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!!

Ok, the DC-3 does have its ah...difficulties, the hydraulic system is such that a loss of all hydraulic pressure results in the landing gear extending (thunk!), the generators need the field flashed from time to time, the (many) wing bolts (and the attach angles) are subject to AD's, but hey, IF looked after properly, is certainly a safe aircraft.
And yes, I have a fair amount of time in command in the DC-3, so I am an authority, you can be sure....it is the only aeroplane that I have flown that is older than me....:uhoh:

Excuse my ignorance of the rules, especially in the EU, but isn't there still such a thing as Grandfather Rights?

Many other Aircraft like for example DC9s and B727s would not meet some of the current regs, but I understood that as long as someone paid to keep them airworthy they could continue to operate under these Grandfather Rights?

Personally I would feel MUCH safer on a properly maintained DC3 than on many a modern Aircraft that complied with all the rules and regs.

411A

Ah..... "the wing bolts".

All 365 of them if my memory serves.

Well It's seen many airliners come and go including CONCORDE.:D:ok:

Oh yes those wing bolts, I've just in the last few weeks had the privilege to remove quite a number of them :bored: in the process of assisting in a major inspection on a Dak.

I say a privilege because it really is such to be able to work on, and fly, such a piece of history. A machine that has been almost everywhere it's possible for a 'plane to go and has proven itself in so many spheres of aviation, be it war, agriculture, freight and of course - most importantly - passenger services.

I've no idea just how many people the DC3 has safely carried but it's obviously in the millions. Given the lifespan of the Dak I'm sure it's possible to come to some sort of conclusion, from accident reports, just how much difference that extra 4" of height from the emergency exit makes. Perhaps with reports on other aspects of DC3 flying over the years it will be possible to demonstrate a reasonable “safety level equivalency” of the DC3 to other aircraft types. In addition to this anyone flying in them would be aware that they're unlikely to have the same sort of features as a plane 70 years its junior and so, just as in any aspect of life, there's an element of risk involved in stepping inside one. Pragmatically there ought to be some way of satisfying the EU safety requirements for such low annual hour historical machines, even if it's necessary to placard each seat with its comparable 'deficiencies'.

In any event I was pleased to read that the UK CAA are supportive of the DC3's. I trust they are able to find a way to allow the DC3 to continue flying in their present role and provide people with a real taste of early aviation history, rather than just get to read about it. If a picture paints a thousand words then the actual experience must surely be worth a great deal more and to those interested in such things it would be a very sad day if they were prevented from participating in that experience.

I can understand the regulations being applied to a type in regular passenger use, a GPWS would have prevented a Metro 3 from flying into mountains near Lockard River in Australia and killing all its occupants.

Surely a DC3 wouldn't be used in scheduled pax service again anywhere in the world, even darkest Africa has relatively modern turboprops.

A bunch of aviation enthusiasts having a weekend jolly to experience a bit of history could be warned at the time of booking that the aircraft doesn't meet modern safety standards and they fly at their own risk.

Next we'll have E Type Jaguars being pulled off the road to have airbags fitted.

I still have DC3 on my licence, but I don't expect to get a job flying one again.

Uttter tripe, im sure if you did a genuine survey the consensus wold not be anyway near 95% being against it. The EU has done some good aswell butwith everyhing in our sad society the only things people remember are the bad things and yes there is an aweful lot of nonsense red tape generated by europe, but on the upside if it wasn't for the open market in Europe we in the uk would stll be paying far more tahn our neighbours for many products such as new cars, of you not remember when we were paying £5000 or so more for cars a few years ago then came parralell imports from the EU, the UK importers tried to protest and lost and now we pay far less for a new car than we would have 5,6 or 7 years ago.

I don't know...
 

The old girl has a certain charm, all right, but it sure isn't as safe as more modern aircraft. Lose one engine at the wrong time on take-off and if you are a pilot of average skill then you are probably going to have an accident, where the same thing in most modern aircraft is just a non-event. You "sky-gods" will find this just doesn't apply, of course, since you all have mega-thousands of accident-free hours and could probably fly the box the DC-3 was delivered in but I am speaking here of some guy who would be adequately safe in something built to keep him that way, not this antique with all of its ways to catch one out. As you guys hang up your headsets, what are we to do with this airplane if it calls for exceptional skills? (By that I mean simply, "exceptional by modern training standards.")

Someone here mentioned that the Dutch fly a DC-3. Well, I believe the Dutch Dakota Association lost one in an accident with some loss of life, when that is just the sort of thing to get the legislators excited.

If you cannot answer the stupid question, "Does this airplane meet the most modern safety standards?" with a "Yes," then the first instinct of the burocrats is to ground it. Even the partisans of the type know that the DC-3 was certified to standards that have been long superceded. That many more modern aircraft also have this problem, well, there are over-riding commercial reasons not to ground them that are absent in the case of the DC-3!

It used to be conventional wisdom that the -3 was unbustable, built in a time when everything was made twice as thick as necessary. Then one lost a wing in flight operating in an area of CBs. Oops!

I think we shall see the type go the way of the Curtiss Condor, sad to say. Get John Travolta to trade in that creaky old 707 for a Dak. That might be one way forward. Anyone else remember the Bagwash's private airline that served Rajneeshpuram (formerly Antelope), Oregon?

There were enough built that it shall never pass entirely from the scene, even if most end up as museum pieces or roadside taco stands.

I enjoyed my time in the type, window slid back, engines rumbling gently as this or that small island slid past on the way to Georgetown with a fresh load of rich German suckers on a freebie to look at a dream real-estate development. "Dream" in the sense that some scratches made with a D-8 out in the bush translated into a tropical paradise one should pay good money for. The free trip in the DC-3 was probably the best part of the whole deal.

Last flew one mosquito spraying in Florida in the 80's.
Wonder how the present breed of F/O's would handle getting the gear up and down? Or an engine out during gear transition?
I think it might be about time to pull the old girl out of regular pax service, sad though it might seem.

Many of the posts have proved my point.

Flatfour + Chuck - no offence was intended, sometimes I am a bit blunt with the facts and that obviously rubs with people who have extensive experience and I have no more wish than you to see the red tape of Britain and Europe destroy our heritage.
35 years in aviation and ATC doesn't qualify me for anything in particular, but it has given me experience in working at every level and with the majority of the plethera of the trade, including 10 years with DC3s.

It appears that Air Alantique (AAG) have made this decision on commercial grounds, given their increasing costs and declining profit from the operation.
AAG have never operated on sentiment, it's why they've been around for so long.

If any heritage group wants to raise the cash privately to own and operate the aircraft, I have no doubt that AAG will be more than happy to do a deal on favourable terms and they'll have 100% support from all of us and the CAA.

I'm more than happy to help if I can.

Solution (which I believe would be supported in any referendum)....leave the EU and every self-indulgent, incestuous QUANGO that goes with it (viz EASA) to restore self-determination to this country's Parliament (and the CAA). A polite way of saying ...ss off Europe and mind your own business.:D

I probably should stay out of these emotional discussions because my insight into the issue is blurred by time....

.....I get all mixed up trying to decide which is best....or even which is safer....flying an airplane like the DC3 or dealing with Normal law...Alternate law ....or Direct law.

MaxReheat,
As far as I know the U.K. was and still is a sovereign country. For some reason it's democratically elected government decided to join the E.U. If the majority of the British don't like it, they should elect another government, stop complaining and get out.

There is no doubt that some of the rules coming out of Brussels are made by people who are not only technically incompetent, but arrogant with it. Professionally, I'm in the middle of a major battle in the radio field about a new rule which the whole of the industry says is disastrous, and the dirty tricks the Commission are trying to use to effectively blackmail sovereign states to accept it is almost beyond belief.

Keep the DC3 - Freedom's aeroplane!

Good job these jobsworths were not around in ww2 or we would be spraken ze non-english , :eek: or perhaps they were, and now they finally have got there revenge :E

They are not GROUNDING, they are apply pax carrying safety rules. Get it right! We must be able to carry on carrying fare paying pax on preserved acft such as the C47/DC3. Please get your fact right before you bleat, otherwise you don't help our situation. Thanks for your sentiments and support.

Or simply switch to the Scandinavian model - start up a Society whose membership dues include the opportunity to ride in the aircraft. aka Not for Hire.

BTW, Buffalo Airways still operates DC3s in scheduled passenger service out of Yellowknife, Canada.

QUOTE: "A polite way of saying ...ss off Europe and mind your own business."

I was told time and again, that the most rigid rules and some of the most stupid ones were brought into JAROPS 1 and EASA by the CAA. Certainly they are the most active and keen to regulate agency in Europe.

So: Keep ´em and leave the rest of us alone and get happy.

Marhubeng

Regrettably, no major UK political party has the courage of its conviction to actually put the option of 'getting out' to the UK population because the 'politcal chattering class' knows full well what the outcome would be - adios, adieu etc to Europe. Much of the fear of going full bore to resolve the issue is the fear of being branded, by our very influential and powerful media, as Eurosceptic/phobic as may well be the case and it is this force that the political parties fear more than its electorate' opinion. Such branding by the media wouldn't matter one iota to 'the man in the street' - all he/she would like is the opportunity to resolve the matter once and for all.

Paper Tiger & His Dudeness
 

Yup in Canukistan and other locations, they still op very well.

I did earlier suggest, just have the members fly, everyone can join a supporters club. Lets just keep them flying with people on board, that's why the heck were they built! How are you going to get modern slides etc on to a DC3, everybody up front and enjoy the escape rope!

A question, how many pax have been totaled in a preserved DC3/DH86/L749/DC4-6 over the last 20 years as against in production CL600 deritives?