For the huge savings that are there to be had by operating on a PFA Permit instead of the C of A, not to mention not having to deal with the CAA, I wonder why we aren't grabbing this opportunity for all we're worth.
I think various aircraft operators have been trying to for years. Owners of ARV-2s, Piper Cubs, etc. really don't need in most cases the privileges of a CofA (and certainly felt that they didn't need the extra costs). For that reason there have been people "demanding" the right to switch to PFA permits for a long time.
This has consistently been scuppered by a CAA official line "if it can have a CofA, it must have a CofA".
The big change here has been that EASA (which now overrules UK-CAA, DGAC-France, etc.) has decided that if there is no organisation supporting the CofA, then the aircraft has to transfer to either the national or EASA permit system. So, for example given Airbus refused to continue supporting Concorde, that aircraft would now be transferred onto PtF rules.
For most people operating aircraft that really are past their use-by-date for night/IFR/commercial use anyhow, this is a huge step forward since the costs associated with PtF operations should be considerably less.
There are however a handful of important (and as yet unanswered) questions which I'd be asking CAA if I owned such an aircraft...
(1) What is the difference between the privileges and costs of a CAA Permit, PFA Permit, EASA Permit, and do I have any choice regarding which direction I go?
(2) Have I any grandfather rights to continue operating night / IFR ?
(3) If not, is there anything I can do about this?
(4) Is there any organisation that has expressed an interest in taking on the type certificate for my type?
So, if you've had one of these CAA letters, I'd recommend going to whoever wrote it and asking those questions - it'll make (hopefully) the real implications much clearer.
G