View Full Version : de Havilland Support to rescind the Type Certificates
DHSL is setting up Type Responsibility Agreements (TRAs) with the CAA. This will allow the owners of Tiger Moths, Chipmunks, Bulldogs and the Rapide to continue to operate on a Certificate of Airworthiness (this would be essential for those aircraft being used commercially). However, owners of these types will be able in future to opt for the Permit to Fly route if they so wish.
The announcement is from April 2012
Rod1
Justiciar
5th Dec 2011, 17:37
Sometimes the CAA surprise me. It looks as though they have actually agreed a change which will really reduce the cost of flying these aircraft and keep more of them in the air. The ability to use uncertified parts is potentially going to have a big impact. Very good news.
Or am I being too optimistic :suspect:
Is this a CAA Permit to Fly or a LAA Permit? If the former will the aircraft still have to go through the Part M procedure (assuming the M3 becomes tagged onto the Part M(F))? I also assume that the Rapides flying for 'reward' will have to stay commercial.
As for Chipmunks presumably if the elect to go to LAA Permit that will preclude them from night flying and day VFR etc..
As for Bulldogs will they still be required to use the fatigue meter and have the spar mod done at the appropriate time?
B4aeros
5th Dec 2011, 19:16
Is this a CAA Permit to Fly or a LAA Permit?Either. From DHSL news (http://www.dhsupport.com/news.html)
The Permit to Fly may be supervised by the UK CAA or the Light Aircraft Association (LAA) at the discretion of the owner, except that in the case of the multi-engined types being orphaned (Dragon, Dragonfly, Dove and Heron) only a CAA-supervised Permit to Fly will be available.
Justiciar
5th Dec 2011, 19:36
As for Chipmunks presumably if the elect to go to LAA Permit that will preclude them from night flying and day VFR etc.
Ours is certainly day VFR and I am not aware if any now on the civilian register are anything else.
mad_jock
5th Dec 2011, 20:11
Chipmonks shouldn't be flown at night anyway.
They should be flown during the day so those of us that don't have access to them can see them. Same goes for Spitfires etc
Shaggy Sheep Driver
5th Dec 2011, 20:20
Also, you can't aerobat at night, so why would you want to fly a Chippy at night? :)
Mark 1
5th Dec 2011, 20:34
Ours is certainly day VFR and I am not aware if any now on the civilian register are anything else.
Certainly Chippy 901 when it was at East Midlands was IFR equipped, mainly to get in and out of EMA when the weather was a bit marginal.
As for night aerobatics; I don't think it's against the law........;)
Jodelman
5th Dec 2011, 22:18
I could see that the marketability of the aircraft could be higher given the possibility of selling it in non-standard form to the UK.
There's a can of worms!
If you compare what happened with the Austers v dH. The Austers were left of C of A long after it was uneconomic to run most of them. The result was bits of dismantled Auster at the back of most club hangers and the few that were left cost a lot of money to keep flying. The transfer to the LAA gave the breed a new lease of life with many projects turning abandoned bits into aircraft and second hand prices on the rise compared to previous levels.
The dH move has been done to give most owners a much bigger choice of options rather than mandating one solution. There are a lot of aircraft (400+?) so the potential expansion in the LAA fleet and the increase in membership should have a positive impact on lobbying etc. I wonder if there is a market for taking Lyk’s out of abandoned PA28/140’s and putting them in dH?:}
Rod1
Mandator
6th Dec 2011, 08:34
Wash your mouth out with paint stripper - Sir! Lycs in a DH - the very thought of it make me feel faint.
BillieBob
6th Dec 2011, 13:44
Also, you can't aerobat at nightWhy not???
Justiciar
6th Dec 2011, 16:32
Why not???
Is not night flying under IFR in the UK? Can you do aerobatics under IFR?
I think there is some confusion between IFR and IMC here:confused:
Justiciar
6th Dec 2011, 19:57
I think there is some confusion between IFR and IMC here
Don't think so. Uk night flight is under Instrument Flight Rules. It may or may not be under VMC!
So what is so wrong with aerobatting under IFR then.
:ugh:
BillieBob
6th Dec 2011, 20:08
There is nothing in the Instrument Flight Rules that apply outside controlled airspace (i.e. Rules 33 & 34) that would prohibit aerobatics. I repeat - why not???
Sir George Cayley
6th Dec 2011, 20:34
Story from long long ago. In the days of Preston Radar on a quiet night the Blue 1/ Red 3 sector had little to do. Up comes an American registered a/c enroute to Belfast at about FL090.
Yank pilot sensing things were a tad boring asked if there was any traffic nearby. Bored controller (and even border assistant) confirmed he was the only a/c for miles.
"Keep your eyes on the dot" says the pilot.
Before their very eyes the dot stopped. Then it started forward again much to the controller's consternation.
"OK, how did you do that?" asked Preston. "Just did a night IMC loop" Came the reply. "I'm in a Waco Meteor, an SF 260 to you guys"
'Roger call Belfast 12...."
SGC
Shaggy Sheep Driver
6th Dec 2011, 21:34
Sir George.....
I do remember a few decades ago in the Blue/Red/Black Chippy (prob Red at that time) out of Barton up near the Ribble (so off the BTN - Blackpool direct track, but close to Warton so on freq with them).
The man called me just as I was judging the pull-up over the top of a loop, followed by the combined stick/rudder/throttle co-ordination down the other side. I bottomed out, used the energy to pull up again, rolled, and recovered. Then I answered him, explaining I had been executing a manouvre hence the delay.
"Thought you might be", he replied. "Just as I called you your trace slowed.... then stopped".
mad_jock
6th Dec 2011, 21:55
Wasn't there a pilot who used to think it was fun to fly inverted approaches at night at an east coast airfield. Just to confuse the hell out of the tower controllers. Then roll the right way up with 50ft to go.
Might be a myth mind.
If an aircraft was to fly inverted at night, would that not make collision avoidance / right-of-way decisions difficult to make for other aircraft. You wouldn't know the aeroplane was the other way up, so the port/starboard navigation/position lights would be the wrong way round.:confused: