Check out the latest news on the website to read how many of the aircraft that have their continuing maintenance overseen by De Havilland Support Ltd. will soon have the opportunity to move over to an LAA Permit to Fly.
Tiger Moths, Chipmunks and Scottish Aviation Bulldogs are amongst the types that could move onto a Permit from April 2012.
Chippies and Tigers on Permits
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
-
Jeremy Liber
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:14 am
Brian
What a great result. This is the first I'd heard of the plan but can imagine the efforts put in by Francis and his team and Mark at DHSL in order to get this agreed. Obviously the LAA CAA Design Liaison Surveyor is on our side on this one and deserves our thanks also for taking the brave step to support and agree to this move.
Congratulations to all involved for a most pragmatic way forward.
Jeremy
What a great result. This is the first I'd heard of the plan but can imagine the efforts put in by Francis and his team and Mark at DHSL in order to get this agreed. Obviously the LAA CAA Design Liaison Surveyor is on our side on this one and deserves our thanks also for taking the brave step to support and agree to this move.
Congratulations to all involved for a most pragmatic way forward.
Jeremy
-
Steve Slater
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:57 pm
Superb news. Congratulations to Francis Donaldson and Mark Miller, and the respective LAA and DHSL operations.
A refreshing outbreak of common sense!
Can someone though, explain why Beagle Pups are forced to stay on Expensive Aviation Safety Agency C of A's while more complex Bulldogs become permit eligible?
A refreshing outbreak of common sense!
Can someone though, explain why Beagle Pups are forced to stay on Expensive Aviation Safety Agency C of A's while more complex Bulldogs become permit eligible?
Stephen Slater
034052
034052
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Hi Steve, just received this from Bill Taylor, chief executive of DHSL which better explains the situation than my earlier (now edited) post.
The Pup is an orphaned EASA aircraft and it qualifies for the issue of a Restricted Certificate of Airworthiness. The TRAs which will be established by DHSL are applicable only to Annex II non-EASA aircraft. Thus, none of the new arrangements which will come into force in 2012 are applicable to the Pup.
The only way that the Pup could be brought under the terms of what we have planned for the Bulldog is for EASA to re-designate the aircraft as Annex II. There might be a slim chance of that happening, but I doubt that EASA could be persuaded to go back on its previous decision.
The Pup is an orphaned EASA aircraft and it qualifies for the issue of a Restricted Certificate of Airworthiness. The TRAs which will be established by DHSL are applicable only to Annex II non-EASA aircraft. Thus, none of the new arrangements which will come into force in 2012 are applicable to the Pup.
The only way that the Pup could be brought under the terms of what we have planned for the Bulldog is for EASA to re-designate the aircraft as Annex II. There might be a slim chance of that happening, but I doubt that EASA could be persuaded to go back on its previous decision.
-
Nigel Hitchman
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:10 pm
- Location: Hinton in the hedges
This is really excellent news. I would imagine we might now see a few more of those Moth projects completed to flying condition a number of which were stalled awaiting and hoping to be able to go on a LAA permit. It certainly had the effect that a number of Austers came out of the woodwork and got finished. Yes a shame the Beagle Pup couldnt be included, in answer to Steve's question, I guess this is because the Bulldog never had full civilian certification with all those currently flying being on some kind of restricted C of A.
Lets hope the next more will be to allow the owners of other types of vintage aircraft where some are currently on permits and a few on C of As to move to LAA permits if they like. Currently there are big anomolies with one out of 28 Vagabonds on a C of A, One out of 70 some Luscombes on a C of A and any new imports of the type forced to go on a C of A. Lots of Cubs on permits but a few that have been in the country for many years on a C of A and new imports since 93ish on C of As. Although Piper still hold the type certificates for these aircraft, do they really fully support them? I doubt it, most owners buy their spares from Univair or Wag Aero. The Luscombe factory closed years ago, although the type certificate has passed through several hands and several people have put it back into production, there hasnt been a great success, wonder how we can deal with these situations. Its been solved for Taylorcraft, fingers crossed for the rest Aeroncas too.
Lets hope the next more will be to allow the owners of other types of vintage aircraft where some are currently on permits and a few on C of As to move to LAA permits if they like. Currently there are big anomolies with one out of 28 Vagabonds on a C of A, One out of 70 some Luscombes on a C of A and any new imports of the type forced to go on a C of A. Lots of Cubs on permits but a few that have been in the country for many years on a C of A and new imports since 93ish on C of As. Although Piper still hold the type certificates for these aircraft, do they really fully support them? I doubt it, most owners buy their spares from Univair or Wag Aero. The Luscombe factory closed years ago, although the type certificate has passed through several hands and several people have put it back into production, there hasnt been a great success, wonder how we can deal with these situations. Its been solved for Taylorcraft, fingers crossed for the rest Aeroncas too.
Not that it's loved by many but one day the Traumahawk will be down to or even lower than the numbers mentioned above for other Piper types and similarly has no support from the Piper Aircraft Corp.
Last time I checked there were just on a hundred Tomahawks on the register with current CofAs which are evenly split between private and public category and as the years role by that number will dwindle to the point where very few are left flying, which will be a great pity.
I'm not advocating that the T'Hawk become a permit aircraft just yet but if it's got any chance of remaining a feature of our flying scene, then hopefully the type will be given the chance it deserves and granted permit status, one day!
As for the wing life issue, the STC approved by EASA a couple of years ago for the mod giving another 7000 hours wing life extension, gives the type a much needed boost to its potential longevity, so no problems on that score at least.
Last time I checked there were just on a hundred Tomahawks on the register with current CofAs which are evenly split between private and public category and as the years role by that number will dwindle to the point where very few are left flying, which will be a great pity.
I'm not advocating that the T'Hawk become a permit aircraft just yet but if it's got any chance of remaining a feature of our flying scene, then hopefully the type will be given the chance it deserves and granted permit status, one day!
As for the wing life issue, the STC approved by EASA a couple of years ago for the mod giving another 7000 hours wing life extension, gives the type a much needed boost to its potential longevity, so no problems on that score at least.
Roger Callow
033963
033963
-
Flying John
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 6:40 pm
- Location: Farthing Corner and Rochester
- Contact:
Pup
What I dont understand is how the Pup can still be on an EASA restricted CofA. Shirley if there is no TC holder and no responsibilty aggreement it is an orphan.
Which brings me nicely onto my own aircraft a GY80. This is also on an EASA restricted CofA, but there is no TC holder, no type responsibity agreement, no spares, no support...Nuffink. But still no permit possible.
Which brings me nicely onto my own aircraft a GY80. This is also on an EASA restricted CofA, but there is no TC holder, no type responsibity agreement, no spares, no support...Nuffink. But still no permit possible.
John Luck
028282
028282
-
Nigel Robbins
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 12:46 pm
As another operator of a superb Gardan Horizon I too am wondering why such a fine aircraft cannot be considered for operating on a LAA Permit to fly? As John mentions, there is no back up for airframe parts so we really need the flexibility with maintenance issues that the excellent LAA regime offers.
I'm certainly keeping my fingers crossed!!
I'm certainly keeping my fingers crossed!!
-
Flying John
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 6:40 pm
- Location: Farthing Corner and Rochester
- Contact:
From EASA
Some eurowaffle about Annex II eligibility.
It does seem that to begin the proocess of getting an aircraft onto a permit rests on getting it first accepted as Annex II.
The conditions to be met by an aircraft to be excluded from the scope of Community competence are specified in Annex II of the Basic Regulation.
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".
Now you understood all of that didnt you !!
It does seem that to begin the proocess of getting an aircraft onto a permit rests on getting it first accepted as Annex II.
The conditions to be met by an aircraft to be excluded from the scope of Community competence are specified in Annex II of the Basic Regulation.
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".
Now you understood all of that didnt you !!
John Luck
028282
028282
-
Flapperons
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:11 pm
- Location: South West
DHSL are to be congratulated for their foresight in recognising that ageing aircraft do not the heavy hand of certification to be operated safely. Rescinding the TC is a bold move by them which I applaud.
Is the UK unique in EASA land in having a TRA system that allows some Annex II aircraft to be operated on a CofA and other on a PtoF as the owners wish.
Would the LAA please look into the case for Glos-Air Airtourers. The TC is held by the Airtourer Co-Operative in Australia, but they do not even recognise the Glos-Air Airtourers as a seperate Type - they consider them all to be AESL Airtourers which they are not. The CAA is unbending saying that Glos-Air aircraft have a TC holder and that is that.
The UK CAA have recently written to all Glos-Air Airtourer owners and cancelled our UK Flight Manuals forcing us to use the New Zealand version that has several errors making it unsuitable for our aircraft.
I really hope that in the future we can make the Airtourer Co-Operative see sense and find a way to release Glos-Air Airtourers from the constraints of certification.
Dave
Is the UK unique in EASA land in having a TRA system that allows some Annex II aircraft to be operated on a CofA and other on a PtoF as the owners wish.
Would the LAA please look into the case for Glos-Air Airtourers. The TC is held by the Airtourer Co-Operative in Australia, but they do not even recognise the Glos-Air Airtourers as a seperate Type - they consider them all to be AESL Airtourers which they are not. The CAA is unbending saying that Glos-Air aircraft have a TC holder and that is that.
The UK CAA have recently written to all Glos-Air Airtourer owners and cancelled our UK Flight Manuals forcing us to use the New Zealand version that has several errors making it unsuitable for our aircraft.
I really hope that in the future we can make the Airtourer Co-Operative see sense and find a way to release Glos-Air Airtourers from the constraints of certification.
Dave
-
Flying John
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 6:40 pm
- Location: Farthing Corner and Rochester
- Contact:
-
Flapperons
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:11 pm
- Location: South West
Flying John :
I think you have to use EASA type logic to establish the current situation with GY80.
Is it Annex II ?
If it isn't then EASA had to make alternative arrangements. This was the case for the Beagle Pup. DHSL were TC holder for the Pup, but did not have EASA approvals to administer the TC, so EASA made alternative arrangements, Pups are in the same special category as you.
EASA dictated that our CAA could not act as TC holder for a range of Annex II aircraft including my own Airtourer, but it seems EASA are now doing exactly that for Pups and your GY80. What authority and approvals do they have so that they can do that?
Is there a legal case that can be brought against EASA? If your aircraft has no TC holder then unless it is a temporary arrangement, EASA have no business acting as TC holder just to keep the aircraft on a C of A.
If you are a member of AOPA you could contact them as I'm sure they would help with your situation.
Dave
I think you have to use EASA type logic to establish the current situation with GY80.
Is it Annex II ?
If it isn't then EASA had to make alternative arrangements. This was the case for the Beagle Pup. DHSL were TC holder for the Pup, but did not have EASA approvals to administer the TC, so EASA made alternative arrangements, Pups are in the same special category as you.
EASA dictated that our CAA could not act as TC holder for a range of Annex II aircraft including my own Airtourer, but it seems EASA are now doing exactly that for Pups and your GY80. What authority and approvals do they have so that they can do that?
Is there a legal case that can be brought against EASA? If your aircraft has no TC holder then unless it is a temporary arrangement, EASA have no business acting as TC holder just to keep the aircraft on a C of A.
If you are a member of AOPA you could contact them as I'm sure they would help with your situation.
Dave
-
Jeremy Liber
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:14 am
Flapperons
I do sympathise with your position in relation to the Airtourer. Why not make a case to CAA that the aircraft comes under the rules for Annex II and is not eligible for a C of A and should thus be moved to a national Permit to Fly. If they reject that and you feel that your case is strong enough then hit them with a Regulation 6 appeal, you'll find the details of how to make that appeal in the ANO, Section 6, Regulation 6 'Regulation of the conduct of the Authority'.
Best of luck.
Jeremy
I do sympathise with your position in relation to the Airtourer. Why not make a case to CAA that the aircraft comes under the rules for Annex II and is not eligible for a C of A and should thus be moved to a national Permit to Fly. If they reject that and you feel that your case is strong enough then hit them with a Regulation 6 appeal, you'll find the details of how to make that appeal in the ANO, Section 6, Regulation 6 'Regulation of the conduct of the Authority'.
Best of luck.
Jeremy
-
Flying John
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 6:40 pm
- Location: Farthing Corner and Rochester
- Contact:
In Answer to Flapperons, The GY80 is not an Annex II type.
There is no TC holder - only EASA themselves !
When challenged they say that entry into Annex II is conditional.....
"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".
As I said earlier its eurobabble at its best and its all about arse covering by EASA.
At present I see no way forward for any aircraft type that has had its TC "taken over" by EASA. It is rues that a nation state may not hold a TC, but EASA is not a nation state so therefore escapes this ruling.
John
There is no TC holder - only EASA themselves !
When challenged they say that entry into Annex II is conditional.....
"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".
As I said earlier its eurobabble at its best and its all about arse covering by EASA.
At present I see no way forward for any aircraft type that has had its TC "taken over" by EASA. It is rues that a nation state may not hold a TC, but EASA is not a nation state so therefore escapes this ruling.
John
John Luck
028282
028282