Night/VFR/IFR/IMC In Permit A/C

Chris Martyr · Post by **Chris Martyr** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:27 pm

With ref. to the internet survey regarding the above topic , which I received after two abortive attempts [what is it with LAA and internet surveys ?]. The reason that I make this point is because if LAA are going to pursue this , they had better be damned sure that it is something that the membership actually want , because your average £70-£80K VLA , already hideously expensive, will become considerably more so.
So if they are to canvass opinion, the results of this survey need to be very accurate, and from what I've seen so far ,it all looks a bit flaky.
Few would doubt that modern-day home assy. kits and modern avionics packages can handle the above mentioned conditions ,but from the CAA mans point of view it's still an amateur built aircraft with non-approved avionics, and despite the fact that most homebuilds are built to a very high standard, it must be borne in mind that no two homebuilds are the same . That's why they're on Permits in the first place ! It's quite pointless carrying out surveys if Mr CAA turns round afterwards and says that if blokes want to fly their Sportcruisers and Eurostars in Night/IFR then these manufacturers are going to have to produce a Type Approved,Certificated version.
Also, what is LAAs take on instrument cooling ? pretty relevant when one considers that most modern VLAs have large greenhouse-effect bubble canopies. What is LAAs take on smoke evacuation from the cockpit ?
What is LAAs take on dual electronic ignition in these circumstances ? if your gen. packs up and you've got magnetoes it's no problem, but with electronic ign. your CRTs could be hogging valuable battery power in the event of a gen. failure.
There is also the prospect of inclement weather. What is the LAAs take on mandatory fitment of bonding leads and static discharge wicks, and then of course the annual requirement for bonding checks. I could go on ,but I don't want blokes falling asleep here.
Why does there seem to be a [probably quite small] faction within LAA that seem so keen to rid the PtF of restrictions. Surely it's the restrictions that keep the CAA appeased and allow us to operate our aeroplanes at a fraction of the cost of our CofA bound brethren. I remember big jubilations a couple of years back when the overflight of built up areas rule was relaxed. Big deal-who would purposely plan a flight over heavily populated areas anyway. I bet old Ches. Sullenburger,'Hero of the Hudson' wouldn't. Or them other poor sods on that BA777 who nearly finished their sector on the A30 wouldn't either !
Finally, if all the restrictions on a PtF were removed, there wouldn't be that much to differentiate it from a CofA , and it don't take Einstein to work out how the Feds might just go about re-addressing this little imbalance. End of Sermon .

Tom Sheppard · Post by **Tom Sheppard** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:05 pm

Hear, hear.

JohnMead · Post by **JohnMead** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:30 pm

I agree completely, it would be completing the circle to the old Special Cat CofA which a number of the fleet had before going on to Permits.
Also, whilst on this thread, I am trying to get references to Night-VFR removed from the survey as there is no such animal in th UK.

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:54 pm

Gents, although I too have no desire to fly night or IFR in my permit aircraft I do not see how that would give me the right to prevent others who wish to do so from pursuing that possibility. It is a fact that some LAA PtF types are, or can be, equipped for such operations, and if you care to check out the latest member survey on the website, you will see that 26.58% of those that responded wished to see night/IMC restrictions relaxed.
With such a mandate, would we not be failing in our duty if we did not look into the possibilities of some suitable aircraft being allowed to operate in that environment?
A group of volunteers has been working very hard on this for some time, and the small survey on the subject to which you refer is an information gathering exercise to assist that effort. I wish the group success in their endeavours, LAA is a broad church and there is surely room for those who wish to fly their aircraft IFR just as there is for those who wish to fly non radio and minimum panel.

Jeremy Liber · Post by **Jeremy Liber** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:01 pm

Gents etc.

I think Chris's post is one of the more insightful that I've seen on this topic. As some northern git once said 'there's owt for nowt'.

Brian's points are also valid and so we have to keep both views in mind.

My angle on it goes something like this.

Asking if we'd like to be able to fly at night or in IMC is likely to elicit a fairly positive response from pilots; I'd like to be able to do so in my Jodel. However, I'm not really very bothered about it and I would not be prepared to pay very much at all for the privilege. Possibly more pertinent is that I would not be prepared to subsidise anybody else doing so either. and there is the rub.

The current LAA engineering system is tailored to day/VFR operations with a commensurate level of airworthiness and design oversight. That level of oversight would not be suitable for aircraft operating at night or in IMC.
So, if some LAA aircraft are to be operated at night or in IMC would we raise the level of the whole operation to the necessary standard or would we set-up a two tier system, one for day/VFR aircraft and one for night/IMC aircraft (and I am being very careful about VMC/VFR and IMC/IFR)?

Realistically you would not want two systems so you'd probably want to bring the whole lot up to night/IMC standards. That would likely rasie my costs in order to subsidise the night/IMC boys (and girls). Running a two tier would do much the same but less efficiently!

So, whilst in theory I can see why LAA might want to look at night/IMC, unless more than 50% of the membership wants it, or at least is willing to subsidise it, then we should not be wasting valuable time and effort.

Debate...

Jeremy

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:18 pm

Jeremy, I think you are being somewhat provocative! I see absolutely no reason to believe that the minority, and I am pretty sure it will indeed be quite a small minority, of aircraft that will meet a requirement to fly night/IMC should have even a remote effect on the overall airworthiness regime of the fleet as a whole. I am not involved in the efforts to gain these new privileges but my understanding is that any aircraft intended for IFR flight will almost certainly have to have somewhat more stringent requirements regarding engines and equipment. Let's get real here, we're not talking here about getting my 50+ year old Jodel with its dubious venturi driven horizon up into the clag, but if you take the average RV for instance, it probably has a new or low houred Lycoming, top line avionics and any number of bells and whistles that make a club PA28 look positively archaic by comparison. Neither I, nor you will be subsidising the few who decide to go down the IFR equipped route; it will be they who will have to meet any additional costs of equipping and inspecting their particular aircraft.

G.Dawes · Post by **G.Dawes** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:09 pm

Most strips are pretty difficult to see at night and even worse so are the trees at the end. If someone has the desire to want a go anywhere machine and is prepared to pay for that,along with using fully equipped airports then stay with CoA.

Nigel Ramsay · Post by **Nigel Ramsay** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:56 pm

Interesting that the common thread here is one of "it's ok if it doesn't impact upon my costs" and "it'll only be a minority who will want it". In reality I too believe it will only be of interest to those who have relatively exotic machinery.

I think it would be interesting to know what proportion of the LAA fleet is actually likely to be seeking these privileges? Given that a certain board member has more than once said "The LAA is no longer about a bunch of old men making aeroplanes out of wood and glue", it would be nice to know how many of us old men with glue on their fingers make up that portion of the fleet!

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:25 pm

If the LAA takes on a fleet of IMC capable aircraft that fleet is instantly restricted to day VFR. If we want to expand the LAA having fleets of aircraft with owners are positively besieging the CAA to allow them to transfer could be a good thing…

Rod1

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:28 pm

Have to say I am surprised by the negativity on this. It isn't going to impact on those of us who are not interested in going the night/IMC route so where on earth is the problem. I have no doubt the same members who are whinging about this now have bemoaned the fact that CAA and or LAA wont let us do this or that, yet when we look to advance our privileges they say they don't think we should be heading in that direction.
Some of us who fly factory built PtF types would love to be able to fly in France without the hassle of getting permission each time. LAA and CAA have worked closely together to make that happen, we are just waiting on France to get its act together to close the deal. Should we have done that? After all it only applies to a minority of LAA members. I say get a life and stop thinking the world stops at your front door. Others have every right to expect their Association to work on their behalf, if we all had our heads in the sand we wouldn't get anywhere now would we.

mike newall · Post by **mike newall** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:09 pm

Agree with Brian,

There are more Pipers, Stinsons, Aeronca's etc etc on C of A's that would be much better managed and afforded under a Permit.

That is where the push should be at the moment, IMC/Night will probably come in under EASA Experimental in any case in the near future.

Trevor Harvey · Post by **Trevor Harvey** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:02 am

I certainly agree with Brian on this. With the plus: The more "priveleges" we (LAA) can prise out of the CAA the better.
This micro-managing government is quite capable of restricting us enough without us ourselves helping them.
The permit system has proven a safe & workable system for many years.
The NPPL has been successful.
The IMCR has been successful.
The overflying relaxation has not resulted in puppy farms & primary schools being destroyed in droves.
I see no reason why a suitably equipped a/c could not be Permitted as such, while a same type a/c insufficiently equipped would not be.
I don't believe in "blanket rules"
We fly in airframes that are uncertified, behind engines that are uncertified, why should uncertified navigation equipment be any less reliable? And apart from "regulations" why should all that be less reliable in the dark?
And, (off topic a bit) why can't a night/IMC rating be added to a NPPL? We NPPLs are no more likely to die at the controls at night than we are in daylight.
My Emeraude is not equipped for IFR but it might be nice to know I was still legal if I were a bit late getting down one evening.
Flak jacket on.

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:18 pm

As a Strut coordinator the excuse I get most often trotted out by people not to join the LAA or look at a permit syndicate is "I have/may wish to get an IMC/IR and fly IFR" so LAA is no good for me. One just has to look at other forums. Getting rid of the "VFR only" label the GA world has put on us would I believe justify the effort being put in increased membership numbers alone. It may also offer a perception boost for all the fleet.

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:17 pm

Hi Steve, although I fully support the initiative to gain IMC and night priviledges, I am not convinced that it will have any noticeable impact on membership, I do agree though that it adds credibility to LAA PtF amongst the sad few who have yet to get beyond the idea that LAA PtF are made of string and wax paper and rarely manage to get off the ground.
I think there's an awful lot of preconception about the requirement for night and IFR flying which simply doesn't stack up in the real world. I live in the SE, probably the busiest airspace in the country, and you would be very hard put to find a GA airfield that operates at night other than for the occasional night for training, which kind of makes a night rating of little practical use. I know few GA pilots who have a current night rating.
No doubt the proposed EASA PPL IR will change things, but at present only very few PPLs have an IR (less thn 5%), though many think they have one with their IMC. The IMC is not legally useable outside of UK airspace, and most of the airfields most of us fly from do not have instrument approach capability, so again the real world utility is questionable. I believe many people think that night and IMC ratings are a positive asset to practical flying, but in the main I suspect most never use them in anger because the logistics simply don't work.
Of course, there is an argument that an IMC rated pilot is better equipped for flying in the changeable UK climate, but I am talking here about the practicality of using it as part of a planned flight, not getting yourself out of a situation you shouldn't have got yourself into in the first place.

Chris Martyr · Post by **Chris Martyr** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:29 pm

As the author of the original posting, I'm rather pleased at the different opinions that have moved the debate along. But I hope that I've not been misunderstood here .
I'm not some crazy loner who is out to throw a spanner into this issue at all costs. I'm actually a very satisfied LAAer and will be one of the first to applaud LAAs stellar efforts in fighting the good fight for us grassroots flyers, what with EASA, licensing, airspace, etc etc.
As stated in my original missive ,there is no doubt that modern homebuilds and avionics are quite capable of Night/IFR . That's not the point in question . It's not the Turweston Gang that has to be won over ,it's them in 'The Shiny Shed' at Gatwick , many of whom as individuals are aviation nuts like us , but as a regulatory body are a completely different animal. So when you read questions like Q.11 in the latest LAA survey, which asks ; "Do you have confidence in uncertified instruments for flight in IFR/IMC", all it does to me is make me shudder in embarrassment . It doesn't matter how cutting edge your instrumentation is, we know it's reliable and extremely accurate, but if it hasn't got Approval Certification,Release Notes and a JAA Form One then sorry old chum , it's Day/VFR .
As a B747 Line Engineer at Gatwick, I get to meet many professional pilots, many of whom are LAA grassroots flyers as well , and all the ones that I've polled about this issue have pretty much the same answer . "Why on earth would you do that". It is a similar response at the very active airstrip that I fly from, where most of the machinery is PtF.
This is why it is pretty important that LAA ascertains if this is consistent throughout . I would hate to think that one or two EC members were working so hard on this if it is only them that wants it .
Don't get me wrong here Brian [I know you're not far away] because if there are enough folks in support of this , I'll wind my neck in and go and annoy the missus instead.
Also, it would also be interesting to hear any LAA Inspectors take on this matter , as it will probably turn build certification and permit renewal inspections into a whole new ballgame of fun and laughter. [hmm] ,which is why I put the technical questions in my original posting about bonding checks and things, so it would be interesting if this could also be debated . Anyway , like Trevor, I'm now going to put my flak jacket on and hide. But please don't be too hard on me , I'm not some boring b@5t@rd trying to pour scorn on this topic . I spend far too long with Night/IFR certified aircraft and the hideous paperwork they generate, and my LAA activities and my permit baby are my route to freedom in that great green [not black] countryside of ours .