GIPSY ENGINES - THE CAA'S NEXT TARGET?
GAXAN - there is no need to be confused. You and your Tiger are one of the targets of what will probably become the CAA's next campaign. As India-Mike says, >12 or <12 years is still to be decided. However, if you are flying "for the purposes of public transport" you will need to think about getting some dosh together. If, despite the Transport Cat CofA, you are only flying "for the purpose of private flight" then go on-condition. It is the use of the aircraft which matters in this situation.
We should congratulate India-Mike on getting the bird safely down on the beach - we now have the evidence which MIGHT show that it was not corrosion of the crankshaft which initiated the failure. However, turning to the wider issue of assuring the integrity of Gipsy engines, this is where the going gets tough. We need to know why India-Mike's engine let go. That information needs to be considered, together with the crank failures on the Redhill Stampe and the Brize Chipmunk (remember that one?), together with overhaul data from Deltair and VinTech.
The danger here is that there is no design organisation for the Gipsy and new spares have not been manufactured for forty+ years. Deltair has the design data but they are not a design organisation. So, the CAA has no design authority to turn to and propose sensible solutions. More importantly, the CAA has no organisation (other than itself) to take responsibility and liability for the solution, whatever it might be. Hence, the CAA is faced with taking decisions which do not sit confortably with its role as the regulator. Also, the CAA is stuffed with lawyers and as a result is risk averse. That is the problem that could sink the Gipsy and the aircraft which fly behind it. As the CAA would say, safety cannot be put in second place to financial or commercial issues.
The only way out of this dilema is to get a proper design authority for the Gipsy. This must be a credible organisation with the knowledge and expertise to develop a sensible solution to the problem and to take responsibility and liability for it. That organisation then needs to get critical spares (such as crankshafts, exhaust valves etc) back into production. Deltair is unable to do this because it is not a design organisation and it cannot validate the drawings (which will probably need material and process changes) for new production to begin.
There will be many people working very hard to resolve this situation in a sane and sensible manner. Hopefully, with the right people round the Gatwick table a measured approach can be devised, but it will not be easy. The situation we now face behoves all Gipsy operators, public or private, to make sure that their engine maintenance is top notch - without the steadying influence of an active design organisation, other failures could sound the death knell for sensible operating hour and calendar time overhaul limitations.