UK CAA Orphans

[diso]

I own a Glos Airtourer (look here to find out about the type http://www.airtourer.asn.au/ ), all owners of the same type have recently been advised by our CAA that we may no longer be able to operate our aircraft on a C of A, but may have to transfer to a Permit.

Assuming that the CAA means a PFA Permit and not a CAA Permit OR EASA Permit (can anyone enlighten us on that?), I am interested to canvass opinion from owners/operartors who have experience of operating aircraft under both systems (PFA and C of A). What, if any, are the advantages of operation under PFA rules as opposed to C of A? Given a choice, which system would you operate under and why? Besides the flying limitations, what other drawbacks are there when operating on a PFA Permit.

Answers to some of these questions may help some of us decide how we should proceed with the CAA. Above all, we need to know what the PFA are like to deal with when airworthiness problems arise perhaps due to lack of spares parts, or maybe when something needs to be manufactured to stay airworthy. Broadly speaking, do these types of problems take long to resolve with the PFA, quicker or slower than with the CAA? Are there any examples that you can cite? (I realise that airworthiness problems are very subjective but I just want to get a feel for the situation)

Would, in your opinion, our aircraft be easier or harder to sell, would they be worth more or les on a Permit?

Your thoughts, views or experiences, together with any help or advice with the above will be much appreciated.

[LowNSlow]

diso life on a CAA Permit will mean an annual inspection by a CAA engineer who may or may not be familiar with little aeroplanes in general let alone you model in particular. Read EXPENSIVE, I think they charge around 140 quid an hour(???)

I have no idea what an EASA Permit would involve but I can't realistically see it being less complicated than a CAA Permit.

The PFA Permit allows you to do virtually all the maintenance work yourself as long as it is signed off by (and preferably supervised by) a PFA Inspector who will be a lot cheaper than a CAA Inspector and very probably more familiar with your type of aircraft.

If you chose to have an engineer do the work then the cost differential will probably be negligable unless you use one of the more expensive maintenance shops. The big difference will come in the near future when you will HAVE to use an M3 licensed facility to do your Annuals / Star Annuals. That will be a lot more expensive than using a PFA Engineer / Inspector to do the PFA Permit Annual.

I used to operate an L4 Cub on a Permit and there is no practical difference in the operation of my Auster on a C of A. I fly for fun, no IMC, no night and with a 59 year old engine I avoid built-up areas anyway!

Regarding hard to obtain spares, the PFA take a much more pragmatic view of manufacturing new spares. I have found their engineering department to be far more responsive than that of the CAA. I am not complaining about the CAA in any way it's just that the PFA is better set up to respond to the little guy's pleas than the CAA.

Overall I would guess that your aeroplane would be better off on a PFA Permit (as long as your flying pattern is similar to mine) and will probably be worth more and easier to sell.

PS Have a look at the Auster on a Permit thread running concurrently with this one.

[Mike Cross]

As a general rule I agree with Low'nSlow.

CAA Permit fees aren't particularly high although they are higher than the PFA fees.

AFIK a Permit is a Permit is a Permit. PFA and BMAA are both organisations approved by the CAA to issue permits for aircraft for which they hold approval and there is no difference in the rules whether your Permit was issued by the PFA, BMAA or CAA.

There's a bit of infighting going on in some quarters at the moment between elements of PFA and BMAA but it seems to be more among the members than the executives. Some seem to think that the organisation that was responsible for getting a design through approval should have sole rights on Permit renewal. I don't subscribe to that view any more than I would to the view that the Type Certificate holder should have sole rights to CAA renewals.

The idea that a permit allows you to save a packet by doing the maintenance yourself is based on a bit of a misconception. There is a list of maintenance items that a pilot can sign off on a Permit that is marginally longer than that which can be signed off by the pilot on what used to be a Private Cat C of A. Anything more than that can't be signed off by the pilot. There is of course nothing to stop you doing the donkey work yourself, whether it is on a C of A or a Permit providing you have an engineer willing to sign off your work.

In our case the engineer produces the worksheets detailing what needs to be done (inspections, checking mandatory mods etc). We do the dismantling and cleaning, he does the inspection, we reassemble and he signs it off when he is satisfied. (we're on a PFA permit)

Hope this helps

Mike

[diso]

Thanks LowNslow and Mike Cross. I've had a look at the Auster on a permit thread. Why do you have to downgrade from a 4 seater to a 2 seater ? I thought the PFA accepted 4 seaters now.

I wonder if there might be a threat to the Airtourers aerobatic capability if we decide to go the PFA route.

Which way do you think the Auster boys will jump PFA or CAA?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I doubt that PFA would have any trouble with an aerobatic capability - they have a reasonable selection of aerobatic machines on the fleet already. I'd certainly advise anybody restricted to PtF operations to go with them rather than CAA, just on grounds of user friendliness.

One question I've not seen any answer to yet is what will happen to the permissions for such an aircraft to fly night/IMC if suitably equipped if it is transferred from CofA to PtF without any change to the aircraft. Anybody know?

G

[diso]

Thanks GTE

I presume we lose those privilages along with the other operational limitations that come with life on a Permit. But I have to admit that the CAA dont mention it in 'the letter', so it's something else we need to get clarified.

[Mike Cross]

Secondary effects of controls.......

A lighter touch on the airworthiness regimes means some restrictions being imposed. Otherwise those on a CofA would be whingeing like mad;)