UK Government Red Tape Challenge

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm sure this has been running for a while, but I've only just noticed it...

Red Tape Challenge - Home (http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/home/index/)


So, here's a debating point for those of us that inhabit the light aviation world, what red tape can be removed to make our lives easier, or cheaper?


I'll start with two thoughts from me:

- Remove the requirement for special police permission for flights to Ireland/IOM/Channel Islands enshrined in the Terrorism act of 2000. It was certainly appropriate during the height of the troubles - but now?

- Remove the "if it can have a CofA it must have a CofA" rule from Annex II CofA aeroplanes, allowing workload to be removed from CAA, cheaper flying particularly in vintage aeroplanes, and a bigger healthier LAA (and on occasion BMAA or BGA).


Maybe we can get a good list together and delegate a few people to put these up to HMG?

G

[140KIAS]

I would certainly agree that the whole GAR process needs to be simplified.

Although with regard to IOM/NI/CI, I thought the TA said you merely had to notify a Police Constable in the area you intent to depart. No need for permission.

[IO540]

Correct; notification is needed, though the police always call it "permission" in all their presentations, etc.

- Remove the "if it can have a CofA it must have a CofA" rule from Annex II CofA aeroplanes, allowing workload to be removed from CAA, cheaper flying particularly in vintage aeroplanes, and a bigger healthier LAA (and on occasion BMAA or BGA).

I would agree (obviously :) ) but would this not lead to a wholesale transfer from CofA to a "homebuilt" category, by just about everybody who rarely if ever flies abroad (most of UK GA) and I am sure the CAA would go berserk. It would also decimate the maintenance business which also just happens to pay the CAA a lot of fees :)

In the USA, there is some mechanism (I know no details) whereby a CofA plane can be transferred to an Experimental category. Certainly, it is much easier for new aircraft designers to test the stuff in the USA than to test it in Europe.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I would certainly agree that the whole GAR process needs to be simplified.

Can't say it's given me much trouble - fill the form in and email it.

Although with regard to IOM/NI/CI, I thought the TA said you merely had to notify a Police Constable in the area you intent to depart. No need for permission.

If a pilot or an aircraft operator wishes to make a flight to or from a non-designated airport without an intermediate landing at a designated airport he must seek prior permission from the Chief Officer of Police in whose area the non-designated airport is located. Permissions should be sought as far in advance as possible of the flight being made. Most police forces require at-least 12 hours notice directly, or via the airport operator who may require 24 hours notice
However you appear to be correct:

Where an aircraft is employed to carry passengers for reward on a journey between Great Britain and the CTA*, the owners or agents shall not arrange for it to call at a port in Great Britain or Northern Ireland to disembark or embark passengers unless the port is a designated port or the examining Police Officer approves the arrangement.

The captain (pilot) of an aircraft employed on a journey within the CTA* otherwise than to carry passengers for reward shall not permit it to call at or leave a port in Great Britain or Northern Ireland unless it is a designated port or he gives at least 12 hours notice in writing to a constable for the Police area in which the port is situated.

*CTA (Common Travel Area) – Eire, Northern Ireland, Isle Of Man and Channel Islands including but not limited to Jersey and Guernsey.
Either way, it's a pain and past its use-by date. We still have terrorists, but nowadays you'd be better off applying that restriction to Leeds-Bradford or Wycombe Air Park.

....
I would agree (obviously ) but would this not lead to a wholesale transfer from CofA to a "homebuilt" category, by just about everybody who rarely if ever flies abroad (most of UK GA) and I am sure the CAA would go berserk. It would also decimate the maintenance business which also just happens to pay the CAA a lot of fees

In the USA, there is some mechanism (I know no details) whereby a CofA plane can be transferred to an Experimental category. Certainly, it is much easier for new aircraft designers to test the stuff in the USA than to test it in Europe.
Surely that wholesale transfer and cost saving to aircraft operators is exactly the point of the red tape challenge?

You couldn't move EASA Aeroplanes, that's not in HMG's gift any more so far as I can see, so it would mostly be older / privately owned aeroplanes.

The UK does have a similar process to the USA, it's just that it is currently available to far less aeroplanes. I helped a friend get an Auster from a CofA onto a permit a few years ago and it was pretty painless.

G

[Pilot DAR]

Genghis,

I notice that although you dress in fluorescent yellow, you don't type you posts in the colour font. Thanks!

You will find in section 6 of the following Canadian standard, and the related Appendix H table, an introduction to the Canadian "Owner Maintenance" means of enabling older aircraft to remain in service without a standard C of A. I will be getting to know this process soon, as I have an aircraft about to go in...

Part V - Standard 507 - Flight Authority and Certificate of Noise Compliance - Transport Canada (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-507s-1804.htm#507s_03)

The adoption of this flight authority does not necessarily mean a wholesale departure from the maintenance shops, it just reduces the paperwork they are required to do in conjunction with the actual maintenance, and places that responsibility upon the owner, where it belongs anyway! Many owners really don't want the dirty hands, so the maintenance shops still get lots of work, just not the paperwork.

I understand that aircraft in this category are not entitled to fly outside Canada.

[Genghis the Engineer]

In the UK we have two variants on that theme below a "standard" CofA. There's a private category CofA, which doesn't permit training (except of the sole owner) or aerial work but does permit international flight, and does allow a lot of owner maintenance/inspection sign-off.

The other, the Permit to Fly, allows much cheaper and easier maintenance, but removes the automatic rights for international flight. The issue however is that CAA will not allow aeroplanes which are still supported by a TC owner to transfer from CofA to PtF. This irritates the heck out of the owners of many vintage aeroplanes who have no desire to use them for training or aerial work, and can live with the paperwork for the 1-2 overseas trips per year they might fly.

G

Who dresses in hi-viz yellow only when moving about a busy aircraft movements area, and at no other time.

[Oldpilot55]

The Beagle Pup is stuck in this limbo where it has a TC owner (De Havilland Support) yet the vast majority of Pup owners would rather operate on a Permit. DHS have a supply of expensive spare parts that would dramatically decrease in value if Pup's became LAA aircraft. They would get more sympathy if their spares were fairly priced, I suspect. It happened to Austers so there may be hope for Pups yet.

[Mandator]

Genghis:
I’m afraid you are a bit out of date with the certification of Annex II aircraft.

First, there is now only one category of CofA, the Standard Category. There is no longer a Private Category CofA (or Transport (Passenger) for that matter). Fortunately, the ANO defines a certain amount of pilot/owner maintenance which is allowed, even for aircraft certificated in the Standard Category.

Second, there is the Permit to Fly (PtoF). This may be administered either directly by the CAA or through the LAA. You are right to say that it is CAA policy that if the continued airworthiness of a type is sustained by a Type Certificate Holder (TCH), then all aircraft of that type are required to hold a CofA. It has also been CAA policy that if there is no TCH at all, and the type is therefore deemed ‘orphaned’, then all aircraft of the type must have a PtoF. That is what happened to the Auster when it was orphaned by the CAA, which means that no Auster can operate for ‘valuable consideration’ – a CofA is required if money changes hands – and there are the other constraints on international flight etc.

Earlier this year, however, the CAA signalled that it had changed its interpretation of the existing regulations and that in future it would allow aircraft of the same type to be certificated either on a CofA or a PtoF, at the discretion of the aircraft owner, but subject to certain specific conditions. This change of thinking was brought about as a result of the CAA’s consultation on the future certification status of the Stampe and certain Jodels. These conditions first require there to be no TCH for the type concerned, which allows the transfer of aircraft to a PtoF. However, in future, if a suitable organisation takes out a Type Responsibility Agreement (TRA) with the CAA for the oversight of continued airworthiness, then those operators who wish may remain on a CofA. As a result, they can continue to enjoy the privileges of a CofA such as operation for valuable consideration, night and instrument flight and unhindered overseas travel etc. The Stampe is the first aircraft type to enjoy this freedom at the discretion of the aircraft owner, and I think the LAA has already recommended to the CAA the issue of its first Stampe PtoF. However, if there is no TCH and no TRA then every aircraft of the type must go to a PtoF.

Oldpilot55:
I’m afraid you are a bit out of date in terms of the certification status of the Beagle Pup.

It was about four years ago that de Havilland Support Ltd (DHSL) ceased to hold the Type Certificate for the Pup. In its greater wisdom, and despite the efforts of DHSL and the CAA, EASA decided to make the Pup an EASA aircraft type, taking it out of Annex II and putting it under the full weight of the EASA regulations. DHSL does not hold an EASA Part 21 design approval so EASA’s action immediately ‘orphaned’ the Pup. To cater for this situation EASA created Specific Airworthiness Specification (SAS) 082, which transferred into EASA legislation the former UK Type Certificate and the mandatory requirements from the UK CAA’s CAP 476 and CAP 747. Because of this, all Pups must now operate under the Part M regulations and they are issued with a non-expiring EASA Restricted CofA, which must be validated by an Airworthiness Review Certificate (ARC), as is the case with Cessnas and Pipers etc. Under these circumstances you cannot say that the Pup is stuck in limbo.

The vast majority of Pup owners might want to go to a PtoF but they can’t because the PtoF you are thinking about is a UK National rule. Pups are now an EASA aircraft type to which UK National rules cannot be applied. The only hope for Pups being allowed to transfer to a UK PtoF is if EASA were to redesignate the type as Annex II, and provided that DHSL does not then resume its former role as a TCH. As for DHSL having a supply of overpriced spares for the Pup, I can’t comment. However, I have always been told that the supply of spares for the Pup was a big problem, with very few people having stocks of anything Pup-specific. After all, more than 40 years have now passed since Beagle went bust.

Also, people should not forget that even if their aircraft could transfer from a CofA to a PtoF, the required level of maintenance does not change. Mandatory Permit Directive (MPD) 1995/01 requires that all Airworthiness Directives, Generic Requirements etc applicable when the type was certificated remain applicable when the type transfers to a PtoF. So the overall scope of the mandatory maintenance does not change; however, it does become easier with respect to the use of inspectors and unreleased spare parts etc. The new CAA interpretation should also allow an aircraft on a PtoF to go back to a CofA, if the owner wishes. However, in this case it may be difficult to show that the aircraft does not contain any unapproved (by the CAA) modifications or repairs and that all spare parts fitted to the aircraft whilst on a PtoF were supplied with appropriate release.

[robin]

Mandator

A detailed and helpful post. A couple of points to add.

If there is a TC holder willing to take responsibility for on-going airworthiness, it doesn't require them to hold spare parts. We found that when Apex went belly up. You still have to maintain the aircraft to the relevant schedule even if you can't get the spares. Our CAA and DGAC weren't exactly sympathetic to our plight but fortunately (after 2 years) parts became available again.

Secondly, the big savings quoted between a CofA Part M type and a PtF come down to doing a lot of the work yourself. These savings fall away if you pass the work over to someone else. As someone who has difficulty banging in nails with my screwdriver, I'm not happy about doing the really tricky tasks so I am resigned to handing over lots of cash each annual.

The upside of staying with CofA is the ability to fly at night and to take my factory-built aircraft round Europe without having to worry about PtF rules on factory-builts

[diso]

At the risk of going a little off thread.

Mandator - your explanation of the Beagle Pup situation is very clear. I now understand that EASA are doing exactly what they stopped our CAA from doing, that is acting as TC holder/design authority for an aircraft Type. Interesting that this was brought about by DHSL being in effect unqualified to act as TC holder for Pups.

I own a Glos-Airtourer. These aircraft were also 'orphaned' by the CAA. TC holder duties were passed to CAA of New Zealand as Glos-Airtourer serial numbers were found on AESL TCDS (probably a mistake), they have now passed the TC to the Airtourer Co-operative in Australia. CAP 747 recognises 3 Types of Airtourer - Victa Airtourers, AESL Airtourers and Glos-Airtourers. The Airtourer Associations web site does not recognise Glos-Airtourers and the presumption is that they are AESL Airtourers.....but Glos-Airtourers have a different Flight Manual to AESL Airtourers.

I'm trying to get the Glos-Airtourer Type re-recognised so that the Airtourer Co-operative can act as TRA instead of TC holder.

Would you believe, some Glos-Airtourer owners hate the idea of having a choice of operation and are actively trying to put the brakes on the whole idea of choice and to keep all Airtourers on a CofA.

I wonder how many de Havilland aircraft owners wish they had a choice of operation for their aircraft either PtoF or CofA. This can be done, but only if DHSL ceased to act as TC holder and instead acted as TRA. Am I right in thinking that they could do this, as TC holder they could cancel the TC.

[Mandator]

Diso:

I see where you are coming from. You are right to say that if the TC is rescinded, and a suitable qualified organisation takes out a TRA, then owners can have a choice (subject to CAA acceptance of course) of certification. Under these circumstances there should be no problem for those Air Tourer owners who want to remain on a CofA. The issue is finding someone acceptable to the CAA to take on the TRA, and for the TC holder to rescind the TC. However, what I'm not sure about is what will be the liabilities of a TRA holder should an aircraft holding a CofA, and operating for valuable consideration, crash due to an airworthiness-related issue?

In the case of the de Havillands, I think there are bigger forces at play. From what I can gather from its website and other correspondence, DHSL is contracted (ie paid) by BAE Systems to act as TC Holder and discharge BAE Systems' responsibilities for its legacy aircraft. DHSL is doing what it can to temper previous onerous instructions first issued by BAE, and no doubt BAE thinks DHSL is doing a good job covering its corporate backside from the risk of all those old aeroplanes. Therefore, I think the earth would have to move before BAE will allow the TCs to be ditched.

[Oldpilot55]

Mandator, thank you for the correction to my erroneous post.
However I stand by my comment that DHS prices verge on the absurd.

[Mandator]

OP55:

Can't help with that I'm afraid.

[diso]

Mandator:

I think BAE Systems missed a trick here. They could have just canceled the TC for the various old aircraft that they no longer wanted to be responsible for and let the LAA administer their continuing airworthiness, there would be no continuing liability to BAE Systems. It would have meant that some aircraft Types would no longer be able to operate for hire or reward, but I'm sure BAE Systems wouldn't be too bothered about that. They could have saved the investment that they put into DHSL. I wonder what will happen if DHSL fail.

I think your right about bigger forces being at play, there is money to be made.

As for a qualified organisation to act as TRA for Glos-Airtourers, who better than the organisation that holds the TC for the other Types of Airtourer.

Question - does a TRA have to be a British Company?

I've looked into BCAR and ANO and can't find a definitive answer other than it has to be a person or organisation 'acceptable to the CAA'.