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

[nigel henry]

I have and do look daily..... and lust after light singles Arrows Cherry Trees sorry thats all fixed gear spam cans Beagles Buldogs mmmmmm buldogs .... toooo name a few .....am I missing the point? These aircraft are the new old tomorrow sat waiting to be flown.... but the owner can't afford the prop engine airframe inspection nothing wrong with them in the hands of a LAA owner/member LAA engineer why cannot all Light singles and perhaps twins under 6 seats be added to the list of aircraft to come under the LAA banner ? non comercial private daytime vfr aircraft is this not a way forward to save lots of light aircraft thet otherwise will be weighed in as scrap young private and old private pilots need planes not expensive engineers me an europa ownerat rebuilder and a long ez owner would love to add a Buldog or an arrow to his fleet of planes that others coud then fly as a group?

[Bill McCarthy]

Would you like to have another crack at the above posting nigel !

[Ian Melville]

I think I understand him Bill, I think!!
I think there is little or no change that Light single and twins on an EASA CofA will be moved to the LAA permit. For a start all the AOC activities that they undertake would have to stop. No flying schools, no Red Letter Day flights etc.

A better way would be to obtain a lighter maintenance scheme. With less BS and more focus on the actual engineering. Possibly combined with more owner maintenance for owners who have passed some sort of light weight engineering qualification, and supervised. Yes a bit like the FAA Repairman’s Certificate.

[Graham Clark]

I suggest http://www.english-online.org.uk/elem7/punct1e.htm

[Bill Scott]

I can understand the opening post perfectly well and totally agree with the idea.

The cost of keeping a CofA type legal is ridiculous. It's not as if the aircraft concerned are so very different. I'm sure we have people in our organistation who are more than capable of overseeing maintenance on a Cessna 152 / Bulldog / Cherokee / Traumahawk etc.

I can't see any reason to refuse transfer of such types to the permit system, subject to permit flight limitations (VFR daytime only).
The CofA system seems over the top for the purposes to which many of these aircraft are employed.

I would suggest that it be a one way change of airworthiness ststus, meaning that once transferred to permit there would be no going back for that airframe and engine.

[G.Dawes]

I smell a plot to remove GA aircraft from the air by cost, I do not work in GA now but it used to be a lot of BS when the CAA were involved with lots of money going to them to be allowed to work on aircraft. Now it is becoming a whole new ballgame of charging when the approval costs race away from any possible revenues, and it costs more in paperwork than wages. Those in charge get large salaries guaranteed by the governing organisation which in turn robs the punter. LET THE POLLUTER PAY. Most the aircraft I know no longer fly regularly and the values are zilch. With fuel cost and BS charges it is killing everything. scrap value equals real value then bang, scrap it is.

[Graham Clark]

Austers, Jodels and Stampes have made the switch from C of A to LAA Permit. If we are to believe the CAA, their hands are tied by EASA rules made in Cologne, not Gatwick.
So it is up to the owners of C of A GA aircraft who want to switch, to join the LAA and lobby whoever will listen. No doubt they will be told 'it can't be done'. But one day it will happen, though not by itself.
Without the LAA, there will be no way out.

[Ian Melville]

The only reason those three types were allowed to switch is because no one was willing to take on the type certificate.

Even if Piper and Cessna folded overnight, I bet there would be a rush to own the type certificate, and be able to supply spares

[macconnacher]

As Ian has said the EASA rules that have allowed so called orphan aircraft to be covered by Annex II and thus looked after nationally by organisations such as LAA are severly limited. If any organisation wants to retain the type certificate then it will never be available for transfer to LAA. That is why the Jodel D200 series is not in LAA even though most owners are desperate for change and why the Stampes have taken so long to migrate to LAA since a few wanted to retain a certification that allowed commercial activity. This blocking from moving to LAA was only removed when the CAA decided on a pragmatic approach and let the owners decide which route to take.

The big decisions are taken in Cologne not Gatwick these days

[Chiltern Aviator]

Whereas I can probably understand the Robin 400 series wanting to ply their trade as trainers and tugs, and thus stay on a CofA I would have thought it reasonable to petition for the Robin 200s to leave the dark side and come under the LAA umbrella?

Would there be any mileage in formally proposing this or does the Robin type certificate embrace all the Robins? Are there any precedents we could use?

I have a vested interest being the new owner of a Robin Dr220.

It is after all just a GT Jodel!

Best regards

Alan Walker

[Graham Clark]

You would need to prove to the UK CAA, that the Type Certificate holder is not and can not provide the support that is required for continued airworthiness. That might be your opening bargaining position.
Think of a component that the TC holder cannot supply off the shelf or fabricate, and demonstrate this to the CAA. But there would then follow a long struggle with the (French) bureaucrats, who would then ask around if anyone else wants to become the TC holder. This tactic delayed the transfer of Austers to LAA Permit for years.
The interesting and possibly very important precedent is that of the Stampes, some of which remain for hire and reward, while the others are ow on LAA Permit.
Against that background, why not the DR200? Seems fair enough to me. But the owners would need to get together and make a noise.

[Bill Scott]

Graham, your reasoning makes good sense IF we accept the status quo.
However, this discussion challenges that staus quo and some are advocating an alternative approach. So, why should I not be allowed to transfer a CofA type to the LAA permit system, subject to it being operated under accepted permit limitations and the airframe/engine being forever restricted thus. I really can't see any harm in an aircraft owner electing to transfer his aircraft. The only reasonable response from the authorities would be to make the proviso that the LAA demonstrate competence in their inspection protocols to ensure continued airworthines. Or, do we allow manufacturers & maintenance organisations to suck our blood 40+ years after manufacture?

[macconnacher]

Nice idea Bill but aviation safety is covered by international convention. We work under a concession at national and European level. We have no right to demand exemption from these international rules but over years we have been allowed to fly equipment that would not be possible to operate under an internationally accepted CoA. Such as homebuilts or orphan aircraft. It is a concession we defend and with goodwill on both sides we can extend the scope of our activity.
We cannot now operate Piper Cubs and Cessna 140s under permit that are newly imported because in the past someone demanded their RIGHTs and the concession we had as a gentlemans agreement was pushed up to the high level in the CAA where they were forced to check the UKs legal position and the concession was withdrawn on legal grounds.

[Graham Clark]

Bill, don't get me wrong because I am with you on this. But as Stuart points out, the laws are made elsewhere.
However, as I pointed out with reference to the Stampe (and also factory-built Mascarets), the CAA has created a precedent which I think might (with goodwill) create an escape clause for DR200 owners.
When the CAA decided to allow the transfer of some Stampes to the LAA Permit to Fly, they did so in response to requests by the owners of these aircraft, with the exception of three or four machines at Staverton that are still used for hire and reward.
Question: are there any DR200s in the UK used for hire and reward? None, known to me. In fact, the DR200 is almost identical to my DR1051M1, which is now on an LAA Permit to Fly.
One obvious problem with the DR200 is that the DGAC did not declare the DR200 an orphan, and there is still a French TC holder.
So I repeat: does the TC holder provide effective support? If not, can you prove it? And as with the Stampe, do UK DR 200 owners want to switch? Assemble the evidence, and then make the case. It worked for Stampes and the Mascaret.
It is just too easy to say "it can't be done". It has been done. Such a move would seem to me entirely logical. But if you don't ask, you don't get.

[macconnacher]

As Graham says it is possible but assemble some evidence quietly and then talk to Francis.
As I said writing to your MP, the Daily Mail to demand your rights will not help since the law is clear and we may loose some of what we have gained.
There is sympathy for our cause in the authorities and being diplomatic will possibly reap some benefits.