CAA to PFA

[johnboy555]

Has anyone experience in convincing the CAA that an Aircraft should go on a PFA permit even though there is factory support.

I understand that there has been occasions for this to happen.ie when the factory may make the aircraft model in another material.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Virtually impossible in recent years, but if you are determined to try write to the PFA's Chief Engineer and ask if he'll make a case for you. But I wouldn't hold out too much hope.

G

[javelin]

Don't waste your time - the PFA are only interested in you if you want to build some outdated, British vintage design. Look at the 2 page article in the last PFA mag about new 4 seaters. At the end of it they said that none of the designs are being approved. these are currently flying abroad, as are several others.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Now be fair Javelin. In the not too distant past PFA has approved the Ban-Bi, Eurostar, Icarus C42, 4-seat Jabiru, Europa - all under the same Chief Engineer that our man would have to write to. I still think he's little chance, and have been known to criticise the PFA myself, but what you're saying simply isn't true.

That article in PF actually said that none of those designs have yet been approved. Knowing FD reasonably well he's not known for taking prisoners amongst substandard aeroplanes, and certainly no great sympathy for overseas "approvals" and safety data that I know is often fictional - but equally I've never seen him block a genuinely good safe design.

There is a CAA policy about "if it can hold a CofA it must", but I know that PFA has been trying to erode that position and it may be that such an excuse to try and erode it further would be welcomed - without knowing more detail it's hard to tell.

Just for the record, I don't work for the PFA but I am a member and I do know most of their engineering staff on a professional level.

G

[Fast Erect]

Both Javelin and I own an aeroplane that was recently on a CAA permit, then converted to a PFA permit. That, my learned friend, is the most you will EVER get from Shoreham.
New types...maybe...but as long as they are quasi microlights, or powered by Rotax engines at the very most.
If you disagree with this, you are only kidding yourselves.
Sorry if I appear a little forthright here, but I have first hand experience of PFA negativity at its best.
I do so hope things will change soon.:(

[Rod1]

This seems a little harsh on the PFA. There is a 4 seater currently approved by the PFA and it is not a British design and it is not powered by a Rotax! Most of the new designs being put forward to the PFA are lightweight efficient designs powered by Rotax engines. Not may people want to lug around an engine designed in the 1940’s in their sleek new composite machine. Most of the Rotax powered aircraft will leave the current production stuff for dead in terms of speed, short field performance and economy. I am building an MCR01 Club, which was designed in 1998, The first UK example flew in the UK in 2000. That is a pretty quick approval time!

Having said all that there is one element of the PFA I do not understand. I run a software company, which provides a standard package. Some of my customers spend 100,000’s having this modified. 80% of my support problems stem from the 5% of product, which is non-standard. The PFA seem to take a design, which has many 100’s flying, and require modifications. Because the UK market is so tiny, a lot of manufacturers do not bother pursuing approval. The ones that do end up selling five or six units a year of a modified version of their standard offering. This puts up the price significantly. What I have never seen is a set of accident statistics, which shows that the 100’s flying in the rest of the world are less safe than the modified ones flying in the UK.

Fortunately for me the MCR0 1Club is very nearly standard, with only minor changes required.

[Oscar Duece]

Yes the PFA are a great organisation. Supporting SAFE, fun and cheap (ish) flying.

From what I know / have been told by other members. Safety is always the prime force in approving a new type. It's just that our standards are better than others. We must trust engineering to make these decisions and support them.

Yes I have heard of those who would love to build a 450hp V8 mustang replica (prowler) as an example, because they can in the states. They just can't understand why the Pfa don't argue the case for them with the Caa. Get real. If you want to fly over powered matchstick rockets or hashed together ultralights. then move to the states. cos it aint within the Pfa's remit .

As a member to I have any bad comments about engineering. Only the typical two weeks to get an email answered.

As for 'rotax' engines. I wouldn't waste my money on them. Why ? It cost me £9k to get a Lycoming 0320 good for another 200o hours. When for the same money I could have bought a 'Rotax' that would have died before it got to 1000. Just my experience of flying them when my then club bought three brand new Da20's. Two of which had to have new engines before 1000 tt. They now run new PA28's with Lycoming units and two have got to 2000 tt without problems. (they leased these planes from new, as with the Da20's).

E & OE

[Rod1]

I too investigated the Rotax problems on this aircraft. PFA engineering are very happy with the reliability of the Rotax in the lighter weight aircraft, “ brilliant reliability record” was the statement. I had come to the conclusion the problem was in the installation on this one aircraft type.

The cost justification is very easy. I can get a 912 for under 8000 inc vat. At the moment I am running an O360. The 912 will cost me £12 per hour and the O360 is costing me £39 per hour in fuel. Over a 10 year period that amounts to £27000 in saving assuming the differential remains the same. If the cost of fuel rises by the same amount over the next 10 years as it has over the last 5 then the cost saving would several times this. I do about 100 hours a year.