the uncertainty.

Rod1

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Sun May 03, 2009 8:50 pm

gasax wrote:Well Steve now you're in listening mode.

Not quite I'm afraid

I listen a lot and read even more so pride myself on keeping up to date with regulations including EASA's twists and turns hence my initial disbelief that they have sanctioned this. As far as I know the limit is still 450Kg for factory build in the UK and will be until ELA is made law. I am well aware of the proposed new CERTIFIED ELAs and keep up to speed from Barry's excellent reports. As Brian mentioned EASA have been pushing in the opposite direction completely so this is simply bizzare. Frankly I doubt many other forumites were aware of this about face so I'm still waiting for one of the experts that have slapped me down above to point out when this change to EASA PTF happened and where it is written down. Issuing one PTF for a single Remos on the UK register does not necessarily abuse the regulation. Issuing lots of PTFs for a production run of ELA wanabees in advance of the ELA legislation, Remos, Sportcruisers or anything else >450kg is a different matter.

Steve

Donald Walker · Post by **Donald Walker** » Sun May 03, 2009 11:08 pm

I am no expert, but it is a fact that EASA is granting Permits to Fly to aircraft that comply with VLA, meet ASTM standards and have been accepted as S-SLAs in the US.

The permits have a validity of two years, to tide them over until the introduction of ELA1.

There may be only one Remos and two CTLS on the UK register, but that is because this is a new development. Across Europe there will be many more, as evidenced by the French microlight association finding it necessary to advised its members to beware of being tempted to fly EASA PtF (600kg) E-SLAs on a ULM licence. This is because various manufacturers, including Flight Design and Evektor have 450kg and 600kg versions of the same aircraft.

The Czechs are the driving force behind this.

Donald