My Bottom ...... light aircraft are at rock bottom !

[Graham Clark]

Bill, some five years ago the owners of factory-built Jodels were in a very similar position to that in which the owners of DR200s now find themselves.
I was requested by Barry Plumb of the LAA to canvass owners of factory-built Jodels to establish whether they wanted to transfer to an LAA Permit, or stay on a C of A.
I obtained the names and addresses of factory-built Jodel registered owners from the CAA's G-INFO website, and wrote to each one asking whether they would like to transfer if this were possible.
Well over half those contacted responded, and all but two wished to transfer to an LAA Permit.
This information was passed to Barry Plumb at the LAA and used by him in his quiet negotiations with the CAA. So when the French declared factory-built Jodels up to and including the DR1051M1 as Annex II aircraft, he had a much stronger hand. The CAA had solid evidence that the LAA was speaking on behalf of owners.
Since then, there has been a shift in the goal posts (Stampes, Mascarets) but for whatever reason the current French holder of the DR200 TC will not let go. Why, I know not.
However, if you can: (a) prove that the TC holder cannot provide essential support (think of an essential replacement component -- maybe a wing spar, or the elevator metal control mechanism -- that he cannot supply with the necessary paperwork (JAA Form 1?) and (b) demonstrate that the registered owners wish to make a switch to LAA Permit, this would give Barry the makings of a case to put to the CAA.
I am not saying this is the only strategy you could adopt, but you would be treading a path that has been successful in the recent past. Bureaucrats love precedents.

[Brian Hope]

Not wishing to pour cold water on Graham's suggestion at all but the underlying issue is whether there is a current TC holder, and unfortunately for the DR200 series there is. I am reluctant to believe that showing that the TC holder cannot support the aircraft with spares is going to have any effect. I know there were D150 Mascaret owners proposing all sorts of arguments why they should be allowed onto a Permit, including of course the fact that there were already a number of the type on UK Permits, but it was the surrender of the TC that ultimately lead to their release from CoA, nothing else.
The evidence of the numbers of owners of former CoA types like Jodels and Stampes that preferred the Permit option almost certainly strengthened the LAA case to the CAA that when a TC is relinquished then owners should be free to choose whether they wished to go Permit regardless of whether somebody was prepared to undertake a Type Responsibility Agreement. Prior to the CAA accepting this argument and having a change of heart, a Type Responsibility Agreement precluded any of the type moving onto a Permit to Fly, a most unfair arrangement when perhaps two or three owners wished to stay on CoA and agreed to take on a Type Responsibility Agreement, forcing maybe thirty or forty owners to also remain on CoA when their preference was to move to an LAA Permit.

[Bill Scott]

Which just goes to show the unfairness of the present sysytem. I recognise that the LAA has done its best, subject to the system as it stands. However, being a lifelong rebel, I'm advocating a different approach whereby owners might elect to bring their aircraft into the permit system. It would be a once only one way move for that airframe and engine, but would suit the needs of VFR pilots wanting affordable flying.

[Graham Clark]

Bill, I am sure that the LAA would be delighted if the CAA would unlock the door. I fully understand and accept the point that Brian makes about TC and TRA. Five years ago there were similar apparently insuperable obstacles for Austers, Stampes and Jodels. But some policies have changed, partly in response to owner persuasion, and partly due to moving goal posts. If logic and owner wishes were the sole determinant you could drive to Gatwick tomorrow and pick up your Permit. It would be as easy as pressing a switch. But in the real world that will not happen.

So, if you want a change to policy you, say again, you must do research, get other owners on your side and start to organise. Then sweet talk LAA engineering. They are the ones with the informal contacts that may, one day, nudge this door open. In this, I am sure we would all wish you luck.

[Andrew Gardner]

It is perhaps a sign of the state of the aircraft market at the moment and the recognition that if moved to an LAA permit that the effective value of an aircraft increases, that comments like this are starting to be seen in adverts for aircraft currently on Annex 2 :-

"THERE IS TALK THAT ANNEX 2 AIRCRAFT MAY BE ALLOWED TO TRANSFER TO THE LAA PERMIT TO FLY."

As I understand it, the existence of TC holder is currently enough to keep Annex 2 aircraft on Annex 2.

One question which I have not yet seen asked is, if all Annex 2 aircraft were to be allowed to move to an LAA permit tomorrow, is this something that the LAA would actually welcome in terms of the workload and engineering resources available?

Currently, as far as actual maintenance is concerned there is provision for individuals to maintain their Annex 2 aircraft themselves as long as a qualified engineer signs off the work ('though finding such an individual might prove challenging). The paperwork trail is another matter entirely.

[Flapperons]

This is an interesting topic for me. I own a Glos-Airtourer which is an Annex II aircraft with a CofA. The CAA recognises 3 types of Airtourer - Victa Airtourers, AESL Airtourers and Glos-Airtourers, these are all in CAP 747.

When Glos-Airtourers were orphaned by the CAA the New Zealand CAA took on responsibility for the Type, but thay passed the TC to the Airtourer Association who are now TC holder for all types of Airtourer, but they do not recognise Glos-Airtourers as being a seperate Type.

I have asked the CAA to tell me what organisations have held the TC for Glos-Airtourers but they will not say. As these aircraft used to have their own TCDS I would think they once had a seperate TC Holder from AESL and Victa.

My aim is to get the Type recognised as seperate from AESL or Victa and then ask the Airtourer Association to act as TRA for Glos-Airtourers so we would have the choice of staying with a CofA or moving to a PtoF.

I'm struggling with this. The CAA will not answer my questions regarding previous TC holders for the Glos-Airtourer Type. I've pointed out to them that AESL Airtourers (which Glos-Airtourers are now assumed to be) use a different Flight Manual to Glos-Airtourers and that there are significant differences in the Flight Manuals, unfortunately Glos-Airtourer serial numbers appear on AESL TCDS. The CAA are looking into the Flight Manual problem, but remain oblivious to all else.

The CAA are not at all sympathetic to owners of these aircraft who would love to have the same choice of operation as Stampe owners.

Anyone have any ideas or suggestions how I should progress this? The Airtourer Association are in Australia, they provide as much support as they can for the aircraft but some parts have to be specially manufactured and some airframe parts are unobtainable. There is no advantage for them to help us in our plight.

[Flying John]

I have come to this thread rather late, but it is a subject dear to my heart !.

I own a Gardan Horizon that is on an EASA CofA, (Restricted) with no restrictions (dont ask).

There is no TC holder !

It has not been allowed in Annex II

There are no parts.

There are some in France who are on a CDNR (French permit).

I am STILL not allowed to attempt to get the type onto a permit to Fly.

I am stonewalled by the CAA, who defer to EASA and EASA speak
gobbledegook to deflect me to the CAA.


Riddle me that....




HELP.....

[Nigel Hitchman]

I heard recently that all Taylorcraft aircraft are now allowed on LAA permits including newly imported aircraft.
Most Taylorcraft are already on LAA permits, imported at a time when they were allowed to go on permits in the 80s, along with lots of Cubs, Luscombe, Vagabonds etc that since 1993 or so new imports have had to go on C of As for the reason Stuart quoted (thus there havent been many!) There is a Type certificate holder for Taylorcrafts and they were even in production briefly as recently as 3 or 4 years ago, although not sure if they made more than one or two. But the TC holder doesnt supply all the spare sparts required or support the aircraft. I dont know exactly what caused the change or heart from the CAA, but this is again good news. Hopefully soon more types will follow!

[Nigel Robbins]

I've just read 'Flying John's' comments regarding the Gardan Horizon aircraft, and hope that he will stir some comments and responses. As John mentions the Gardan Horizon's have no TC holder, with no clear suppliers of replacement airframe parts and yet they are still only allowed to operate on EASA certificate of airworthiness.
These very fine aircraft would be superb candidates for operating under the control of the LAA.
As another Gardan Horizon owner, I'm extremely keen to see that these superb aircraft keep flying long into the future and can only hope that they get considered for moving onto the LAA Permit to fly system.
We can hope!!

[Bill Scott]

Absolutely delighted to see Chipmunks, Bulldogs and others join the fold.
A victory for common sense and, maybe, a precedent that the LAA might be able to exploit ?

[Graham Clark]

De Havilland support have now shown the way! My suspicion that the door might creak open has proved correct.
So, you DR220-lovers, gird up your loins and marshall the facts now!

[Flying John]

Reluctant as I am to disagree with Brian, it seems that even if there is no proper type support, no design authority, no spare parts - infact no anything at all, you still cannot neccesarily get your orphan aircraft onto Annex II and EASA have created this weird Restricted CoFA category as a dustbin for any type that it cannot deal with properly.

To repeat what I said on the other thread EASA say:-

"Whether an aircraft meets or not such conditions cannot be an arbitrary decision; the mere fact for example that an aircraft becomes an orphan is not a sufficient reason to decide that it meets the criteria of the Annex. Doing otherwise exposes the Agency, the NAA and the owners/operators to find themselves in an illegal situation that could be used in courts to transfer liability to any of them. If an aircraft is declared by the EU Court, on request of a national judge, as an Annex II aircraft, any certificate issued by EASA would be null and void, including the individual certificates issued by Member States on such a basis. In the same way, if an aircraft is not actually meeting the criteria of Annex II, it cannot be regulated by Member States. Any certificate they would have issued without an EASA design approval would be null and void".


So pick the bones out of that (as they say) - to me it is an arse covering , liability shifting sort of move - but I cannot understand why, is there some dealings going on that we are not privvy too perhaps ??

I dont know, but with both a CAA permit scheme and an LAA permit scheme which might allow the GY80 - it is extremely difficult to understand the reasoning.

John