C of A to permit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 51
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C of A to permit
What are the rules around for planes getting transferred from C of A (or whatever it is called now ) to permit is it age or when manufacturers stop support
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can only transfer from CofA to permit if the TC holder no longer exists in any form and the aircraft is effectively orphaned. The type then has to be accepted onto a permit by either the CAA or the LAA and then you can transfer it.
My Auster is a case in point. Orphaned and forced to a permit.
My Auster is a case in point. Orphaned and forced to a permit.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To build upon Bose-x's statement. The type certificate holder has to be not just out of business - but obviously completely and hopelessly incapable of provding technicaql support.
Hence aircraft like Luscombe's and Taylorcraft are not allowed to transfer in the UK - inspite of the lack of support.
The transfer of Austers was an epic process which although it resulted in a more legally compliant situation limited the 'priveleges' of Auster pilots - for no good reason other than it was convenient for the CAA.
Suffice it to say your C of A airceaft cannot and will not transfer any time soon. Of course the situation pre-1990-ish was very different - but in those days the CAA had engineers not solicitors!
Hence aircraft like Luscombe's and Taylorcraft are not allowed to transfer in the UK - inspite of the lack of support.
The transfer of Austers was an epic process which although it resulted in a more legally compliant situation limited the 'priveleges' of Auster pilots - for no good reason other than it was convenient for the CAA.
Suffice it to say your C of A airceaft cannot and will not transfer any time soon. Of course the situation pre-1990-ish was very different - but in those days the CAA had engineers not solicitors!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Could anyone explain to my how some aircraft types can both be found on a permit and C of A eg PIPER L18C"
For some time in the 1990’s the CAA allowed the LAA (PFA) to put older aircraft on to a permit. It then realised it was potentially costing itself a lot of cash and decided that if an aircraft could have a c of a it had to have one and the permit was not an option. Because the aircraft, which had been accepted onto a permit, had been maintained under the LAA system it was deemed impossible to transfer them so they stayed on a permit. There is a considerable price difference between an aircraft on the LAA system and the equivalent on a C of A.
Rod1
For some time in the 1990’s the CAA allowed the LAA (PFA) to put older aircraft on to a permit. It then realised it was potentially costing itself a lot of cash and decided that if an aircraft could have a c of a it had to have one and the permit was not an option. Because the aircraft, which had been accepted onto a permit, had been maintained under the LAA system it was deemed impossible to transfer them so they stayed on a permit. There is a considerable price difference between an aircraft on the LAA system and the equivalent on a C of A.
Rod1
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure it is 'considerable', but there are a lot of disgruntled owners of C of A Cubs.
Worse are the owners of Jodel D150s and Stampes. Here the CAA were prepared to move them to Permit, but in both cases, because one or two are used commercially (and commercial use is not possible with a Permit aircraft) they are being held on C of A.
Over the last 2 years the CAA has been looking for expressions of interest from potential TC holders. Each time the deadline for a decision was reached, the CAA extended it again.
As Rod1 says, they and EASA will not move an aircraft type to Permit if a TC holder can be found.
Worse are the owners of Jodel D150s and Stampes. Here the CAA were prepared to move them to Permit, but in both cases, because one or two are used commercially (and commercial use is not possible with a Permit aircraft) they are being held on C of A.
Over the last 2 years the CAA has been looking for expressions of interest from potential TC holders. Each time the deadline for a decision was reached, the CAA extended it again.
As Rod1 says, they and EASA will not move an aircraft type to Permit if a TC holder can be found.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the north
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I correct in thinking that the TC holder for these vintage types has to have a full design and manufacturing capability in order to support them. Something along the lines of the support company for DH types?
Must make support very expensive.
Must make support very expensive.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually no, they don't have to be able to manufacture anything. All they need to do is to take on the responsibility for airworthiness issues.
When Apex went up the Swannee in 2008, there was an expectation that the Robin fleet would be 'orphanned'. For a prolonged period, although the TC holder was non-existent and spare parts were difficult to come by, the DGAC, EASA and the CAA refused to consider moving them to Permit or even to Annexe II.
The default position with these NAAs is that aircraft should be on C of A, and it is only in the last resort that a Permit should be used, so they are happy to wait. It might mean that although there is a TC holder, there are no spare parts and the aircraft type could be grounded.
In the case of the Robins, the bankruptcy of Apex meant that all agreements with suppliers fell. After a great deal of lobbying by French clubs, the DGAC and EASA allowed Robins to fly without the normal support, but if there had been a major incident the fleet would have been grounded. It wasn't comfortable when our annual came round that year.
When Apex went up the Swannee in 2008, there was an expectation that the Robin fleet would be 'orphanned'. For a prolonged period, although the TC holder was non-existent and spare parts were difficult to come by, the DGAC, EASA and the CAA refused to consider moving them to Permit or even to Annexe II.
The default position with these NAAs is that aircraft should be on C of A, and it is only in the last resort that a Permit should be used, so they are happy to wait. It might mean that although there is a TC holder, there are no spare parts and the aircraft type could be grounded.
In the case of the Robins, the bankruptcy of Apex meant that all agreements with suppliers fell. After a great deal of lobbying by French clubs, the DGAC and EASA allowed Robins to fly without the normal support, but if there had been a major incident the fleet would have been grounded. It wasn't comfortable when our annual came round that year.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the north
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems somewhat unsatisfactory if either there is no TC holder or a TC holder in name only without the means to provide new spares etc.
I imagine that legal redress for any groundings due to inability to support could be interesting and something that the NAAs and TC holders have factored into their considerations.
I imagine that legal redress for any groundings due to inability to support could be interesting and something that the NAAs and TC holders have factored into their considerations.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're not wrong there.....
The problem is that NAA's have nasty tidy little minds, and believe that, by definition, being on CofA is normal and permit is a barely acceptable compromise.
It leads to the situation where some permit types are more advanced technically than some of the CofA fleet, yet the costs are loaded on the CofA types.
That bl**dy Form 1 which can add 50% to the cost of an item is the classic example. It does nothing but satisfy the bureaucratic mindset of the great and the good.
The problem is that NAA's have nasty tidy little minds, and believe that, by definition, being on CofA is normal and permit is a barely acceptable compromise.
It leads to the situation where some permit types are more advanced technically than some of the CofA fleet, yet the costs are loaded on the CofA types.
That bl**dy Form 1 which can add 50% to the cost of an item is the classic example. It does nothing but satisfy the bureaucratic mindset of the great and the good.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further permit question I was looking at an aircraft on G-INFO
It says
EASA Category: NON EASA
What does this mean and
CofA / Permit: Private
Which I also don't understand. I didn't think Private and Commercial categories existed anymore. Could any one please explain.
It says
EASA Category: NON EASA
What does this mean and
CofA / Permit: Private
Which I also don't understand. I didn't think Private and Commercial categories existed anymore. Could any one please explain.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is most likely to mean it is an annexe 2 aircraft. One that holds a CofA as they TC Holder still exists but does not meet the requirements for a full EASA CofA.
