Permit Luscombe drivers

[DubTrub]

Owners and pilots of PFA Permit Luscombes owe PFA Engineering a vote of thanks.

Your aircraft are now included in Annex II: CAP 747 Section 1, Part 2 refers; the recent update is available from the CAA Publications website.

To the uninitiated, this means that you will be exempt from EASA regulation, so can continue to operate under CAA (and hence PFA auspices). Your alternative would have been to go on a EASA CofA.

I happen to know that PFA Engineering continues to strive to get the complete "Factory-built" pfa fleet within this Annex, so please give them your support.

There is a lot of flack on ...erm..."other" sites about the efficacy of the PFA, but they do indeed work for us all. It's just that some of it is more behind the scenes that most think.

DT

[Monocock]

Fantastic news!!:ok:

Right, that's it. I'm off to buy a second one before the prices go up!!!!!!:D

[Genghis the Engineer]

One suspects that the recent less than glowing reports of some of PFA Engineering's standards of service have been primarily down to the amount of time Andrew in particular, but also Francis have spent solving just this sort of problem.

G

[SlipSlider]

DubTrub, as I can't seem to trace the relevant item on the CAA website, can you confirm does does this apply to Aeroncas as well? And all the other classics that are currently on PFA permits? Taylorcrafts, Pipers, Porterfields etc etc Can you post a link if you have one?

If this is confirmed, this is a major relief, and a big brownie-point for the PFA, as far as I'm concerned.

Monocock: "pearlescent" .... that was the word I was looking for, re the Jet Ranger paintwork. I remembered about 3 am Monday morning...!
Slip

[Mike Cross]

At the risk of seeming churlish Ghengis, what exactly has changed?

A whole list of aircraft, including Concorde, Nimrods, Hunters, Pups, B 206's, Cubs, Luscombes, Austers, Moths, Venoms, Sea Vixens etc etc are remaining subject to National Airworthiness requirements rather than coming under EASA. Given the impossibility of moving something currently on a Permit (be it a CAA Permit or a PFA one) back on to a C of A this was the only real option.

Many on the list are not eligible for a C of A and so couldn't come under EASA in any case. (I don't believe anyone at any time has suggested an EASA Permit to Fly.)

Article 9A is not changing so not a single aircraft will be added to the PFA fleet as a result.

Which is not to suggest that PFA Engineering is twiddling its thumbs.:ok:

[DubTrub]

Mike, you are as ever perfectly correct, in that nothing has changed. The fear was a potential future change for those under current PFA and CAA permits. This has been averted for those types mentioned in the CAA document. Annex II relates to aircraft of "military or developmental historical significance" (my words). You seem to be of the opinion that things would have "worked out OK anyway" which they would not have done. These aircraft could in fact be "eligible for a C of A" (your words) if they were inspected, rectified and re-certified to the appropriate standard. (apologies if I have misinterpreted your posts.)

Some of these types, being "factory-supported", might have had to have complied with EASA CofA rules. This could have been of great significance to the owners (such as myself) who operate these types. Remember, the Type Certificates for Taylorcraft, Luscombe, Piper, Aeronca (aka Bellanca) are all in current ownership; this could be construed as "factory supported" by EASA, although we all know that the level of support for these particular types is in fact not actively supported by the TC holders. Some TC's are owned by National Airworthiness bodies, but I know not the significance of this.

Regarding Luscombes, I believe that these were a struggle, because they were never Liaison (L)-types (as for example the L4 Cub), so to get these on is an achievement.

You are also correct that 9A is not changing, but this is not relevant to operators of those currently operating on CAA (and hence PFA) permits.

SS Try going to "publications" in the left column, then search for "747" (CAP 747 being the relevant document).Link (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP747.PDF)

I do know that Aeroncas are not on it, but I understand PFA Engineering are actively working to achieve this (they were after all a military Liaison type). All the PFA Taylorcrafts, Luscombes are on this list, which is essentially an exemption from EASA CofA rulings, as are I beleive the PFA Cubs and Austers, etc; I know not of the Porterfields, but these are I'm sure being treated with the same importance.

Mono Other matters: I hope your Luscombe has all the spar AD's done.

[SlipSlider]

DubTrub, thank you, I'll check that out. I'm intrigued as to why Aeroncas are not on the list, while Luscombes are, as the latter has never had a military application.
Slip

[Mike Cross]

the latter has never had a military application
http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/Luscombe/lusc-uc90.jpg
XT8E 1947 = 85hp C-85-12. POP: 3 prototypes for 1947 Army liaison competition; first was [NX2788K]. Army requirements stated that the aircraft had to either be in current production or hold a current type certificate — XT8E did not qualify on either count with only 10% non-8E components. Changes included a new forward fuselage with tandem seating arrangement, large windows, a bubble-type rear window, and a door on the right side only. Although the plane completed the test program successfully, the contract was awarded to Aeronca's L-16A on the basis of its lower selling price. The type was subsequently developed into the T8F Observer.
:{ :{ :{

Very tenuous I grant you.

Mike

[SlipSlider]

Mike, I just KNEW you'd come back with that..... :D
Not sure an unsuccesful military tender counts!
And there are no T8's in the UK, as far as I am aware.... :8
Slip

[cubflyer]

Ive just looked at CAP 747. There seems to be a mark in the margin against Luscombes, as thought something has changed for them- maybe the CAA just spelt the name wrong the last time!
Aeroncas does seem an odd submission, although the C3, 100 and K models are in anex II but no model 7s (Champs) or Model 11 (chiefs) Another oddity is that PA-11 Cub specials, PA-15/17 Vagabonds are also missing from Anex II.
On the other hand it seems strange that aircraft such as the Beagle Pup are in Anex II. Never a military aircraft and always on a C of A.
I guess just about anything produced before WW2 can claim to have had some military service as most aircraft were impressed into service, pity some of the post war aircraft like the Vagabond cant claim that.
It does seem strange that the Aeronca Champ isnt included as many were produced as L-16s and previously the L-3 and Defender. All basically coming from the same design.

At least the Cub is in there so I am happy, but I imagine there are quite a few unhappy Jodel owners, not exaclty knowing their future on a permit.

PFA engineering are working hard on all of this, so hopefully it will be sorted out to everyone's benefit.

[SlipSlider]

It looks to me that possibly the American types included are those where the first flight was pre-war, hence the Luscombe, Ercoupe, and Porterfield, but not the Aeronca 7 & 11 series (Champs and Chiefs). Fingers crossed that the PFA is able to sort that out, or at least that "grandfather rights" will apply.

EASA. Love it. Not.
Slip

[Genghis the Engineer]

At the risk of seeming churlish Ghengis, what exactly has changed?

There are aircraft currently operating on PFA permits which do not, at a strictly literal reading, fall into Annex II. That implies they should come into EASA control.

The potential consequence of that is airworthiness management from Cologne to CofA rules of aircraft previously administered to the rather more pragmatic PFA system, possibly needing a JAR-1 for all spares, and needing any mods to be submitted by a CS.21-JA approved company. All of this will push up costs, and make it harder and harder to operate elderly aeroplanes like this Luscombe.

So all efforts by PFA Engineering to keep those aircraft currently on PFA permits under their control, rather than EASA's have to be positive. It will also keep revenue for PFA which is a far cuddlier organisation than EASA has seemed to be so far (notwithstanding that EASA's head of GA certification is a thoroughly decent bloke, British, and was in a previous life the designer of at-least one PFA type).

G

[Mike Cross]

I plead guilty to churlishness.;)

Mike

[LowNSlow]

Surely a perfect time to put things like Austers onto a PFA Permit. Bet you knew I was going to say that. :ok:

[Mike Cross]

A lovely thought but the CAA seem to have decided that Permits are for aircraft that are not eligible for a C of A. The decision is relatively recent so I can't see them doing an about face without good reason.

At some time in the past they allowed orphans (where the Type Certificate was dormant) to go on to Permits but not any more.

What would be good is if PFA Engineering became approved for C of A renewals on certain SEP types. There are a number of types that are available either as factory built or kits. Approval would allow PFA to administer both types (and for instance the factory built Jodels as well as the plans-built ones).

Mike