EASA death knell for UK gliding - what next?
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if some crumb of comfort may be drawn from developments in the Mode S saga, where there appear to be promising indications of exemptions for grass-roots aircraft. I mention this because there was much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth when it was thought that PFA types would be burdened by heavy and/or expensive transponding kit, but now it appears that things will not be so bad. At present, the future of glider regulation looks as though it may be beset by excessive complication, but perhaps the BGA will be able to hammer out a sensible deal.
I'm not (yet) a glider pilot, but hope to remedy this character defect soon. This subject is interesting, both from the general regulatory aspect, and from my selfish interest in (hopefullY) participating in gliding, so I'll be curious to see how things turn out.
I'm not (yet) a glider pilot, but hope to remedy this character defect soon. This subject is interesting, both from the general regulatory aspect, and from my selfish interest in (hopefullY) participating in gliding, so I'll be curious to see how things turn out.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We sometimes see EU regulations as a plot to get at the UK. Surely this regulation would affect gliding thoughout Europe.
This would include, as bluskis has said, Germany, where gliding and the manufacture of gliders is taken very seriously.
It's not just the BGA who will be involved in sorting this.
This would include, as bluskis has said, Germany, where gliding and the manufacture of gliders is taken very seriously.
It's not just the BGA who will be involved in sorting this.
I thank that you're missing some history here.
Since 1948, when a small group from the BGA led I believe by Anne Welch persuaded Lord Brabazon (aviation minister at the time) that the BGA was a competent organisation who wouldn't benefit from state interference, we've had a system in the UK where the BGA has done it's own thing. In the 55 years since, it would be far to say that Lord Brabazon's decision was proved a sound one.
Alternatively since the war, Western mainland Europe (for example France and Spain, the new controlling force in the EU) have tended more towards socialist-style state control of all things aviation than we brits have. One consequence of this was that gliders have been brought into the CofA system, along with light aircraft.
Come EASA, the core European countries like France and Germany got the casting vote - so we're doing it their way.
Now, let's be fair and say that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the German way of dealing with gliders. The problem isn't with that, it's with the approach of forcing a 2,500 (or thereabouts) strong British glider fleet to be shoehorned into a system that they and their paperwork have never had to meet. So we are looking at a massive programme to fit in with requirements for licensed engineer maintenance, use of certified instruments, etc. which they've never had to meet. This will be a monstrous undertaking.
So, the Germans have no particular problem. The French have no particular problem. It's the Brits who have done things in a different way for 55 years who have a problem.
The converse interestingly is true of microlights. If microlights came under EASA regulation, there wouldn't be much of a problem so far as the Brits are concerned, it would just be a mild change to what's been going on here since about 1980. But France, for example, has never had state safety regulation of microlights (it's interesting to compare the UK and French microlight accident rates in the current GASIL by the way), and would be brought to a standstill if EASA forced them to meet UK level regs (which are still well below CofA standards).
I'm not offering a solution I hasten to add, other than possibly to get our own back on the French and Germans by saying that microlights should be EASA regulated, just explaining how we got to this mess.
G
Since 1948, when a small group from the BGA led I believe by Anne Welch persuaded Lord Brabazon (aviation minister at the time) that the BGA was a competent organisation who wouldn't benefit from state interference, we've had a system in the UK where the BGA has done it's own thing. In the 55 years since, it would be far to say that Lord Brabazon's decision was proved a sound one.
Alternatively since the war, Western mainland Europe (for example France and Spain, the new controlling force in the EU) have tended more towards socialist-style state control of all things aviation than we brits have. One consequence of this was that gliders have been brought into the CofA system, along with light aircraft.
Come EASA, the core European countries like France and Germany got the casting vote - so we're doing it their way.
Now, let's be fair and say that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the German way of dealing with gliders. The problem isn't with that, it's with the approach of forcing a 2,500 (or thereabouts) strong British glider fleet to be shoehorned into a system that they and their paperwork have never had to meet. So we are looking at a massive programme to fit in with requirements for licensed engineer maintenance, use of certified instruments, etc. which they've never had to meet. This will be a monstrous undertaking.
So, the Germans have no particular problem. The French have no particular problem. It's the Brits who have done things in a different way for 55 years who have a problem.
The converse interestingly is true of microlights. If microlights came under EASA regulation, there wouldn't be much of a problem so far as the Brits are concerned, it would just be a mild change to what's been going on here since about 1980. But France, for example, has never had state safety regulation of microlights (it's interesting to compare the UK and French microlight accident rates in the current GASIL by the way), and would be brought to a standstill if EASA forced them to meet UK level regs (which are still well below CofA standards).
I'm not offering a solution I hasten to add, other than possibly to get our own back on the French and Germans by saying that microlights should be EASA regulated, just explaining how we got to this mess.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you all may have guessed I'm certainly not a happy bunny about the whole EASA thing. I habitually fly old, wooden gliders, mainly made by Slingsby but as far as I can see they won't qualify with the strict wording of Annex II.
Slingsby went out of building gliders years ago and want nothing to do with them these days. Most of their design work went up in flames in a factory fire, so I don't know how these aircraft can ever become CAA approved types, despite having flown entirely satisfactorily for 40 - 50 years.
Many gliders (especially the older ones) contain BGA approved modifications will become "disapproved" by EASA as the BGA is not the original manufacturer or a "national" agency.
So come 2007 unless things change, I can see a lot of the UK's older UK built gliders being declared officially unflyable.
If that happens, I'm going to burn mine as close to 10 Downing Street as I can get.
And Mr A Blair wants to sign us up for the EU constitution?????????
Slingsby went out of building gliders years ago and want nothing to do with them these days. Most of their design work went up in flames in a factory fire, so I don't know how these aircraft can ever become CAA approved types, despite having flown entirely satisfactorily for 40 - 50 years.
Many gliders (especially the older ones) contain BGA approved modifications will become "disapproved" by EASA as the BGA is not the original manufacturer or a "national" agency.
So come 2007 unless things change, I can see a lot of the UK's older UK built gliders being declared officially unflyable.
If that happens, I'm going to burn mine as close to 10 Downing Street as I can get.
And Mr A Blair wants to sign us up for the EU constitution?????????
This got me interested (which is more than my monday morning in-tray has so far).
There's a nice directory of old Slingsby gliders and there specifications here
They all potentially fit into the microlight definition, which does come under Annex II. I seriously think that your best bet Astir would be to give the BMAA a call and see if they can put your aircraft onto microlight permits, the do have a system for doing this with old aeroplanes it might be amenable to keeping you out of EASA's clutches. Try Emailing their Engineering department on [email protected] and see what they say?
Incidentally, Annex II, for those who haven't read it, is on the CAA's website here . (pdf, 2 pages).
G
Not a good European either
There's a nice directory of old Slingsby gliders and there specifications here
They all potentially fit into the microlight definition, which does come under Annex II. I seriously think that your best bet Astir would be to give the BMAA a call and see if they can put your aircraft onto microlight permits, the do have a system for doing this with old aeroplanes it might be amenable to keeping you out of EASA's clutches. Try Emailing their Engineering department on [email protected] and see what they say?
Incidentally, Annex II, for those who haven't read it, is on the CAA's website here . (pdf, 2 pages).
G
Not a good European either
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now there's an interesting question - to which I suspect nobody knows the answer at the moment.
But, given I think there's only a 10 hour upgrade from silver-C to NPPL(M), or "differences training" for a JAR-PPL(SEP) holder, it's hard to think of any option there that is more painful than having to obtain a JAR-PPL(G), which I'd guess probably doesn't exist yet - or getting an ICAO compliance CofA on a Kirby Cadet !
P
But, given I think there's only a 10 hour upgrade from silver-C to NPPL(M), or "differences training" for a JAR-PPL(SEP) holder, it's hard to think of any option there that is more painful than having to obtain a JAR-PPL(G), which I'd guess probably doesn't exist yet - or getting an ICAO compliance CofA on a Kirby Cadet !
P
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis
by microlight do you mean Annex II - Single seat max gross 300 kg, 2 seat max 450 kg?
And that includes the pilot(s) doesn't it? I'd love to be wrong though.
The trouble is, on a personal basis - me (bare) 92 kg, clothes 2 kg parachute 7 kg, water & sarnies 1 kg = 103 kg near enough.
And that excellent website sailplanesdirectory.com says that my main single seat aircraft's (Slingsby Skylark 4) empty mass is 272 kg. 18 metre wings made of wood are not light! So no 300 kg AUW for me - and most single seat glass gliders are not significantly lighter.
My favourite 2 seater (T21 Sedbergh) is 256 kg empty (struts allow much lighter wings and the span is less). So me + T21 = 373 kg. OK I could make sure that the other pilots are less than 77 kg (fly with small females only!) but a lot of males that I fly with are heavier!
And the ASK13, which must be the most heavily used 2 seat trainer used in the UK is 290 kg empty - so only 57 kg pupils for me?
so I don't think the microlight route would work - but please correct me if I'm wrong
by microlight do you mean Annex II - Single seat max gross 300 kg, 2 seat max 450 kg?
And that includes the pilot(s) doesn't it? I'd love to be wrong though.
The trouble is, on a personal basis - me (bare) 92 kg, clothes 2 kg parachute 7 kg, water & sarnies 1 kg = 103 kg near enough.
And that excellent website sailplanesdirectory.com says that my main single seat aircraft's (Slingsby Skylark 4) empty mass is 272 kg. 18 metre wings made of wood are not light! So no 300 kg AUW for me - and most single seat glass gliders are not significantly lighter.
My favourite 2 seater (T21 Sedbergh) is 256 kg empty (struts allow much lighter wings and the span is less). So me + T21 = 373 kg. OK I could make sure that the other pilots are less than 77 kg (fly with small females only!) but a lot of males that I fly with are heavier!
And the ASK13, which must be the most heavily used 2 seat trainer used in the UK is 290 kg empty - so only 57 kg pupils for me?
so I don't think the microlight route would work - but please correct me if I'm wrong
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA Regs
Sorry Astir
I don't think anyone has really thought through any of the 'dark corners' of the regs, esp the weight limits of gliders
As the EASA are based primarily on French rules, and originally only concerned with Airbus certification - BGA rules never entered into their heads
Your point about the effect on pilot licencing is a good one - again, I would doubt the team working on aircraft type rules even knew there was a pilot licencing issue
I have had a very fraught and angry correspondence with reps in the EU asking how it was they could have approved such half-baked ideas without having undertaken an impact analysis on those affected.
Not surprisingly, our bureaucrats have no idea and keep spouting a load of BS about how it will benefit us all in the end.
Given that our beloved Duke of Edinburgh is the patron of the BGA and is noted for his diplomatic skills, esp with jobsworths, why isn't he asked to have a word with some of the 'crats'
I don't think anyone has really thought through any of the 'dark corners' of the regs, esp the weight limits of gliders
As the EASA are based primarily on French rules, and originally only concerned with Airbus certification - BGA rules never entered into their heads
Your point about the effect on pilot licencing is a good one - again, I would doubt the team working on aircraft type rules even knew there was a pilot licencing issue
I have had a very fraught and angry correspondence with reps in the EU asking how it was they could have approved such half-baked ideas without having undertaken an impact analysis on those affected.
Not surprisingly, our bureaucrats have no idea and keep spouting a load of BS about how it will benefit us all in the end.
Given that our beloved Duke of Edinburgh is the patron of the BGA and is noted for his diplomatic skills, esp with jobsworths, why isn't he asked to have a word with some of the 'crats'
It's not going to be a universal panacea, but, assuming that the numbers in that website are right...
T21B has an empty weight of 272kg, and an MTOW of 476kg.
To meet the microlight definition, that MTOW would have to come down to 450kg, which means a useable payload of 178. Subtract your 103kg (can you go high enough in a T21 to use a chute?) and we get a remainder of 75kg. Allow 9kg for their chute and clothing and you are restricted to pax under 10½ stone nude weight, which isn't too bad.
(The MTOW of a 2-seater flown solo is still 450kg by the way).
I have to agree, at 272kg empty weight, the Skylark 4 looks like a lost case, but the Skylark 2 at 109kg empty is probably viable.
Looking up the ASK-13 on the same website it shows an empty weight of 290kg as you say, and an MTOW of 480kg. Restrict that to 450kg and you have 80 kg per seat available - that's probably a problem with the basic regulations, since microlight rules normally require at-least 86kg capacity per seat. Also the microlight definition needs a stall speed under 35 knots, which the ASK-13 doesn't seem to meet.
Probably not a universal panacea then, but if it keeps a fair number of aircraft out of EASA's clutches, it may be worth the effort of working out which ones and asking the right questions.
G
T21B has an empty weight of 272kg, and an MTOW of 476kg.
To meet the microlight definition, that MTOW would have to come down to 450kg, which means a useable payload of 178. Subtract your 103kg (can you go high enough in a T21 to use a chute?) and we get a remainder of 75kg. Allow 9kg for their chute and clothing and you are restricted to pax under 10½ stone nude weight, which isn't too bad.
(The MTOW of a 2-seater flown solo is still 450kg by the way).
I have to agree, at 272kg empty weight, the Skylark 4 looks like a lost case, but the Skylark 2 at 109kg empty is probably viable.
Looking up the ASK-13 on the same website it shows an empty weight of 290kg as you say, and an MTOW of 480kg. Restrict that to 450kg and you have 80 kg per seat available - that's probably a problem with the basic regulations, since microlight rules normally require at-least 86kg capacity per seat. Also the microlight definition needs a stall speed under 35 knots, which the ASK-13 doesn't seem to meet.
Probably not a universal panacea then, but if it keeps a fair number of aircraft out of EASA's clutches, it may be worth the effort of working out which ones and asking the right questions.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ta Genghis - it confirms my fears re the weight limits.
PS max I ever did in a T21 was 6500' - even in midsummer it was 'kin cold (both pilots wearing shorts!). And the flight previous to that had been 5400'
So parachutes could be handy in such circumstances - especially since the visibility in tight thermals with that wing like a shelf over your head ain't great
The Skylark 2 was infinitely smaller than the 4 - about 4 metres less wingspan - hence the lower weight.
A K13 with me in the back seat is getting fairly stalled at about 37 knots, as is the Skylark. A T21 can still be flying in the high 20's!
PS max I ever did in a T21 was 6500' - even in midsummer it was 'kin cold (both pilots wearing shorts!). And the flight previous to that had been 5400'
So parachutes could be handy in such circumstances - especially since the visibility in tight thermals with that wing like a shelf over your head ain't great
The Skylark 2 was infinitely smaller than the 4 - about 4 metres less wingspan - hence the lower weight.
A K13 with me in the back seat is getting fairly stalled at about 37 knots, as is the Skylark. A T21 can still be flying in the high 20's!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the BGA manages the UK fleet under a delegation from the CAA, what's wrong with the CAA taking it over per se so that it's covered by national body as elsewhere? Similarly, what's wrong with the licencing of existing glider maintenance organisations?
I can't really see the point of some of the later arguments, the ASK-13 is after all a German design, so what's the issue?
Finally, isn't it really about time that glider pilots in the UK held licences, as per microlights/NPPL? Surely it would help when gliding overseas, especially in France where they're reluctant to accept the BGA certification (wasn't this the reason for the BGA themselves creating a glider pilot's licence a few years back). For once we could have all pilots in the UK with a common minimum groundschool and that can only be good for safety.
140
I can't really see the point of some of the later arguments, the ASK-13 is after all a German design, so what's the issue?
Finally, isn't it really about time that glider pilots in the UK held licences, as per microlights/NPPL? Surely it would help when gliding overseas, especially in France where they're reluctant to accept the BGA certification (wasn't this the reason for the BGA themselves creating a glider pilot's licence a few years back). For once we could have all pilots in the UK with a common minimum groundschool and that can only be good for safety.
140
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA Regs
140 Cherokee
Oh- you innocent person, you!!!!!!
Where does one start to answer such a question.
If you assume that authorities have your best interests at heart, that is a good way of looking at the world
However, we, in gliding, have worked hard over the years to provide a safe, well-regulated system which works at minimum cost.
EASA is about to hand us over to organisations looking for new sources of funding and who do not know, or care about the way the BGA works - and for no very good reason. Certainly it is not going to benefit us
As for the CAA, they don't want to know about BGA aircraft - and they will be looking to us to fund the increase in staffing they will need to take on the role the BGA has been doing so well for so long
If you have not come across the history of the BGA, thinking that we don't matter and are unsafe compared to PPLs- the BGA has been in the forefront of fighting unnecessary airspace and flying regs since the 1950s.
No - leave us well alone.
Oh- you innocent person, you!!!!!!
Where does one start to answer such a question.
If you assume that authorities have your best interests at heart, that is a good way of looking at the world
However, we, in gliding, have worked hard over the years to provide a safe, well-regulated system which works at minimum cost.
EASA is about to hand us over to organisations looking for new sources of funding and who do not know, or care about the way the BGA works - and for no very good reason. Certainly it is not going to benefit us
As for the CAA, they don't want to know about BGA aircraft - and they will be looking to us to fund the increase in staffing they will need to take on the role the BGA has been doing so well for so long
If you have not come across the history of the BGA, thinking that we don't matter and are unsafe compared to PPLs- the BGA has been in the forefront of fighting unnecessary airspace and flying regs since the 1950s.
No - leave us well alone.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't see what the problem is. Motor gliders are currently managed by the CAA. The majority of new gliders produced in Germany are equipped with engines so will come directly under the CAA rather than the BGA anyway. The BGA will continue as a representative body like the PFA, AOPA, etc.
The only things that will change would be licencing (why resist a move towards NPPL, surely it's beneficial and allows easier transition to other airsports and access to SEP) and probably costs (but flying has never been cheap).
I don't believe EASA will be the death knell for UK gliding. It will change, that's all. By the way, I'm a glider pilot as well as a PPL.
140
The only things that will change would be licencing (why resist a move towards NPPL, surely it's beneficial and allows easier transition to other airsports and access to SEP) and probably costs (but flying has never been cheap).
I don't believe EASA will be the death knell for UK gliding. It will change, that's all. By the way, I'm a glider pilot as well as a PPL.
140
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chero
You're quite right - UK gliding is going to change- and for the worse.
Certainly costs are going to go up significantly. OK there are some people for whom cost doesn't seem to be a factor in gliding (step forward members of Booker, Dunstable & Lasham for an aerotow in their ASW 28's!) but there are an awful lot of smaller low cost clubs with older gliders maintained by the members who are going to be wiped out by EASA.
You're quite right - UK gliding is going to change- and for the worse.
Certainly costs are going to go up significantly. OK there are some people for whom cost doesn't seem to be a factor in gliding (step forward members of Booker, Dunstable & Lasham for an aerotow in their ASW 28's!) but there are an awful lot of smaller low cost clubs with older gliders maintained by the members who are going to be wiped out by EASA.
It's not, IMHO, the adoption of a German-style CofA for gliders system that's damaging, it's the transition.
The costs are in trying to make 2,500 British gliders meet international CofA requirements that they've never had to (and from a pure safety argument, don't need to).
Those that survive the transition will by about 2010 wonder what all the fuss was about. Those who survive...
G
The costs are in trying to make 2,500 British gliders meet international CofA requirements that they've never had to (and from a pure safety argument, don't need to).
Those that survive the transition will by about 2010 wonder what all the fuss was about. Those who survive...
G
sua cuique voluptas
In the ballooning world we are also facing the loss of privilege that has worked well for over 30 years. The total farce of trying to minimise the damage from an unelected organisation that doesn't even know what it's own rules are are frustrating in the extreme.
At the moment (although this is the unlikely end result) it looks as if only the two UK manufacturers of hot air balloons will be able to recertify/renew the C of A annual on approved premises with the correct lighting etc. That would mean every G reg balloon having to be transported to one of the two factories instead of having "a brief inspection in a muddy field once a year". (That's an ironic statement, BTW, as the inspection regime under delegation from the CAA to the BBAC is one of the systems that works so well at little expense for the private owner, which is probably one reason why it's under attack).
It doesn't help that there has never been a case of structural failure in flight (or an accident caused by one) in over 30 years, so a working, documented system with an exemplarary safety record is being rolled over in favour of an EU beaurocracy that can't even tell the CAA what its own rules are.
Like gliders, balloons should never have "been allowed" to be part of this: unfortunately the grandfather rights are being extinguished without appeal.
It looks as if buying a paramotor will be the answer - no licence etc. That's one that seems to have got away!
I LIKE the idea of a mass trailer protest. As a Silver-C holder I know how long they are, but you'd not be suprised at the log-jam effect that a few hundred balloon trailers could create!
It is interesting to muse that the main reason that new forms of recreational flying have evolved over the years to counter ever increasing regulation and expense....
Ripline
At the moment (although this is the unlikely end result) it looks as if only the two UK manufacturers of hot air balloons will be able to recertify/renew the C of A annual on approved premises with the correct lighting etc. That would mean every G reg balloon having to be transported to one of the two factories instead of having "a brief inspection in a muddy field once a year". (That's an ironic statement, BTW, as the inspection regime under delegation from the CAA to the BBAC is one of the systems that works so well at little expense for the private owner, which is probably one reason why it's under attack).
It doesn't help that there has never been a case of structural failure in flight (or an accident caused by one) in over 30 years, so a working, documented system with an exemplarary safety record is being rolled over in favour of an EU beaurocracy that can't even tell the CAA what its own rules are.
Like gliders, balloons should never have "been allowed" to be part of this: unfortunately the grandfather rights are being extinguished without appeal.
It looks as if buying a paramotor will be the answer - no licence etc. That's one that seems to have got away!
I LIKE the idea of a mass trailer protest. As a Silver-C holder I know how long they are, but you'd not be suprised at the log-jam effect that a few hundred balloon trailers could create!
It is interesting to muse that the main reason that new forms of recreational flying have evolved over the years to counter ever increasing regulation and expense....
Ripline
