Limitations applicable to Annex II aircraft

[Flying Pinguin]

Sorry if this thread may be redundant, I looked for the same topic but I could not find clear answers to my doubts elsewhere in PPrune.

I have been proposed to buy an experimental (Annex II) aircraft.
I checked the EASA regulations, but besides the classification it is not clear what are the exact limitations applicable to this kind of aircraft.

Can you try to help me listing up all applicable limitations?
Specifically:


is there a limit to the number of passengers?
can an Annex II aircraft fly IFR?
can an Annex II aircraft be used for airshow displays?

Thanks in advance for any answer.
FP


PS.: information/links to websites containing the same topic is also appreciated.

[bookworm]

The significance of an aircraft being in Annex II is that it falls under national legislation, not EU legislation. Therefore any limitations will be determined by that national legislation.

Annex II covers more than just experimental aircraft. If you specifically mean limitations applicable to experimental aircraft, that of course varies from state to state. In the UK, you should contact the Light Aircraft Association for more detail. They have forums.

[Flying Pinguin]

I see...
therefore flying abroad will need special care as the National requirements vary country by country...

[gasax]

Yes Callum you are correct - but also lucky. A UK permit (non Cof A) aircraft has pretty much free rein across Europe - apart from Belgium.

But a French, Belgium, Dutch aircraft in the same category needs to apply to the UK CAA to visit, pay approx £80 and be restricted to less than 30 days. So here in the UK we are very lucky.

In the UK you can fly air displays - but the number of people in the aircraft (even outwith displays) is restricted. almost certainly the French regulations will have some restrictions - it will be interesting to see a posting from France on what they are.

[bookworm]

therefore flying abroad will need special care as the National requirements vary country by country...

"Special care" is correct, I think. As others have suggested, it can be easy or it can be harder.

EASA aircraft have (or will have when the legislative packages are complete) broad and general rights through Europe, based on European certification and licensing. Aircraft with an ICAO C of A also have international air navigation rights under the Chicago Convention, based on national certification and licensing with agreed minimum standards. Other aircraft such as microlights and experimental aircraft have no such rights, though organisations such as EFLEVA and the EMU have often facilitated reciprocal recognition through agreements between member states.

[riverrock83]

The OP mentions Annex II. He doesn't mention whether its a Permit aircraft. Two completely different concepts.
As mentioned - Annex II means it is not under EASA control. It doesn't necessarily have any limitations.
If the aircraft is a Permit to Fly rather than a Certificate of Airworthiness (which is perhaps what is meant by experimental?) then there are limitations.
The aircraft can only be flown Day VFR, generally air work is not allowed (there are exceptions) and there may well be other specific limitations. See http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap733.pdf

A UK Permit to fly (no matter which organisation provides it) doesn't automatically allow you to take the plane outside the UK, as special permission is needed in all other countries. However, in saying that, a number of countries have a blanket permission allowing them to fly there, which includes much of Europe.

[LowNSlow]

EASA Annex II aircraft:

EASA has produced this list of Annex II aircraft strictly for information
purposes only. It aims to describe the exclusions from the lists of
EASA transferred aircraft, EU and non-EU. It is based on information received from several authors internal and external to the Agency.
The list is a snapshot of the situation 28th March 2007 and will not be updated. It will remain published for a limited period, after which it
will be removed from the website.
Whilst every care has been taken in preparing the contents of the list to avoid errors the Agency makes no warranty as to the accuracy,
completeness or currency of the content. The Agency shall not be liable for any kind of damages or other claims or demands incurred as
a result of incorrect, insufficient or invalid data, or arising out of or in connection with the use, copying, or display of the content, to the
extend permitted by European and national laws. The information contained in the list should not be construed as legal advice.
1. Aircraft listed are within the definition of Annex II to Regulation 1592/2002. Because of the subjective nature of Annex II, the
proposed revision (see at the end of this table) has been used to aid in interpretation of the current Annex II; only compliance with
paragraphs (a) and (d) are considered. This list has been produced in conjunction with the NAAs of the State of Design.
2. Not every type of aircraft pre-1939 or sailplanes pre-1955 is listed because these can be considered to be Annex II on the basis of
their being significant steps in aviation development.
3. Sailplanes are listed and, in the case of Germany, the list is exhaustive. This is not the case for some other countries and if an NAA
has not provided a list, the criteria ‘designed before 1955, built before 1975’ has been used. In many cases the NAA assessment of
‘significant step in development….’ has been taken.
4. Aircraft for which a civilian TC or equivalent approval is known, this is listed The absence of a TC number does not mean that the
aircraft has no formal civilian approval, just that at the time of writing there was no immediate evidence of this fact.
5. Warbird rebuilds that are believed to be underway in the EU are listed and this includes aircraft currently not airworthy but which
could be put back into airworthy condition. Warbird rebuilds in non-EU countries of types not yet seen in the EU are not included.
6. The list does not include aircraft that were originally designed for civil purposes but which were subsequently used by the military
except where a discrete military variant can be identified.
7. Certain aircraft (Jodel 100, 200 series, Emeraude series, including Smargd and Linnet) have been declared as Annex II because of
direct similarity with the original Jodel D11 and CP30 aircraft, even though design/production of later variants may not fit in with the
1955/1975 criterion. Similarly, the Beagle Airedale has also been accepted as Annex II as a direct development of the Auster series
which are clearly Annex II.
8. ‘Complex’ multi-piston-engined transport aircraft (DC-4, DC-6, Constellation, ATL-98 etc) are declared Annex II on the basis of their
historical significance.
9. Some aircraft (e.g. PA-18, An-2) had very long production runs and are declared as Annex II even though production continued after
1975. This is because the vast majority of aircraft were built before 1975, they were designed before 1955 and can claim some
historical importance. In addition, it is undesirable to have some examples of an aircraft type split between Annex II and EASA.
10. The list includes some ex-military types, examples of which did not serve with the military. This is to also avoid splitting some aircraft
types between Annex II and EASA.

Full list here http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/Data/annex-2.pdf

[robin]

7. Certain aircraft (Jodel 100, 200 series, Emeraude series, including Smargd and Linnet) have been declared as Annex II because of
direct similarity with the original Jodel D11 and CP30 aircraft, even though design/production of later variants may not fit in with the
1955/1975 criterion.

Note that the 200 series was removed from the Annexe II list at the request of the TC holder. :ugh:

[Zio Nick]

Extract from Jar Ops 1.865:

HF Communication Equipment Alleviation (JAR-OPS 1.865)

JAR-OPS 1.865 Communication and Navigation equipment for operations under IFR, or under VFR over routes not navigated by reference to visual landmarks.
(See AMC OPS 1.865)
(a) An operator shall not operate an aeroplane under IFR, or under VFR over routes that cannot be navigated by reference to visual landmarks, unless the aeroplane is equipped with radio [(communication and SSR transponder)] and navigation equipment in accordance with the requirements of air traffic services in the area(s) of operation.

(b) Radio equipment. An operator shall ensure that radio equipment comprises not less than:

[(1)]Two independent radio communication systems necessary under normal operating conditions to communicate with an appropriate ground station from any point on the route including diversions [; and

(2) SSR transponder equipment as required for the route being flown.]

(c) Navigation equipment. An operator shall ensure that navigation equipment

(1) Comprises not less than:

(i) One VOR receiving system, one ADF system, one DME [except that an ADF system need not be installed provided that the use of ADF is not required in any phase of the planned flight (see ACL OPS 1.865(c)(1)(i));]

(ii) One ILS or MLS where ILS or MLS is required for approach navigation purposes;

(iii) One Marker Beacon receiving system where a Marker Beacon is required for approach navigation purposes;

(iv) An Area Navigation System when area navigation is required for the route being flown;

(v) An additional DME system on any route, or part thereof, where navigation is based only on DME signals;

(vi) An additional VOR receiving system on any route, or part thereof, where navigation is based only on VOR signals; and

(vii) An additional ADF system on any route, or part thereof, where navigation is based only on NDB signals, or

(2) Complies with the Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Type for operation in the airspace concerned. (See also IEM OPS 1.243.)

(d) An operator may operate an aeroplane that is not equipped [with an ADF or] with the navigation equipment specified in sub-paragraph(s) (c)(1)(vi) and/or (c)(1)(vii) above, provided that it is equipped with alternative equipment authorised, for the route being flown, by the Authority. The reliability and the accuracy of alternative equipment must allow safe navigation for the intended route.

(e) An operator shall ensure that VHF communication equipment, ILS localiser and VOR receivers installed on aeroplanes to be operated in IFR are of a type that has been approved as complying with FM immunity performance standards (See ACJ OPS 1.865(e)).

(f) With respect to sub-paragraph (b) above, for short haul operations in the NAT MNPS airspace, an aeroplane may be equipped with one Long Range Communication System only if alternative communication procedures are published for the airspace concerned (see ACJ OPS 1.865 (f)).

[Zio Nick]

If my understanding is correct, from the NPA-OPS 39B1 flying IFR should depend exclusively on aircraft equipment and not on aircraft classification, at least within the area of certified machines.