Robins on Annex ll

[MikeGodsell]

There is now a strong possibility that the whole Robin fleet of aircraft will made orphans by EASA early in the New Year. They will go on to permits instead of C of A.
How well prepared is the LAA for a possible doubling of it's permit issuing workload

[Graham Clark]

Well Mike, I think the question ought to be turned round: have Robin owners created the capacity within LAA Engineering, by supporting our Association: by being members?
I have been a 'discretionary member' for 20 years, because without an LAA my DR1051M1 would never get a Permit (issued 2008 - Yippee!)
My message to all Robin owners is: join now. Otherwise you will be at the back of the queue.

[Rod1]

I think we are some way from all Robins going on to the LAA permit, but we may get some of the older versions.

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=50591&start=0

Rod1

[Gerry Holland]

How many Robins are likely to need LAA permitting and double the requirement on the LAA? Surely not a thousand or more?

[Rod1]

I have not checked but I think there are 250 ish C of A Robins in the UK. I suspect its only the DR21 and similar which might end up on a permit which would be quite small numbers. I am just an interested observer with contacts in Dyn Aero which is based on the same airfield and run by Mr C Robin who is interested in supporting some of the fleet. If you follow the link above you will be up to date with the situation so far. May become clearer end of Jan.

Rod1

[Barry Plumb]

Gents,

The situation regarding the DR series Robins and the CAPs is to say the least complex. Unfortunately it has also been turned into a political and legal minefield with the Courts and FFA involved.

To explain the situation in purely airworthiness terms, perhaps I can help to shed a little light.

The DR 200, 300 and 400 series aircraft are all under EASA jurisdiction as none of them are included in Annex II.

Ironically the DR200 and 300 series were originally assessed as Annex II by EASA, but they noted that this assessment was very much a borderline case. (In order to qualify the design had to be completed prior to 1955 and production ceased prior to 1975). Clearly these DR aircraft did not really qualify, but EASA took the view that they were development of designs which did and so put them on the list. (A similar justification puts the PA18 in Annex II as well).

Earlier this year as a result of negotiations between EASA, DGAC and APEX, the DR200 and 300 series were removed from Annex II and reverted to EASA control.

An aircraft is defined as "Orphaned" when there is no longer a Type Certificate holder in place. This usualy occurs as a result of closure of the company holding the TC, death of the TC holder, or failure of the TC holder to correctly execise his duties under his approval. You cannot just buy or sell a TC as there are conditions of approval which apply. These in the main require an exposition and a design organisation approval. This is not something which any Tom Dick or Harry can do as it will require a sound Engineering organisation to qualify.

If an aircraft is Orphaned, then due to the lack of continuing airworthiness support (regardless of the spare parts situation) the aircraft can no longer hold an ICAO level CofA. If it is to continue in operation then it must be issued with a sub-ICAO level of certification.

Just because an aircraft is Orphaned it will not automatically be transferred to Annex II. These two are NOT linked. Inclusion in Annex II or not is an EASA decision. Orphaning is based upon the loss of a TC holder. An aircraft can be an EASA type with a TC, an EASA type and Orphaned, or Annex II and with a TC, or Annex II and Orphaned.

These four situations would most likely result in the following certification routes.

a) EASA type with a TC --- Full EASA CofA
b) EASA type and Orphaned --- EASA RCofA or EASA PtF
c) Annex II and with a TC --- National CAA issued CofA
d) Annex II and Orphaned --- National CAA issued PtF or local equivalent.

In the UK of course the CAA PtF is issued via LAA, or directly by CAA if the aircraft is outside our scope of approval.

So, going back to the Robin aircraft, the potential loss of the TC holder is very serious. It would mean that unless a suitably qualified organisation can be found to take on the TC, (and probably to manufacture spare parts), then EASA would have to declare the aircraft to be Orphans, and deal with the outcome of 4000 odd aircraft requiring new (sub-ICAO)certification.

This would most likely be the certification described in Part 21 as a "Restricted CofA without TC". In order for EASA to issue this RCofA, they would need to approve the Flight Conditions for the aircraft, and this would require what is known as a "Specific Airworthiness Specification" to be produced for each type and variant. Actually this is not really too difficult as it would be based upon the old Type Certificate Data Sheet, with the addition of any ADs issued during the aircrafts life, plus any Airworthiness Aporoval Notices issued for significant modifications etc.

However all of this would take some time and it is most likely that the aircraft would continue to fly on their CofA until the new regime was in place.

This is where it gets a little tricky because the Restrictions associated with an RCofA are not defined, and could be whatever EASA feels is valid. However it may be day/VFR only and no commercial operations. This would completely scupper the French Training organisations. Alternatively there may be no restrictions at all.

The biggest problem here comes with the Continuing Airworthiness regime, which in the case of an EASA RCofA will mean compliance with Part M. Quite how one is expected to carry out an Airworthiness Review for an aircraft with no continuing airworthiness support I am at a loss to explain. Suppose the aircraft encountered a structural problem (such as the DR400 spar problem), how would a CAMO get hold of an approved modification scheme? Similarly the lack of spare parts released with an EASA Form 1 (ie a release note), puts the owners in severe difficulties if parts which are worn out or damaged require replacement. OK, engine parts, props, electrics, avionics, brakes, tyres etc are all available from other sources, but what happens when you bend an undercarriage leg or the windscreen cracks?

LAA have absolutely no involvement in this saga as yet. Niether do the CAA since these are all EASA types. If they are Orphaned then CAA will be involved because UK owners will be required to apply for their new EASA certification via the "Compitent Authority in the Member State of Registry" ie CAA.

LAA may eventually become involved, but only if the aircraft are also declared Annex II, and remember from the notes above this is NOT automatic. Should this occur then CAA would be duty bound to look for alternative organisations to take on the Type Responsibilty for the UK registred examples. This is exactly what happened with the Jodel fleet recently. CAA would write to owners informing them of the situation and inviting applications for a suitable organisation to take on a "Type Respomsibility Agreement". (This is a sort of watered down TC holder with reduced level of qualification and duties). If no one comes forward after about 6 months then CAA would most likely transfer the aircraft to PtF, and would negotiate with LAA for us to administer the fleet if CAA feel we are qualified to do so. The aircraft would probably continue to fly on a CofA until this is sorted out, but would not be required to conform to Part M as they are Annex II, and could be maintained in the normal way by an M3 or Part 145 approved maintenance organisation.

All in all it is a bit of a dilema. There are lots of UK owners of the 200 and 300 series who would dearly love the types to be Annex II and Orphaned so that their aircraft could go to PtF. However if this occurs with the 400s as well it may well spell the end of the road for many of the French flying training clubs.

And then of course there are the CAPs------------

I did say it was complicated, and this is without all of the politics !!

Rest assured we will keep an eye on developments, and if some of the aircraft come our way then their owners will be made most welcome, as has happened with the Jodels, Austers, Wassmers etc. We are not exactly expecting a rush since all of this is likely to take a long time to mature.

Hope this all helps.

Happy Landings

Barry Plumb

[MikeGodsell]

Barry many thanks for a comprehensive up-date. Not sure where my French registered Robin ATL will fit in all this, and I guess I shall have to wait and see what the DGAC will do. Merry Christmas to all.

[Rod1]

I am told that 55% of the French fleet are Robin or CAP aircraft, so the French will find a fix.

Rod1

[Nigel Hitchman]

Is it correct that French flying clubs need to use aircraft with Full C of As? Im not so sure. Ive seen several flying clubs renting out aircraft which are on the F-P regsiter, on a CNRA, which would be equivalent to our LAA permit to fly. What is slightly different is most French flying clubs are associations where the aircraft are owned by the members of the club and effectivly non profit making, as opposed to the UK where most flying clubs are commercial organisations trying to make a profit for some external shareholders.

Lets hope this gets resolved soon and the aircraft owners get to benefit, not just the lawyers as seems to be the case now!

[Rod1]

Some more info on the situation;


http://www.pilotesmag.com/Pilotesmag/Le ... ATION.html

Rod1

[Will Greenwood]

Any more news on this one, would be interested if the Dr220 or 221 were orphaned, and could go on the LAA system, last I heard that some DR400's were grounded, lets hope it is sorted soon, an update would be appreciated.

Will.