Grounding of DC3's
 

Another possible nail in the coffin of historic aviation in the U.K unless something gets done!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/new...news=1&bbcws=1

Any suggestions?

Any suggestions?

Give all these morons who come up with these ideas double their salry with the understanding they never ever again show up for work.

To ground the DC3 because it does not meet the airworthiness standards is bizzare beyond beliefe.

THE DC3 IS ONE OF THE MOST SUCESSFUL DESIGNS EVER PRODUCED.

C47s played amajor part in liberating Europe
 

A stereotypical idiotic and ill considered decision from the corrupt EU. This aircraft was in no small way responsible for the liberation of most EU countries in many forms, as transports, as ambulances, as glider tows. What an asinine decision from a group of pathetic european trough feeders.

Yet another reason that shows that the people running the EU are out of step with the public

Remember, these are the same people who decided that citizens of the EU should not be allowed purchase duty free goods while travelling within the EU....yet have allowed themselves the privledge of having a "Duty free" shop at their own headquarters :=

Perhaps something will be done to stop the DC-3 being grounded....but only after highlighting the issue

Why is it, that everything sensible has to be achieved after a struggle..???

Chuck and Flat four,

What is not needed here is emotional twaddle and blather about what the DC3 was designed for and what it did - nostalga has no part to play in this argument.

As much as I enjoyed growing up in aviation with the DC3, (and travelling far and wide in it), all good things come to an end and I've often wondered how much longer Air Atlantique would continue to run the aircraft, faced with huge running costs and ever diminishing returns for an operation which rarely runs longer than March to October each year.

Just maybe, with constructive opinion and evidence, and the backing of the CAA, the aircraft may continue to fly for a bit longer.

Niknak - Of course you are right about the issue but if you knew, as I do, some of the people who represent us in Brussels/Strasbourg you would probably agree that they are hardly up to the task. If the aircraft can be flown safely in its current setup then applying 21st century commercial safety rules is not only unneccessary but reflects the lack of serious consideration given to the issue by the EU. Nostalgia it is not. I trust you don't think that the Shuttleworth collection is just nostalgia.

Regulatory Background
 

Just to get the story straight, EU-OPS is virtually JAR-OPS 1 but with the force of an EU Regulation - ie no EU Member State can permit those operators over which it exercises safety oversight any derogation (easement) without EASA's agreement after mid July 2008.

You will recall that JAR-OPS 1 was a code of standards that JAA Member States undertook, voluntarily, to apply through their national legislation. This allowed the CAA to grant exemptions (subject to constraints, of course,) to those operators whose niche operations didn't fit exactly with the mainstream public transport/commercial air transport operations for which JARs had been developed.

With the coming of EU-OPS, such flexibility as the CAA has enjoyed hitherto for the application of JARs is removed: the only hope is to persuade EASA (acting on behalf of the EU) that certain niche operations currently approved within the UK and elsewhere should be allowed to continue. (It may be, for example, that the insertion of certain discriminants such as 'excepting multi piston-engine aeroplanes of MTOW not exceeding xxxx kgs' could constitute permanent alleviations: I don't know, but it's worth a thought.)

I'm pretty sure that other States operate or operated vintage aeroplanes. Didn't the Dutch also fly DC3s for sight seeing? I flew as a passenger in a JU52 operating out of Zurich's old aerodrome: although Switzerland is not a member of the EU, it has signed up to comply with EU-OPS, so they may also be interested in preserving the ability to operate these old aeroplanes for a few more years. The UK may well not be alone in seeking suitable derogations for this class of aeroplane operated for this type of flight.

Chuck and Flat four,

What is not needed here is emotional twaddle and blather about what the DC3 was designed for and what it did - nostalga has no part to play in this argument.

Pardon me niknak for expressing my thoughts on the DC3, you of course are correct emotional twaddle has no part to play in this argument.

By the way my opinion on the reliability of the DC3 is formed from having flown over 5000 hours on DC3's mostly off airport in the high Arctic and off strip Bush flying.

How much time do you have flying them niknak?

By the way niknak in all those hours I never dented one and never wore a Hi Vis Vest either...we were afraid it would be to easy for the Polar bears to spot us. :E

I suppose making a safety case is a realistic option.

Taking into consideration that the EASA rules are written with the intent to increase and guarantee public safety, and should be followed in spirit more than to the letter, the fact that the passengers of these historical aircraft are well aware that it does not meet modern safety standards much like the classic cars that are driven and sometimes raced by enthusiasts, the very limited exposure time per passenger and the usually very benign weather they operate in, one would think that somehow an exemption for this type of operation should be possible.

I know I am assuming some common sense in organisations that are not famous for displaying it, but still..

Dc3/c47
 

Chuck,

Outstanding post Sir. I've only been a member of this forum for 5 minutes but this niknak citizen strikes me as the type of person who would pour oil on troubled waters and then set fire to it.

There is already a thread about this on the Aviation History and Nostalgia forum.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=312445

The new regulations will not GROUND the DC3. They will however mean that a DC3 cannot act as a passenger aircraft.

I honestly believe that there should be a certain line drawn. DC-3 flights are not really public transport, ie you just catching a flight from A to B paying normal fare etc. Those are historic flights which are designed for aircraft/aviation enthusiasts, most of them are perfectly aware that they flying something special by all means. There people going to Iran just to have a domestic flight on one-of-last-in-scheduled-service pax 707, there a people flying from Damascus to Caracas just for a sake of ride on 747SP, there are people paying for MIG or SU jetfighter experience etc. None of them are EU-OPS comliant and will never be.

As a part of solution (although not in line with EU-OPS, but something as a ground for dispensation by UK CAA) passengers on such a flights could be briefed about what kind of disperances this aircraft have against EU-OPS and then asked to sign "release of liability" and still 90+% of them will sign because they know exactly what they want.

p.s. S76Heavy - very good point about classic cars. Or even about just a bit older cars, ie no ABS, no ESP, no airbags etc - very dangerous to drive! But still not banned....

Chuck Ellsworth says it for me - a mere SLF... I'm tired of being told that I can't do something - if I wish to do it that is my decision, and if have to sign away me rights to do it then that is entirely down to me.

I, as an EU (reluctantly) citizen, demand the right to determine my own fate. :ok:

Don't worry Chuck. ninak waddles and twaddles from forum to forum trying to convince us that he knows what he is talking about. None of us are taken in though. If he is as pedantic and rude while he is supposedly being an ATCO well..............what else if there to say.

What you say Chuck has a great bearing on this issue and Brussels needs to know that not only is this magnificent aircraft a mega part of aviation history, and has saved and served war personnel and civilians alike for over 60 years. Its nostalgia value is second to none and it has to be preserved, as well as allowing the young of many countries to savour a flight in the gentle beast.

I have only 12 hours in DC3's but I remember every single one of them.

niknak, please keep out of this. You are not worthy.

Both the DC3 and the PBY are used in Holland as historic aircraft for the public to buy sight seeing flights on.

If anyone in aviation were to be used as a benchmark for determining the safety of these aircraft and the safety factor involved in determining who flies them I would suggest it would be the insurance underwriters.

If there should be a loss of one of these historic aircraft and injury or death of paying passengers I would suggest that the insurance underwriters have a lot more at stake than some drone wanking in a cubicle in some government office.

With regard to the Dutch PBY operation I spent three years working with their group to train their crews to a high level of safety...the insurance underwriters saw fit to insure their operation and they are doing a fine job safety wise.

It would be a sad day for aviation and the public to see these operations closed down because some moron decides that would be best.

Thankfully I lived my career in a more sane and interesting era, where personal responsibility was the norm and we were not puppets of the nanny state mentality.

P.S.:

I get a kick out of those who trot out that saying about " anti authority " meaning someone is by default a dangerous pilot.

It is self evident that I could be seen as mildly " anti authority " , so how come I have been flying for almost 55 years ( I'm not quite sure of my total time anymore but over a decade ago I had close to 26,000 hours ) in almost every device known to man and haven't ever filled out an accident report?

Revolution worked for the French, so maybe one day the people of Europe will revolt against the EU. And let's face it, 95% of us want no part of it.

So, the EU regs are closing down an aircraft type which is used regularily for passenger & freight flights in North & South America 'cos its not considered safe enough in the EU...:hmm:

Did I hear someone say "nanny state"?

Serious question then.

Does this mean that PT in aircraft below 5700 kg, C402 421 404 etc will soon be illegal as well ?

Grounding of DC3's
 

TwoOneFour says
"Lufthansa has a Ju52 but it's kitted out with 16 seats. Guess that puts it under the 19 seat EU-OPS limit."

then can't they take one row of seats out of the DC3?

My first flight, in a DC2, was ok.

Folks,

For an answer (if EASA/CAA would accept it) have a look at the Australia CASR 21.189, Limited Cat. C.of A, and associated ACs.

The starting point is:http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/1998casr/021/021casr.pdf

It all works very well, and is now community administered, rather than by CASA, as most of Sports and Recreational is already administered.

Note that NO AOC is required for "Adventure Flights".

Tootle pip!!