German Permits

[Charles E Taylor]

German Permits

http://www.lba.de/cln_011/EN/Operations ... l?nn=34264

Aircraft with Restricted Authorisation

Foreign aircraft with restricted authorisation generally require permission to enter and operate in Germany.

The application must be submitted two full workdays prior to commencing the intended flight and shall include the following documents:

Certificate of Airworthiness including restrictions or
Permit to fly including conditions
Noise Certificate
Certificate of Registration
Certificate showing annual inspection
Licence of the responsible pilot issued by the state of registry of the aircraft
Third Party Legal Liability Insurance

A permission is not required for aircraft registered in the European Economic Area with a Permit to Fly wich contains 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."

Can we get the CAA to add this wording to our Permits?


Charlie

[Graham Clark]

Hi Charles,
I have drawn your posting to the attention of the EC. You are right to believe we may well be caught by the regs, which seem to be analagous to those of France.
Our Chairman assures me the EC will pursue this matter with the Germans. However, given the various technical/bureaucratic obstacles, I think a speedy overall resolution is improbable.
Being one of those affected, I will keep on nudging the EC from time to time so that this does not get parked in a corner and forgotten.

[John Brady]

Charles,

I believe that is the wording of an EASA permit to fly. If you have a CofA aeroplane which for some reason has an invalid CofA and needs to be tested or ferried you apply for an EASA PtF to allow you to fly the aeroplane within the limitations applied. Prior to EASA, the CAA issued such permits to fly for the same reason. I think this wording in the German AIP applies to that situation.

The CAA cannot issue a national permit "valid in all member states" as unlike EASA it has no authority to do that. So no LAA permit complies with the German requirement you quote and probably never will.

Of interest very similar wording appears in the Czech Republic AIP

John

[Steve Brown]

Is it just me or do others get thoroughly fed up that the EU project's principles ie free movement of people, goods & sevices within Europe is, as far as aviation is concerned, getting harder not easier to put into practice.

[macconnacher]

The CAA cannot issue a national permit "valid in all member states" unlike EASA

The clue is in John Brady's quote above.

The reason we need EU legislation is to enable free movement of trade. We have 27 countries in the EU so you can be sure that all 27 countries will not have legislation that is identical and all will think that the others is either unneccesarily strict or inadequate - the old 'Not Invented Here' mentality clicks in.

Obviously it might be possible for two or three countries to create a Mutual Recognition Agreement and accept the local differences by negotiation as we are trying with DGAC in France.

Once you are in the EASA system then you have that freedom of movement. The problem is the consensus to arrive at that has to include input from a lot of countries that have no history of an amateur aviation movement. Thus to maintain our national freedoms, hard earned, it is a balancing act as to press for EU Legislation or to press for devolved legislation which can possibly limit movement.

Yes we want to go the European route but NO not at any dilution of the freedoms we have aquired since the late 1940s when there was an ban on amateur aviation in the UK. France showed us the way and the efforts of some of the good and the great; Geoffrey De Haviland, Peter Masefield and Don Bennett to name but 3, interceded on our behalf.

Now we have treading the difficult path to ensure our freedoms, people of the calibre of Roger Hopkinson, John Brady and Barry Plumb from within LAA and the LAA staff who provide the day to day operation that shows to the authorities that here is a body capable of of having responsibility to ensure that our activty can be done whilst still ensuring the safety of the general population.

However it is difficult to see how our model could be built into a pan EU piece of legislation.

[Nigel Hitchman]

I think this paragraph is really pointed at aircraft with a restricted C of A, or no C of A. Such as aircraft on a ferry permit or Warbird types on restricted C of As.

If you look at this paragraph
http://www.lba.de/cln_011/sid_185735300 ... l?nn=34264

it says no permissions are required for ultralights. Although we are not all ultralights, we are closer to this definition.

Interestingly John mentions the Czech AIP as being similar. When I flew there a couple of years ago, I thought the same and that it only applied to ultralights, but a quick email and they told me that I was covered by their regulation and I didnt need any permission being a homebuilt permit to fly aircraft.


The problem comes because in the UK we use the name Permit to Fly for the "certification" of our homebuilt and LAA vintage aircraft. In many other countries Permit to fly is for one off flights. Its a shame we dont just call it C of A (experimental) or something like that, then you dont have all of these problems.

Havent the German LBA already replied to the LAA stating that our homebuilt and vintage aircraft on permits are welcome without requiring permission? I think there is a document on the engineering website somewhere.

[John Brady]

Roger has produced a document setting this out clearly and it will be included in TL 2.08 shortly. It is too long to copy here but includes a link to the German AIP setting out that amateur built aircraft and ultralights do not need permission but must comply with various regulations (flight plan etc) but factory built aircraft do need permission and the details and process are set out.

I will post a note here when the website is updated.

John

[macconnacher]

The problem comes because in the UK we use the name Permit to Fly for the "certification" of our homebuilt and LAA vintage aircraft. In many other countries Permit to Fly is for one off flights. Its a shame we dont just call it C of A (experimental) or something like that, then you dont have all of these problems.

Nigel.

This is nothing new; PFA/CAA did for a while drop the term Permit to Fly (PtF) and had "Special Category C of A"for a number of years, we then went back to PtF. Why, I do not remember, but it might be worth digging out the information and the reason for the change both from PtF and back to PtF. Posssibly the perceived difficulties of that final decision are now working against us and it might be beneficial to review the terms we use.

As a UK representative on one of the European Standards Editing groups whose primary purpose is ensure that the english term in a standard fits with those of my European colleagues; I often have to compromise on terms since a strict translation of the English term causes them problems. Fortunately the English language has so many words and shades of meaning that I can always offer a new term. Perhaps we need to review our UK terminology to ensure that we do not cut across EASA terminology and the terms used by our neighbours.