Permanently basing a D-Reg (LSA) Aircraft abroad?

Silvaire wrote:

Many would say never ask a question to authority for which you may possibly not like the answer

Exactly

Peter wrote:

The advantage of asking on EuroGA is that you get a range of inputs, which form a sort of “education” for asking the right questions to the right people.

True. An excellent point in fact.

Peter wrote:

There is no assurance that a question sent to a CAA (any CAA) will yield an accurate answer. Admittedly, such an answer (if in writing) and if in your favour will make a prosecution impossible for your particular case (at least in the UK it would have that effect).

I think it’s the same all over, at least it should be. But I also think, for this very reason, they would focus very hard on giving you the correct and objective answer, which would mean references to relevant regulations and other documents.

For example if you asked a Q like this to the UK CAA, the chances of getting a meaningful reply are very small, because most good people have either left in recent years or aren’t anywhere near the customer interface.

I think this is a two way street. If no one ask questions, there will be no one there to answer. If lots of people ask questions, then they would need to speed up. Another thing is that the CAA will have the impression that everything is OK in the GA world, because no one asks questions. It’s important for the authorities to get direct feedback. They don’t know GA, we do.

The advantage of asking on EuroGA is that you get a range of inputs, which form a sort of “education” for asking the right questions to the right people.

There is no assurance that a question sent to a CAA (any CAA) will yield an accurate answer. Admittedly, such an answer (if in writing) and if in your favour will make a prosecution impossible for your particular case (at least in the UK it would have that effect).

For example if you asked a Q like this to the UK CAA, the chances of getting a meaningful reply are very small, because most good people have either left in recent years or aren’t anywhere near the customer interface.

Silvaire wrote:

Many would say never ask a question to authority for which you may possibly not like the answer

Are you sure you are not French??

@MATHIAS. if you wish it
Your BREEZER B600 build in 2010 is under Permit to fly in Germany
Here is French authority DGAC concerning permit to fly

https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/aeronefs-etrangers

Airworthiness or an EASA permit to fly (Form 20a)Underline

Aircraft holding a Certificate of Airworthiness issued pursuant to the ICAO Convention are allowed to overfly the territory of ICAO contracting States without prior validation of this certificate.

Aircraft holding an EASA permit to fly (Form 20a) are allowed to overfly the territory of EASA member states without prior validation of this permit, except when the permit to fly explicitly limits the authorised area

So you have a “form 20A” for your aircraft…no more problem to fly france and to be hangared in France

I have a Friend witch is flying in my club working at DGAC (OSAC, THEN certification, Now aircraft manufacturers support) and I you wish I can have more details…

Many would say never ask a question to authority for which you may possibly not like the answer

Mathias wrote:

So, unless I am missing sth it should be possible to station our machine across the border…

Why don’t you just write an email to the French CAA and ask them? That’s the oddest thing about these non trivial/special cases. People have a tendency to ask everybody and everywhere – except the one and only entity that can give a definitive answer; the national CAA. Warum?

Peter wrote:

France indeed prohibits uncertified aircraft being based there for more than 28 days

That isn’t what the french regulation say. Admittedly my google-french is only as good as google can be, but what it say is:

Publicly Affected: Owners and operators of amateur-built aircraft registered in a Contracting Party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area or in Switzerland.
Purpose: To authorize such aircraft to fly temporarily across French territory without prior request to the French authorities to validate their non-ICAO level airworthiness document.

Then it goes on to specify the details of this standing authorization.

Obviously this will be OK for > 90% of all such cases. For cases that for some reason don’t fall into those specifications, this regulation say nothing, except that the French authorities require a prior validation of the documents. A prior validation of documents is not the same as a prohibition.

What’s odd is that they specify the EEA + Switzerland instead of ECAC states.

Hello

Before any research, we have the example of PIPISTREL ALPHA ELECTRO wich is flying with EASA PERMIT TO FLY and tested before being a school aircraft by FFA (Aeronautic French Federation wher all the Aeroclub are meeting)…yes, everybody don’t fly this aircraft (for the moment).

Another PIPISTREL, VIRUS SW121 just became CS LSA EASA first one with Night VFR..

EVECTOR HARMONY is LSA certified by FAA but does not seem certified by EASA..and in this case, in France, it could meet for the moment in permit to fly

I must confess that, now, there is practically no LSA in permit to fly because with the new EASA rules within the framework of the GA ROAD MAP the manufacturers ended up certifying their production first in CS LSA which makes it a selling argument.

It seem that with the CS23 for a LSA the aircraft manufacturers are more comfortable with future development than with CS LSA EASA (example new ELIXIR is coming directly CS23..

that is rather the same with the “permit to fly” zone

Can you give an example of such an aircraft?