PERMIT OR EASA

[PROPMAN]

I saw a Bolkow 208c advertised. On G-INFO it is listed as being on a permit to fly. Looking at the list of 208c's on the register, some are EASA and some are on a permit? I am confused. Does any one know the answer?

[AlanB]

I believe you will find the answer herehttp://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=89342

[Brian Hope]

I think Cookie is only partially correct because we had quite a few of what were to become EASA aeroplanes on the LAA fleet long before EASA ever existed, including Bolkow 208s. The EASA Permit to Fly was used to solve the approval issues of a small number of aircraft when the Annex 11 list was drawn up – as well as being a stop gap measure for new LSA types because EASA was way behind getting the LSA approval system in place and European manufacturers wanted to sell what they were already selling into the US LSA market, in the EU.
There was a period, I do not know when it started but it ended about twenty years ago, when the CAA had allowed quite a number of what were C of A types, to be imported and put onto the permit fleet. During that period many Jodels, Luscombes, Cubs etc became Permit types, although any aircraft of the same type already here in the UK and on a C of A could not be transferred – which led to some anomalies where there were C of A and permit examples of the same type of aircraft. It also happened with the UK built Condors when Rollasons sold them off to private buyers. Those already flying stayed on C of A , but the basket cases they sold from their damaged stock of aircraft, were rebuilt as permit aircraft. Try as they may, the C of A examples’ owners could not get their aircraft transferred.
When CAA pulled the plug on this scheme, it effectively stopped the import of Luscombes, Jodels etc because it was not viable to bring them in, put them on a C of A and sell them - the buyers wanted them as permit aircraft.
It may be, I don't know for sure but I guess it is a possibility, that some of these aircraft that had been on an LAA Permit for years, like the 208s, went onto an LAA administered EASA Permit to Fly when EASA came into being. You’d have to ask Engineering for a definitive answer on that.

[neilld]

Slightly confused. If the aircraft has an EASA PtF administered by the LAA does the owner /pilot still enjoy the benefits of the LAA PtF scheme (re. maintainance, permit renewals etc.) or does it have to be maintained in the same way as a certified aircraft?

[Brian Hope]

Hi David, for the EASA PtF on new LSA types, which were not administered by LAA, owners did not have the same self-maintenance advantages as on a LAA PtF but exactly what the situation is with older types that were put onto an EASA PtF administered by LAA I don't know for certain. I'll ask Francis tomorrow and post a reply here.
We now have a situation where those earlier LSAs which were put on an EASA Permit as a stop gap, are having their future decided. The theory was that when the manufacturer received their EASA Approval they would be transferred onto the LSA CoA system, but some types cannot meet the spec of their approved siblings and cannot therefore be transferred without expensive modifications. Others, like the SportCruisers sold as ready to fly LSAs by CZAW, are effectively orphans because CZAW no longer exists and Czech Sport Aircraft, who now market the aircraft as the PS-28 Cruiser, do not wish to take them on. I am pretty sure a common-sense answer will be found and hopefully nobody will end up with an expensive garden ornament.
And EASA was supposed to simplify by harmonisation!

[neilld]

[quote="Brian Hope"] I'll ask Francis tomorrow and post a reply here.
quote]
Any progress?

DFN

[Brian Hope]

Sorry, not yet, haven't been able to get hold of him yet and I know he's at CAA Gatwick today. I'll get back as soon as I can.

[Brian Hope]

I managed to get the required info and as I suggested might be the case, there were a few aircraft that were on an LAA Permit to Fly that were transferred onto an EASA Permit to Fly when the Annex 11 list was established because the type was considered to be an EASA aeroplane. Fournier RF4s and RF5s, ARVs and Bolkow 208s were among that group. However, it was effectively a name change only, the aircraft are looked after and treated exactly as per a LAA Permit to Fly, just that the document says EASA and not LAA.
So, some of these aircraft will be on an EASA CoA, and some on an EASA Permit to Fly, just as in the old days some were on a LAA (actually PFA then) Permit to Fly and some were on a CAA C of A. The names have changed but the overall situation hasn’t.
As mentioned earlier, the LSAs on an EASA Permit to Fly are a different issue altogether and one that LAA has no involvement with.

[Flying John]

Sounds extremely unfair on owners of those types where some of the fleet were on the Annex 11 list that were allowed PtFs, but when the time came for them to apply to be put on a PtF were denied.

Is this one of the challenges that are to be taken up on behalf of owners of these types adversely affected by EASA bureacracy. How can you have an aircraft built by the same manufacturer in the same factory with adjacent serial numbers that have no effective TC holder ( an orphan) that are not also allowed to be in the PtF category.

Red tape rules it seems.

[Cookie]

The names have changed but the overall situation hasn’t.

The main issue being that if your aircraft holds an EASA Permit to Fly, albeit administered by the LAA, you will require an EASA licence to fly it after 07th April 2015.

Cookie

[Flying John]

That would be a small price to pay (having EASA licence) to getting the GY80 on an LAA administered EASA PtF - But would put us on a level playing field with the French who have the RSA Nav overseeing the maintenance regime of EASA CoA(restricted) and EASA PtF using Part 66 licenced engineers. They no longer have to have a CAMO and all that it entails.

More even handedness across Europe then !!!

[Joseph Cullen]

For what it's worth - I have an ARV Super2 on an EASA permit to fly controlled by the LAA; all the operation is exactly the same as for a CAA permit. I have had to change my NPPL for an LAPL in order to continue flying it, which at least means the the plane and I can now fly to any EASA country without prior permission. There are however some kit built ARVs around that are on CAA permits.

[Flying John]

Dare one ask how you managed to get an EASA PtF ?

[Brian Hope]

Hi John, a small number of aircraft that were on an LAA Permit to Fly but which EASA deemed as not Annex 11 when the lists were drawn up, went onto an EASA PtF, overseen by the LAA, to overcome the problem. ARVs, some Fourniers and Bolkows spring to mind but it is quite a small number.
An advantage is that they can fly in the EU without specific state permission, a potential disadvantage is that pilots will need an EASA licence to fly them after April 2015. I have heard of at least one owner on a restricted (solo) NPPL who will not be able to get a LAPL so it is a very real issue for some people.

[Flying John]

Hi Brian - I think the GY80 was caught in a similar trap. In 2003 the GY80 was declared Annex II and in France many GY80's made it to a CDNR (permit). However once EASA "came to power" they ruled that it should be on a restricted CofA - but they then found it was too late as 32 French GY80's were now outside the CofA system and to put them back on a CDNS would require strip down and re-certification - Clearly the French were not going to stand for this so they were given Grandfather rights to have their GY80's on a French permit.

Naturally all other GY80's outside of France have been pressing ever since for the right to put their GY80's on a permit and with a fair wind i am hopefull that soon we will all be harmonised with what the French achieved and the extra burden and the red tape that goes with a CofA (restricted) for an Orphan aircraft, when there is an inapropriate TC holder (EASA is not an airplane manufacturer) will melt away into distant memory.

Whoops - slipped into my daydream again