Interesting debate. My main concern is that allowing some aircraft to have IMC/IFR/Night capability doesnt impinge on the rest of us and change the rules we operate on. However, I have been told that the objective is that nothing will change for us, it would just be extra rules/checks for those aircraft that apply for IFR/Night. There will obviously be some qualification of inspectors to be able to sign these aircraft off, but that is really no different to now, where some can do everything, others only wood/fabric or metal etc.
I also think there are more improtant issues, like being able to fly around Europe in any LAA permit aircraft and its not just sorting out the current French problem of factory built aircraft, there is the Belgian payment problem too and others, although generally it all works quite well. I also think allowing more vintage aircraft on permits is more important too, Why cant all the Piper Cubs etc be on permits if they want to and new imports be allowed onto a permit again, like hundreds were in the 80s!
I cant say Im interested in night flying at all, very few airfields are open at night and my aircraft hasnt got lights! But IFR would be more interesting, not because I want to do an ILS approach down to minimas, but because then I can fly in some of those stupid low level airways that get in the way, like the one that goes over the Isle Of Wight at I think 3500ft and above. I could also then legally fly VFR on top inside Class D airspace and climb/descend through cloud, when I know its clear on the other side. However, while it may be interesting, its not really a priority and like Jeremy I wouldnt want to pay much to do it. If the weather is really bad, Id rather be on the ground, even if Im stuck somewhere and Ive managed to fly quite a lot in my homebuilt in the last 10 years without being IFR/night capable.
Also most improtantly, to make use of flying IFR in cloud, you really need to be current and capable, how many of us are, or would stay current if we could fly in cloud?
I do have an IR for work, but flying for fun its strictly day VFR only.
Night/VFR/IFR/IMC In Permit A/C
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
-
Chris Martyr
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:58 am
- Location: Horsted Keynes Sussex
Well, this post has been here a week now and gained in excess of 600 views and generated some interesting responses.
Retired Air Traffic Controller, John Mead reflected The Air Navigation Order with his assertion that there is no such thing as Night/VFR in the UK.
Jeremy Liber said exactly the same as I did two years ago in a letter to LAA that this could well initiate a two-tier system of maintenance.Quite correct !
Brian Hope also hit the nail right on the head in pointing out that I do not have the right to prevent others from pursuing this if they so desire . Also quite correct , but as Full Plus Members and Beneficial Shareholders I think we have the right to expect an Executive Committee that is working in the interests of representing the vast majority of the membership here, and I apologise to everyone for having to bring this up yet again , it's getting very repetitive , I'm even starting to bore myself with this now,, but ; The interest in this topic appears absolutely miniscule , which is why it is very important that LAA ascertain if it's consistent throughout because if that is the case,then it could be construed that certain EC members are using their position of responsibility to forward a personal agenda . Sorry if that's put a few noses out of joint , but I know that I am not alone in thinking this .
A further point of disillusionment lies in the fact that all the points that I have raised in my previous posts on this matter were sent in a letter to Francis Donaldson two years ago , but I cannot relay his reply, as he never sent me one . Come on chaps ,none of these are trick questions !
All I'm saying is that as far as the engineering and maintenance side goes it will bear very little resemblance to PtF maintenance as we know it, because all sorts of things such as ;bonding checks, battery capacity checks ,compass swings,plus the requirement for approved fitment of nav lights, strobes , anti-collision beacons, mode S,, can't you see where were going here - were heading for JAR-145 territory ,,,,and people are starting to fall asleep again.
And to finish off with ; never mind how many people have 'expressed an interest' in Night/IFR . As Nigel Ramsay said, what actual proportion of LAAs fleet really propose to go this route.
And as a middle aged man with a fair amount of wood glue on his hands , maybe certain EC persons should just consider that over 90% of the membership are over 45, before any further 'Gerald Ratner Moments' emerge .
Retired Air Traffic Controller, John Mead reflected The Air Navigation Order with his assertion that there is no such thing as Night/VFR in the UK.
Jeremy Liber said exactly the same as I did two years ago in a letter to LAA that this could well initiate a two-tier system of maintenance.Quite correct !
Brian Hope also hit the nail right on the head in pointing out that I do not have the right to prevent others from pursuing this if they so desire . Also quite correct , but as Full Plus Members and Beneficial Shareholders I think we have the right to expect an Executive Committee that is working in the interests of representing the vast majority of the membership here, and I apologise to everyone for having to bring this up yet again , it's getting very repetitive , I'm even starting to bore myself with this now,, but ; The interest in this topic appears absolutely miniscule , which is why it is very important that LAA ascertain if it's consistent throughout because if that is the case,then it could be construed that certain EC members are using their position of responsibility to forward a personal agenda . Sorry if that's put a few noses out of joint , but I know that I am not alone in thinking this .
A further point of disillusionment lies in the fact that all the points that I have raised in my previous posts on this matter were sent in a letter to Francis Donaldson two years ago , but I cannot relay his reply, as he never sent me one . Come on chaps ,none of these are trick questions !
All I'm saying is that as far as the engineering and maintenance side goes it will bear very little resemblance to PtF maintenance as we know it, because all sorts of things such as ;bonding checks, battery capacity checks ,compass swings,plus the requirement for approved fitment of nav lights, strobes , anti-collision beacons, mode S,, can't you see where were going here - were heading for JAR-145 territory ,,,,and people are starting to fall asleep again.
And to finish off with ; never mind how many people have 'expressed an interest' in Night/IFR . As Nigel Ramsay said, what actual proportion of LAAs fleet really propose to go this route.
And as a middle aged man with a fair amount of wood glue on his hands , maybe certain EC persons should just consider that over 90% of the membership are over 45, before any further 'Gerald Ratner Moments' emerge .
-
steveneale
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
- Location: Bristol'ish
I hope you feel better getting that off your chest Chris. Please accept that LAA is a broad church and there are some of us that would like to fly IFR in our aircraft. When your glue has set and you are flying your creation, you too may one day wish to pop up though an overcast to fly on top in smooth air and sun rather than bounce about below cloud in the gloom.
CAP393s requirements for IFR OCAS are (for example) actually very modest but no one is suggesting all LAA aircraft would have to comply if they prefer to fly VFR only.
CAP393s requirements for IFR OCAS are (for example) actually very modest but no one is suggesting all LAA aircraft would have to comply if they prefer to fly VFR only.
-
Chris Martyr
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:58 am
- Location: Horsted Keynes Sussex
Hi Steve, actually yes I do feel better having got that off my chest and thanks for your input in this little debate.
The wood glue in my project is indeed dry, it took 7 years to build and it's now been flying 7years , and I am eternally grateful for the fantastic PFA/LAA system that allowed me to do this . As previously stated, I am a very satisfied LAAer and support our organisation to the hilt. It is very rarely that I ever bare my teeth, but something just doesn't ring true with this Night/IFR malarkey . But what the heck,,I feel the subject has just about been beaten to death now.
Good luck if you really do want to pop up through the gloom into the great blue yonder , I will definitely be staying below it , it's that bl**dy great black /grey bit in between that I don't care for.
A good friend and work colleague named Tim Barnby was telling me about one of his worst flights .Tim's a Senior B747 Capt. ex aerobatic champ and remembered by many as the bloke who landed anA340 at Heathrow with it's left maingear still retracted . And the flight he was referring to ?
Scudding under the clouds at 400ft in his Jodel whilst returning from the 2005 Kemble Rally...................................I rest my case.!
The wood glue in my project is indeed dry, it took 7 years to build and it's now been flying 7years , and I am eternally grateful for the fantastic PFA/LAA system that allowed me to do this . As previously stated, I am a very satisfied LAAer and support our organisation to the hilt. It is very rarely that I ever bare my teeth, but something just doesn't ring true with this Night/IFR malarkey . But what the heck,,I feel the subject has just about been beaten to death now.
Good luck if you really do want to pop up through the gloom into the great blue yonder , I will definitely be staying below it , it's that bl**dy great black /grey bit in between that I don't care for.
A good friend and work colleague named Tim Barnby was telling me about one of his worst flights .Tim's a Senior B747 Capt. ex aerobatic champ and remembered by many as the bloke who landed anA340 at Heathrow with it's left maingear still retracted . And the flight he was referring to ?
Scudding under the clouds at 400ft in his Jodel whilst returning from the 2005 Kemble Rally...................................I rest my case.!
-
Steve Brown
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
I am making no judgement as I do not know the circumstances. However in supporting your argument, I'm not sure what we learn from the last sentence in that an IR qualified pilot chose to do that, whereas if his a/c had been ANO equipped and authorised for IMC/IFR flight presumably he could have chosen a possibly safer option.
Isnt this situation just what the UK IMC rating was designed for ie to give pilots a safer alternative to scud running?
Surely the CAA having provided (and continued to support) pilots with that 'human' alternative , it is at least similarly logical to consider whether the aircraft IFR impediment could be relaxed for Permit aircraft.
I have moved from CoA a/c to PTF on grounds of freedom, cost and education and many many others have done so and I'm certain those numbers will surely continue to rise.
Do we want to be in a situation one day when the majority of UK pilots fly PtF aircraft due to the same reasons and yet none of them can benefit (from a safety perspective) from their IR or IMC qualifications due to the PtF 'hardware ' restrictions.
If nothing else, VFR on top (ie not in sight of the surface ) as in France etc would be a start.
LAA is indeed a broad church and it would be good if we could try to look ahead to future needs and likely situations and accomodate sizable minority interests.
LAA have done this successfully in accommodating 4 seaters by increasing charges etc so the increased Engineering support is at least partly offset by the users driving those costs. LAA benefit in increased skill base and experience that benefits all/most members.
IFR permitted PtF a/c could similarly attract differential approval & PtF charges.
Finally (phew !) I can see where you are coming from ref 'certain Exec members' but even if there is something in what you are suggesting, sometimes frankly you need to accept / allow a degree of vested interest amongst volunteers, who give up their time and give their expertise and perhaps use their drive to elicit change to the benefit of others . People do things in life for very many different motives - should we pillory them just because they themselves may benefit personally.
At least we are likely to be able to see this link to lobbying , form our own judgements (as you have) and either offer oneself to serve alongside them or vote accordingly at AGMs - especially now the new LAA proxy voting system encourages greater voter participation.
Isnt this situation just what the UK IMC rating was designed for ie to give pilots a safer alternative to scud running?
Surely the CAA having provided (and continued to support) pilots with that 'human' alternative , it is at least similarly logical to consider whether the aircraft IFR impediment could be relaxed for Permit aircraft.
I have moved from CoA a/c to PTF on grounds of freedom, cost and education and many many others have done so and I'm certain those numbers will surely continue to rise.
Do we want to be in a situation one day when the majority of UK pilots fly PtF aircraft due to the same reasons and yet none of them can benefit (from a safety perspective) from their IR or IMC qualifications due to the PtF 'hardware ' restrictions.
If nothing else, VFR on top (ie not in sight of the surface ) as in France etc would be a start.
LAA is indeed a broad church and it would be good if we could try to look ahead to future needs and likely situations and accomodate sizable minority interests.
LAA have done this successfully in accommodating 4 seaters by increasing charges etc so the increased Engineering support is at least partly offset by the users driving those costs. LAA benefit in increased skill base and experience that benefits all/most members.
IFR permitted PtF a/c could similarly attract differential approval & PtF charges.
Finally (phew !) I can see where you are coming from ref 'certain Exec members' but even if there is something in what you are suggesting, sometimes frankly you need to accept / allow a degree of vested interest amongst volunteers, who give up their time and give their expertise and perhaps use their drive to elicit change to the benefit of others . People do things in life for very many different motives - should we pillory them just because they themselves may benefit personally.
At least we are likely to be able to see this link to lobbying , form our own judgements (as you have) and either offer oneself to serve alongside them or vote accordingly at AGMs - especially now the new LAA proxy voting system encourages greater voter participation.
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
A very reasoned response Steve.
I think it should be repeated though that we have had a couple of surveys now where a significant number of members have said they would like to see IFR rules relaxed on Permit aircraft and I think it quite unreasonable to accuse the Board member pursuing this of doing so purely for self interest.
The amount of time and effort required to put together the cogent arguments necessary to succeed in getting this kind of regulation change cannot be understated, quite frankly the Association could not even consider attempting such a program if it had to pay for that time and effort.
Tunnel vision will get us nowhere, we have to look at the broader picture. There is a desire and fortunately there are those who are prepared to volunteer to try and fulfil that desire, they should be applauded, not pilloried.
I think it should be repeated though that we have had a couple of surveys now where a significant number of members have said they would like to see IFR rules relaxed on Permit aircraft and I think it quite unreasonable to accuse the Board member pursuing this of doing so purely for self interest.
The amount of time and effort required to put together the cogent arguments necessary to succeed in getting this kind of regulation change cannot be understated, quite frankly the Association could not even consider attempting such a program if it had to pay for that time and effort.
Tunnel vision will get us nowhere, we have to look at the broader picture. There is a desire and fortunately there are those who are prepared to volunteer to try and fulfil that desire, they should be applauded, not pilloried.
-
Alan Kilbride
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:41 pm
- Location: York
I would like to be able to fly VFR on top and to do so I need the ability to climb and descend through cloud. Having an old wooden wonder doesn't stop me doing this. I have the basic 6. It's the regulations and training in my permit aircraft needed that I hope for.
I have no wish to fly an ILS or airways, but see no reason why a suitably equipped RV, Europa etc shouldn't
I have no wish to fly an ILS or airways, but see no reason why a suitably equipped RV, Europa etc shouldn't
-
Chris Martyr
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:58 am
- Location: Horsted Keynes Sussex
Right - This place Broad Church that guys keep wittering on about.
I've heard that there's going to be a Fly-In there , apparently it's going to take place at night.
There's no ILS or anything , but that doesn't matter cos all these johnnies with 3D Synthetic Vision just need to look at their tellies and all of a sudden its Day/ VMC again.
Also I've heard that there's going to be a massive turnout . 26.58% of the membership apparently.
I'm going to be there too,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,laughing my head off !
I've heard that there's going to be a Fly-In there , apparently it's going to take place at night.
There's no ILS or anything , but that doesn't matter cos all these johnnies with 3D Synthetic Vision just need to look at their tellies and all of a sudden its Day/ VMC again.
Also I've heard that there's going to be a massive turnout . 26.58% of the membership apparently.
I'm going to be there too,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,laughing my head off !
Last edited by Chris Martyr on Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
Jeremy Liber
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:14 am
I think I need to try another interjection here, the debate is, after all, getting more entertaining and I like to have my tuppence-worth...
I find myself still agreeing with Chris on this one. One aspect that does not seem to be understood by the bulk of the membership is the certification issues associated with approving an aircraft for night/IFR. Sure there are the added inspection and continuing airworthiness aspects, and they will be more onerous, no doubt. The costs of that effort can, however, probably be easily tied to the owner of the aeroplane concerned.
The real issue is in showing the necessary system reliability and integrity, the necessary aircraft handling and stability characteristics and all of the associated assessment and proving of the myriad failure effects. All of this has to be done at the initial design assessment and approval stage and is nothing to do with on-going maintenance.
These are things that the current LAA Engineering Department (for which I have the utmost respect) is not equipped to deal with, either in terms of personnel, processes or organizational approval from CAA. Apart from the initial costs, upgrading the Engineering Department would require a good deal of on-going cost in terms of maintaining that approval at the required higher level. That extra cost would be very difficult to identify and allocate to the nine blokes (I exagerate for effect) who want to fly under IFR and thus would be borne but those poor (er) suckers who don't really care much about night or IFR.
And then there are the added organizational insurance and liability aspects. I can't even begin to think what they might be (well I can but, well, you know).
There...
I find myself still agreeing with Chris on this one. One aspect that does not seem to be understood by the bulk of the membership is the certification issues associated with approving an aircraft for night/IFR. Sure there are the added inspection and continuing airworthiness aspects, and they will be more onerous, no doubt. The costs of that effort can, however, probably be easily tied to the owner of the aeroplane concerned.
The real issue is in showing the necessary system reliability and integrity, the necessary aircraft handling and stability characteristics and all of the associated assessment and proving of the myriad failure effects. All of this has to be done at the initial design assessment and approval stage and is nothing to do with on-going maintenance.
These are things that the current LAA Engineering Department (for which I have the utmost respect) is not equipped to deal with, either in terms of personnel, processes or organizational approval from CAA. Apart from the initial costs, upgrading the Engineering Department would require a good deal of on-going cost in terms of maintaining that approval at the required higher level. That extra cost would be very difficult to identify and allocate to the nine blokes (I exagerate for effect) who want to fly under IFR and thus would be borne but those poor (er) suckers who don't really care much about night or IFR.
And then there are the added organizational insurance and liability aspects. I can't even begin to think what they might be (well I can but, well, you know).
There...
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
You know Jeremy, it wasn't that long ago that we didn't do retractables, or engines over 180hp, or constant speed props, or glass cockpits, or autopilots, or electronic ignition, or four seaters, or composites, or........ in fact, come to think of it, we only had one engineer. Good job we didn't all dig our heels in back then and stop progress. Employ more Engineering staff because a few members want wobbly props and retractable gear - no way. What do you mean you want a four seater – go buy a PA28 because we don’t see why we should improve our Engineering capability for just a few of you well off types who can afford four seats. We’re happy with our VP’s and Monoplanes thank you very much.
This, I'm afraid, is the same blinkered argument. IFR is an obvious progression. I do not know whether the team negotiating this with the CAA is going to succeed, and I do not know if they do what criteria will be laid down on aircraft approval and on-going airworthiness, but I do know that it is a logical route to follow and we shall make a decision on how we may be able to handle additional requirements if and when we need to.
Long live the phonograph eh, why on earth would anybody want an iPod.
This, I'm afraid, is the same blinkered argument. IFR is an obvious progression. I do not know whether the team negotiating this with the CAA is going to succeed, and I do not know if they do what criteria will be laid down on aircraft approval and on-going airworthiness, but I do know that it is a logical route to follow and we shall make a decision on how we may be able to handle additional requirements if and when we need to.
Long live the phonograph eh, why on earth would anybody want an iPod.
-
ThePipster
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:33 pm
I have been watching this thread with interest, to say the least!
I am a relative new comer to the church of the LAA, but by no means new to aviation of many forms. I see only positive benefits in a not-for-profit professionally operated organisation chartered to protect the best interests of its entire membership, you simply have to look at organisations like the RNLI to see what can be achieved under this model.
So focusing on the issue at hand, Chris has quite rightly identified a list of airworthiness requirements attached to IFR flight. My first question to the forum is related to those aircraft that straddle both camps....a Cub on a permit is prohibited from anything but Day/VFR, yet the same aircraft on a CofA is not. Do instrument cooling, earth bonding etc,etc,etc differ from the same 1950's model of aircraft depending on its CofA or Permit status?
My second question would be this, if such a thing as Night/VFR existed in this country would that change opinions towards relaxed night flying certification requirements?
Pipster
I am a relative new comer to the church of the LAA, but by no means new to aviation of many forms. I see only positive benefits in a not-for-profit professionally operated organisation chartered to protect the best interests of its entire membership, you simply have to look at organisations like the RNLI to see what can be achieved under this model.
So focusing on the issue at hand, Chris has quite rightly identified a list of airworthiness requirements attached to IFR flight. My first question to the forum is related to those aircraft that straddle both camps....a Cub on a permit is prohibited from anything but Day/VFR, yet the same aircraft on a CofA is not. Do instrument cooling, earth bonding etc,etc,etc differ from the same 1950's model of aircraft depending on its CofA or Permit status?
My second question would be this, if such a thing as Night/VFR existed in this country would that change opinions towards relaxed night flying certification requirements?
Pipster
Phil Hall
039126
039126
-
John Brady
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:39 pm
-
Chris Martyr
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:58 am
- Location: Horsted Keynes Sussex
Hi Phil, welcome to this incredible debate, and you bring up two very good points. Regarding Pipers on CofA and Pipers on a PtF and the earth bonding and instrument cooling thing [did they actually have any instruments that needed cooling] .But regardless of which regime they ended up subscribing to in this country , the bottom line is that when they rolled out of Lockhaven all those years ago, they all complied to the same Type Approved,Certificated standard of build , and this is what alot of people don't seem to be getting .We are allowed a lot of freedoms with the PtF as it stands , believe me ,I know because I work with Night/IFR certified aircraft and all their hideous paperwork...but I'm starting to repeat myself now....
As far as relaxing night flying rules ,and I'm only surmising here but I guess the requirement for approved fitment of anti-collision beacons,nav lights,strobes,VHF installation, static wicks etc..etc will be there like it is for the CofA boys. All do-able, but hideously expensive and not what most of us joined for.
I am still hoping that some of our Gentleman Inspectors will make an input here, as I am sure that they are all conversant with battery capacity checks, compass swings and bonding tests etc, but how many of these chaps have access to the equipment required to carry out these maintenance tasks. Why I keep harping on about heading for JAR-145 territory.
Certainly as far as piloting is concerned there will be a bit of relaxation in the rules, but as far as certification matters and maintenance are concerned the EuroClowns are probably going to make it worse , and one of the many reasons I get a bit tetchy when people start gnawing away at the Ptf restrictions . Are they extending our freedoms - or eroding them away ? I feel this debate hasn't quite run its course yet .
As far as relaxing night flying rules ,and I'm only surmising here but I guess the requirement for approved fitment of anti-collision beacons,nav lights,strobes,VHF installation, static wicks etc..etc will be there like it is for the CofA boys. All do-able, but hideously expensive and not what most of us joined for.
I am still hoping that some of our Gentleman Inspectors will make an input here, as I am sure that they are all conversant with battery capacity checks, compass swings and bonding tests etc, but how many of these chaps have access to the equipment required to carry out these maintenance tasks. Why I keep harping on about heading for JAR-145 territory.
Certainly as far as piloting is concerned there will be a bit of relaxation in the rules, but as far as certification matters and maintenance are concerned the EuroClowns are probably going to make it worse , and one of the many reasons I get a bit tetchy when people start gnawing away at the Ptf restrictions . Are they extending our freedoms - or eroding them away ? I feel this debate hasn't quite run its course yet .
-
ThePipster
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:33 pm