Dilemas of an airworthiness engineer
Moderator
Thread Starter
Dilemas of an airworthiness engineer
Interesting problem I hit today, hope you'll accept that I don't want to give specifics, but the generalities might be interesting.
I got asked today to go and spend a few hours with a man who has acquired an aeroplane. It's small, currently non-flying (although in excellent condition), and although obscure, nonetheless occupies an important slot in British aviation history - it's also probably the only example still in one piece. The aircraft hasn't flown for some years and has never held any documentation that would currently allow it to fly.
The gentleman who owns this fascinating antique wants to be able to fly it, he's also a fairly experienced pilot with a reasonable grasp of engineering - a good start. But, as I go through the aircraft and it's documentation it became very obvious that I couldn't possibly make it fly legally without some modification to the aircraft's basic design, and to meet current safety standards would mandate a huge redesign. It was also designed as a 2-seater, and there were potentially good reasons why it could only be allowed to fly solo.
Now, there's an excellent argument here that this beastie belongs in a museum. However, the owner is firmly of the view that aeroplanes should either be flown or scrapped, and he's no interest whatsoever in allowing it into a museum (not necessarily my own view, but I can see his point) - he is also fairly adamant that he wants to fly it (well, that's why he bought it!). Since he's the sole owner of it, if I'm to help preserve this piece of history, I have to find some way of allowing it to fly - and try and make sure he never crashes it !
An interesting dilema. The solution (or at least the general intent at present), which will no doubt take a fair while to achieve, is to reach a compromise of a fairly drachonian set of operating restrictions within which it can be safely operated, together with a minimum number of changes to the aircraft design - and trying to make those as visually identical to the original as we can manage.
Just thought I'd share that.
G
I got asked today to go and spend a few hours with a man who has acquired an aeroplane. It's small, currently non-flying (although in excellent condition), and although obscure, nonetheless occupies an important slot in British aviation history - it's also probably the only example still in one piece. The aircraft hasn't flown for some years and has never held any documentation that would currently allow it to fly.
The gentleman who owns this fascinating antique wants to be able to fly it, he's also a fairly experienced pilot with a reasonable grasp of engineering - a good start. But, as I go through the aircraft and it's documentation it became very obvious that I couldn't possibly make it fly legally without some modification to the aircraft's basic design, and to meet current safety standards would mandate a huge redesign. It was also designed as a 2-seater, and there were potentially good reasons why it could only be allowed to fly solo.
Now, there's an excellent argument here that this beastie belongs in a museum. However, the owner is firmly of the view that aeroplanes should either be flown or scrapped, and he's no interest whatsoever in allowing it into a museum (not necessarily my own view, but I can see his point) - he is also fairly adamant that he wants to fly it (well, that's why he bought it!). Since he's the sole owner of it, if I'm to help preserve this piece of history, I have to find some way of allowing it to fly - and try and make sure he never crashes it !
An interesting dilema. The solution (or at least the general intent at present), which will no doubt take a fair while to achieve, is to reach a compromise of a fairly drachonian set of operating restrictions within which it can be safely operated, together with a minimum number of changes to the aircraft design - and trying to make those as visually identical to the original as we can manage.
Just thought I'd share that.
G
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Covering the Commonwealth
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Genghis,
Fascinating. D'you know, I think that just about defines the US 'Experimental' classification idea to a 'T'. Funny how that's not what it gets used for. Of course, I'm fascinated as to what it is... Granger Archeoptrix? (No, single (terified) seater)
Cheers
James
NOT an engineer
Fascinating. D'you know, I think that just about defines the US 'Experimental' classification idea to a 'T'. Funny how that's not what it gets used for. Of course, I'm fascinated as to what it is... Granger Archeoptrix? (No, single (terified) seater)
Cheers
James
NOT an engineer
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Oz we've gone a bit beyond the US "Experimental" and have that plus a couple of other sub-categories below "Normal".
However, I thoroughly appreciate the dilemma. Dragging the UK authorities into the 20th Century in this arena may well be impossible, let alone the JAR's!!??
What price a US experimental rego and fly it on a US licence in the UK?
Cheers
However, I thoroughly appreciate the dilemma. Dragging the UK authorities into the 20th Century in this arena may well be impossible, let alone the JAR's!!??
What price a US experimental rego and fly it on a US licence in the UK?
Cheers
Moderator
Thread Starter
On the technical point, without doubt if and when it flies (sorry, for various reasons I can't say here what it is) it'll be under the Permit-To-Fly route, which is the UK's sub-ICAO category.
There are actually a huge range of different sub-types of permit, and so far as I know that's what virtually all historic aircraft in the UK fly under. It varies from the very stiff operating rules of, say, a Gnat down to a very relaxed limited envelope, simple rules, flown on an NPPL of a single-seat homebuilt. What I have to do is find the right balance, then convince both the owner and the relevant authorities that it's an acceptable one.
The main difference between the UK system and the US system (apart from the name) is that in the US you have to convince yourself that you've done things sensibly, and tell the FAA that you've done so. In the UK, you have to convince either the CAA or their "delegated authority" (most usually the PFA) which means a bit more paperwork - but the systems are more similar apart from that than most people think.
G
There are actually a huge range of different sub-types of permit, and so far as I know that's what virtually all historic aircraft in the UK fly under. It varies from the very stiff operating rules of, say, a Gnat down to a very relaxed limited envelope, simple rules, flown on an NPPL of a single-seat homebuilt. What I have to do is find the right balance, then convince both the owner and the relevant authorities that it's an acceptable one.
The main difference between the UK system and the US system (apart from the name) is that in the US you have to convince yourself that you've done things sensibly, and tell the FAA that you've done so. In the UK, you have to convince either the CAA or their "delegated authority" (most usually the PFA) which means a bit more paperwork - but the systems are more similar apart from that than most people think.
G
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Midlands
Age: 71
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intrigued of Banbury...
Hi Genghis,
Do I know you??
Lots of speculation no doubt on the type - I reckon is the Granger ( I know Grangers son - wot a wag!).
Shuttleworth face similar challenges with their aircraft - my understanding is that the CAA are 'cautiously helpful'.
I'll draw Airbedanes attention to this thread - I am sure his contribution will be very helpful to you.
If it is something really exciting and 'fits' the Shuttleworth profile (whatever that might be??!!) maybe it could live there?
I know of no finer engineers ( I don't actually know you G!!) to look after it and no better place to operate our aviation heritage/ preserve same for our future generations.
Come on....wotisit??
All the best
HP
Do I know you??
Lots of speculation no doubt on the type - I reckon is the Granger ( I know Grangers son - wot a wag!).
Shuttleworth face similar challenges with their aircraft - my understanding is that the CAA are 'cautiously helpful'.
I'll draw Airbedanes attention to this thread - I am sure his contribution will be very helpful to you.
If it is something really exciting and 'fits' the Shuttleworth profile (whatever that might be??!!) maybe it could live there?
I know of no finer engineers ( I don't actually know you G!!) to look after it and no better place to operate our aviation heritage/ preserve same for our future generations.
Come on....wotisit??
All the best
HP
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: N51:37:39 W1:19:16 Feel free to use as a waypoint.
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats scuppered my theory
I would have put money on HP having got something to get the bum twitching.
Edited to add that I mean an aircraft before you smutty ******s start.
Edited to add that I mean an aircraft before you smutty ******s start.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'r dammed if you do and dammed if you don't on this one G!
There are two options realy, throw so many modifications at him he will get board with it or run out of money. Or place so many resrictions on the beast that he will, again get board with it.
What are his chances of killing himself in it?.
I think that the C.A.A. have got the balence right with vintage aircraft, I know that's not everyone's view but having read B.C.A.R. A8-20 I feel "comfortable" with thier decisions. I would love to see a Vulcan, Victor, Lightning and Bucc fly again but only safely with the right engineering/operational organization behind them.
Do keep us informed,If you can
Rgds Dr I.
There are two options realy, throw so many modifications at him he will get board with it or run out of money. Or place so many resrictions on the beast that he will, again get board with it.
What are his chances of killing himself in it?.
I think that the C.A.A. have got the balence right with vintage aircraft, I know that's not everyone's view but having read B.C.A.R. A8-20 I feel "comfortable" with thier decisions. I would love to see a Vulcan, Victor, Lightning and Bucc fly again but only safely with the right engineering/operational organization behind them.
Do keep us informed,If you can
Rgds Dr I.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If indeed it is the Granger,
may I respectfully suggest you contact John Lewis via the OW connection [if he's not known to you already.] He gave a fascinating lecture at the inaugural HAA meeting at OW on the subject of flying Shuttleworth's Granger. Not for the faint hearted nor heavyweights!!
G'day
may I respectfully suggest you contact John Lewis via the OW connection [if he's not known to you already.] He gave a fascinating lecture at the inaugural HAA meeting at OW on the subject of flying Shuttleworth's Granger. Not for the faint hearted nor heavyweights!!
G'day
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please forgive my lack of knowledge in this area, but why does this aeroplane have to meet 'current safety standards'? If it used to fly in its 'as built' condition, why can't it simply be restored to that condition and fly again (albeit with operating restrictions)?
Does the Shuttleworth Boxkite meet current safety standards? Does a Spitfire? Would Concorde acheive certification under current airliner certification procedures?
SSD
Does the Shuttleworth Boxkite meet current safety standards? Does a Spitfire? Would Concorde acheive certification under current airliner certification procedures?
SSD
Moderator
Thread Starter
Hairplane - not sure, I suspect that we may have met at some point - possibly at an Oxford RAeS branch meeting? It isn't the Granger. It's not appropriate since I'm talking about somebody else's attitude towards their aeroplane to give enough information to identify him and it.
SSD Simple answer I'm afraid, because the paperwork that allowed that aircraft to fly at the time no longer has any validity. Shuttleworth I'm certain have to prove an acceptable level of safety in their operations, albeit that they use a combination of operating procedures and engineering procedures - which is almost certainly where I'm headed. If you simply want an aircraft to fly (in the same was as your Yak might) then you must meet pretty much current standards however old it is.
I do know a lot of the chaps at Shuttleworth (and also deal with the same people at CAA as they do), although I've never been directly involved there myself.
In fact I turned up to see this chap hoping to persuade him that it belongs in a museum, preferably one like OW where it will be flown under what might be termed Bleriot-worthy conditions. But as I said, he made it very clear that he has no interest in that at-all, so my dilema is primary moral - if I don't find a way for him to fly it safely he's likely to take the engine for another aircraft he owns of similar vintage as a spare, and scrap the rest.
So far as the competence of engineers is concerned, I've as much respect for the chaps at Old Warden as anybody, but that's not my problem - I do have (either personally or access to) enough engineering and flight-test talent to make it happen (in fact I think one of my available Test Pilots may have flown one in his youth), and the owner has a suitable hangar and airfield to keep it safe, and enough skilled help to do the dirty work. The dilemas are primarily moral not technical in this case - or at-least it's moral issues that will ultimately guide my technical decisions.
G
SSD Simple answer I'm afraid, because the paperwork that allowed that aircraft to fly at the time no longer has any validity. Shuttleworth I'm certain have to prove an acceptable level of safety in their operations, albeit that they use a combination of operating procedures and engineering procedures - which is almost certainly where I'm headed. If you simply want an aircraft to fly (in the same was as your Yak might) then you must meet pretty much current standards however old it is.
I do know a lot of the chaps at Shuttleworth (and also deal with the same people at CAA as they do), although I've never been directly involved there myself.
In fact I turned up to see this chap hoping to persuade him that it belongs in a museum, preferably one like OW where it will be flown under what might be termed Bleriot-worthy conditions. But as I said, he made it very clear that he has no interest in that at-all, so my dilema is primary moral - if I don't find a way for him to fly it safely he's likely to take the engine for another aircraft he owns of similar vintage as a spare, and scrap the rest.
So far as the competence of engineers is concerned, I've as much respect for the chaps at Old Warden as anybody, but that's not my problem - I do have (either personally or access to) enough engineering and flight-test talent to make it happen (in fact I think one of my available Test Pilots may have flown one in his youth), and the owner has a suitable hangar and airfield to keep it safe, and enough skilled help to do the dirty work. The dilemas are primarily moral not technical in this case - or at-least it's moral issues that will ultimately guide my technical decisions.
G
Moderator
Thread Starter
The chap had an interesting single seat British wooden biplane (of a type designed by the late Russ Light) in restoration there too, but a fairly common one and I saw no dH.
G
G
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,658
Received 318 Likes
on
176 Posts
No disrespect to this chap, but if he can't fly it then it does seem remarkably odd to scrap it - surely donation to Shuttleworth is better than throwing it away. 
Whilst I respect the fact that he owns it, the old adage that he is "merely the aeroplane's custodian" applies IMHO!
That said, I wish you well in your efforts to help him get it flying - what ever it is (I don't know which aircraft Russ Light designed - research tonight!)
Whilst I respect the fact that he owns it, the old adage that he is "merely the aeroplane's custodian" applies IMHO!
That said, I wish you well in your efforts to help him get it flying - what ever it is (I don't know which aircraft Russ Light designed - research tonight!)
Moderator
Thread Starter
Tend to agree, but I am a mere paid servant in these matters.
Russ Light designed several things, this example now resides in Newark Air Museum I think and is similar to the one I met in passing yesterday. The roundels are arguably a little pretentious but it's wooden, British, and a biplane - plus there are a fair number still around (23 listed on G-INFO of various marks).
Russ Light designed several things, this example now resides in Newark Air Museum I think and is similar to the one I met in passing yesterday. The roundels are arguably a little pretentious but it's wooden, British, and a biplane - plus there are a fair number still around (23 listed on G-INFO of various marks).
Knock the wheels off, poke a couple of holes in the floor and stick his legs through em.
You can then class it as an FLPA (Foot Launched Powered Aircraft). No C of A required.
Sorted.
You can then class it as an FLPA (Foot Launched Powered Aircraft). No C of A required.
Sorted.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the north
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think aircraft manufacturers (remember them) have some form of regristration/control sequence/system for their new types. Not that they've had any for many a year. Could not this a/c assume one of these non G- registrations say under bmaa or pfa design authority?
I am however curious as to how the type never managed to meet someones approval be it ARB or whatever.
Final solution is to move it to France and only bring it back occasionally until we join the EEC for real
I am however curious as to how the type never managed to meet someones approval be it ARB or whatever.
Final solution is to move it to France and only bring it back occasionally until we join the EEC for real
Moderator
Thread Starter
I think aircraft manufacturers (remember them) have some form of regristration/control sequence/system for their new types. Not that they've had any for many a year. Could not this a/c assume one of these non G- registrations say under bmaa or pfa design authority?
I am however curious as to how the type never managed to meet someones approval be it ARB or whatever.
Final solution is to move it to France and only bring it back occasionally until we join the EEC for real
G
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,658
Received 318 Likes
on
176 Posts
You can put a serial number and G-XXXX registration on a double bed or canal boat should you wish
One chap was so disgusted with the bin liner reggie practice that he registered a man-hole cover by way of a protest. Honestly, I'm sure I didn't dream this! I hope it wasn't in his back garden, or all the Reggie S Potters would have been breaking down the garden gate...
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Biggleswade
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis,
Apologies for the late input to this thread - it's been a busy week.
As far as the certification of old aircraft goes, there is only one route to take, with two possible branches - before you do anything, talk to the local CAA inspector, or to the PFA. Judging by the description of your project I'd choose the latter and get hold of the PFA's deputy Chief Engineer, John Tempest. With the right sort of approach, he should tell you what would be required to get the machine on the register. He's very good, very sympathetic to the preservation of old aircaft, but he's also very busy. If anyone can help you get the machine into the air certification wise, he will.
Remember that you'll have to get the authority involved at some stage, so best do it at the start and find out what they expect you to do. You'll save a lot of wasted time and more importantly, a lot of wasted engineering effort.
Good luck,
Airbedane.
Apologies for the late input to this thread - it's been a busy week.
As far as the certification of old aircraft goes, there is only one route to take, with two possible branches - before you do anything, talk to the local CAA inspector, or to the PFA. Judging by the description of your project I'd choose the latter and get hold of the PFA's deputy Chief Engineer, John Tempest. With the right sort of approach, he should tell you what would be required to get the machine on the register. He's very good, very sympathetic to the preservation of old aircaft, but he's also very busy. If anyone can help you get the machine into the air certification wise, he will.
Remember that you'll have to get the authority involved at some stage, so best do it at the start and find out what they expect you to do. You'll save a lot of wasted time and more importantly, a lot of wasted engineering effort.
Good luck,
Airbedane.