CAA TRYING TO PUT BLAME ON EASA
I think that the CAA is trying to put the blame for all of these issues onto EASA when it is, in fact, the CAA itself which wants these regulations implemented. Yesterday I was at a conference and listened to Sir Roy McNulty from the CAA, Patrick Goudou from EASA and David McMillan from the Department for Transport. The noises from the CAA and the DfT were clear - if they thought that EASA had got it wrong on safety, then they would impose their own UK-only requirements. Mr Goudou admitted that he was largely powerless to intervene in these cases.
The CAA has already floated a draft Mandatory Permit Directive to impose a calendar life on jet engines in warbirds/permit to fly aircraft. They have already talked about introducing their own calendar life (12 years?) for all engine types which do not have a calendar life imposed by the manufacturer (eg Gipsy series). The bad news for the Gipsy is that a recent forced landing was caused by a fractured crankshaft. All commercial operators of the Gipsy should now be making their plans to get their engines overhauled if they are more than 14.4 years out of overhaul (12 years + 20%). Dont ask where the engineering/overhaul shop capacity is going to come from, or all the approved spare parts. This instruction has the potential to kill a lot of aircraft.
The bottom line remains as stated in CAP 747, Generic Requirement 24:
If your aircraft is "operated for the purposes of public transport" then you can extend manufacturer's operating hour and calendar limits by 20% max.
If your aircraft is "operated for the purpose of private flight" then, subject to the satisfactory completion of certain checks every year (eg compressions, oil consumption etc) you can run 'on condition'. There is a lot more detail in GR 24, but it would only confuse. Thus, it is true that for the average private owner there is no effective change to the status quo.
As someone said earlier in this thread, the CAA is out to nail the commercial and public transport operators because they see this as a high risk area with a poor safety record.
Simple, isn't it!