CAA approves Night, IMC and IFR for permit types
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: S Warwickshire
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some homebuilts fall outside the remit of the LAA in terms of gross weight, power etc.
These have the permit to fly approval and issue directly overseen by a CAA airworthiness inspector. They are relatively few, such as a turbo-prop Glasair.
I suspect that they won't be covered by this approval, but presumably the CAA could issue a similar approval. I suspect that such a process would be less straightforward and more costly than for a LAA type.
These have the permit to fly approval and issue directly overseen by a CAA airworthiness inspector. They are relatively few, such as a turbo-prop Glasair.
I suspect that they won't be covered by this approval, but presumably the CAA could issue a similar approval. I suspect that such a process would be less straightforward and more costly than for a LAA type.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jay Sata
This changes very little when it comes to as you call them the multi thousand hour PA28's
The reason that these aircraft are multi thousand hour is they are robust and reliable as are the serious home build aircraft like the Vans.
I have seen a number of the new to the market lighter aircraft with more airframe problems after 250 hours than. 13000 hour C152.
The difference in cost between the serous home builds that will get IFR & night approval and certified aircraft is not that great so this is a sensible step not a revolution.
The reason that these aircraft are multi thousand hour is they are robust and reliable as are the serious home build aircraft like the Vans.
I have seen a number of the new to the market lighter aircraft with more airframe problems after 250 hours than. 13000 hour C152.
The difference in cost between the serous home builds that will get IFR & night approval and certified aircraft is not that great so this is a sensible step not a revolution.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last time I did do I got called all sorts of things by the proud owners of the types, who claimed they had never had a problem with the aircraft.
Some of the aircraft are OK ( just about ) in the hands of a careful private owner but are simply not robust enough to survive the rough & tumble of group or club life.
Some of the aircraft are OK ( just about ) in the hands of a careful private owner but are simply not robust enough to survive the rough & tumble of group or club life.
I take your point. Apart from one occasion, I've been associated solely with Permit a/c of the type under discussion for about the last twenty years both as sole owner and as a member of groups.
Apart from the fact that with a group, no one ever wants to take responsibility for cleaning the machine we had no problems of the type you allude to,
Apart from the fact that with a group, no one ever wants to take responsibility for cleaning the machine we had no problems of the type you allude to,
The last time I did do I got called all sorts of things by the proud owners of the types, who claimed they had never had a problem with the aircraft.
Some of the aircraft are OK ( just about ) in the hands of a careful private owner but are simply not robust enough to survive the rough & tumble of group or club life.
Some of the aircraft are OK ( just about ) in the hands of a careful private owner but are simply not robust enough to survive the rough & tumble of group or club life.
G
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
...but in this instance the C172 (and the PA28) are good instrument flying platforms, well suited to early flights towards an instrument flying qualification. My experience of some other types leads me to say that they are less well suited, the Sport Cruiser, for instance, being quite sensitive in both pitch and roll for getting to grips with setting and maintaining an accurate attitude by reference to the AI.
TOO
TOO
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, thats one of the things I like about the 182, you can set flaps, point it at the threshold and set the speed a few miles out then almost no need to touch anything until you cross the fence.
A nice stable approach makes good landings easy, lighter types need constant inputs just to keep things in order.
A nice stable approach makes good landings easy, lighter types need constant inputs just to keep things in order.
Last edited by The Ancient Geek; 10th Dec 2016 at 00:27.
A friend of mine is an aircaft engineer. He broke a couple of Cherokees he had owned for many years. They had mid life engines and were still flyable.
Both were leased out.
However tired upholstery,radios and paint did not justify keeping them.
If the rules were relaxed and these types were allowed to be maintained on a permit perhaps the economics might stack up.
The PA28 is a very simple aircraft.
Both were leased out.
However tired upholstery,radios and paint did not justify keeping them.
If the rules were relaxed and these types were allowed to be maintained on a permit perhaps the economics might stack up.
The PA28 is a very simple aircraft.
All the coverage so far has focused on instrumentation. Will the LAA also have stability criteria?
Some of the LAA approved models already have restricted aft CG limitations for instrument flight, due to handling issues.
It is far more important for an aircraft to be a good 'instrument platform', with reliable 'blind flying' instruments than it is to have all the latest toys from the avionics manufacturers....
Some of the early wartime fighters were pretty awful 'instrument platforms' due to their stability characteristics and instruments. Luftwaffe pilots sometimes preferred to spin the Bf109 down through clouds (assuming the cloudbase was known), as that was a known manoeuvre which got them down more easily than risking losing control in IMC.
Getting an aircraft from EASA aircraft to Annex 2 (Permit) depends on the manufacturer, if still existing, giving permission. They are likely to resist, for economic reasons. The simplicity of the Pa28 has nothing to do with it.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA38 bad ?
I have much difficulty understanding the attitude shown above to the PA38 after over 500 hours training on the type I class it as one of the best trainers to come out of the USA and from a pure training point of view was far better than the C152.
A combination of Piper having financial difficultys and the aircraft arriving at the market just as the American lawyers abused the product liability laws prevented it getting developed in the way the C150 grew into the C152.
Lack of product support has made the PA38 an unrealistic trainer now from a financial point of view and no one is going to put money into an aging airframe that must be nearing its wing fatigue life, so all the examples you will find are now going to be very tatty.
As an instrument platform it was a little on the lively side for beginners but most could cope with it, I did most of my basic IF training on it but as the club only had a VOR fitted to the PA38's I had to change to a PA28 for all the NDB & ILS stuff.
That brings us back to the permit IF requirements, I expect the LAA will set a stability standard for IF approval at just below that of the PA38 as this would be the minimum safe place for the average PPL/IMC.
Like most practically minded people I welcome this new move on the part of the CAA/LAA but would warn that some on this forum are going to be disappointed as the types that get the IF approval are going to be the more conventional and therefore more expensive and well equipped aircraft. So in terms of cost saving I don't see the financial savings being as large as some might think.
A combination of Piper having financial difficultys and the aircraft arriving at the market just as the American lawyers abused the product liability laws prevented it getting developed in the way the C150 grew into the C152.
Lack of product support has made the PA38 an unrealistic trainer now from a financial point of view and no one is going to put money into an aging airframe that must be nearing its wing fatigue life, so all the examples you will find are now going to be very tatty.
As an instrument platform it was a little on the lively side for beginners but most could cope with it, I did most of my basic IF training on it but as the club only had a VOR fitted to the PA38's I had to change to a PA28 for all the NDB & ILS stuff.
That brings us back to the permit IF requirements, I expect the LAA will set a stability standard for IF approval at just below that of the PA38 as this would be the minimum safe place for the average PPL/IMC.
Like most practically minded people I welcome this new move on the part of the CAA/LAA but would warn that some on this forum are going to be disappointed as the types that get the IF approval are going to be the more conventional and therefore more expensive and well equipped aircraft. So in terms of cost saving I don't see the financial savings being as large as some might think.
Maoraigh1
Yes all of that plus the absence of a Type Certificate holder. I'm going thru' this exercise at the moment.
Jay Sata
You've pointed out one of those crazy anomalies that seem to permeate GA aviation.
Yes all of that plus the absence of a Type Certificate holder. I'm going thru' this exercise at the moment.
Jay Sata
You've pointed out one of those crazy anomalies that seem to permeate GA aviation.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APPENDIX
1 – TYPES APPROVED/LIKELY TO BE APPROVED
– Aircraft types examples of which are expected to be able to be cleared for IMC and/or night operation, subject to assessment of individual examples:
All ex CofA types that have
been previously certified for
IMC or night operation
Vans RV 6,6A, 7,7A,9, 9A, 10
Glasair I
Aircraft types that are likely to be suitable for night/IMC clearance
subject to further investigation of the type and assessment of individual examples
Cozy MkIV
Europa, XS & Liberty XL
Falco F8L
Glasair II & IIS (RG, FT & TD)
Glastar
Harmon Rocket II
Lancair 320
Linnet 2
Long Ez & Varieze
MCR-01 Club
Piel CP301, CP 301S, CP328
Super Emeraude
Scintex CP1310, 1315, 301
Tecnam P2002 Sierra, P92-EA Echo
Vans RV 4, 8/8A
1 – TYPES APPROVED/LIKELY TO BE APPROVED
– Aircraft types examples of which are expected to be able to be cleared for IMC and/or night operation, subject to assessment of individual examples:
All ex CofA types that have
been previously certified for
IMC or night operation
Vans RV 6,6A, 7,7A,9, 9A, 10
Glasair I
Aircraft types that are likely to be suitable for night/IMC clearance
subject to further investigation of the type and assessment of individual examples
Cozy MkIV
Europa, XS & Liberty XL
Falco F8L
Glasair II & IIS (RG, FT & TD)
Glastar
Harmon Rocket II
Lancair 320
Linnet 2
Long Ez & Varieze
MCR-01 Club
Piel CP301, CP 301S, CP328
Super Emeraude
Scintex CP1310, 1315, 301
Tecnam P2002 Sierra, P92-EA Echo
Vans RV 4, 8/8A