Auster on a permit (Merged)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: australia
Age: 51
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheap Austers for sale!
LNS,
Bang on with the value bit. I had hoped this was the revival of the top machine, but alas its just the begining of the end now.
P.s you wont need that prop now your auster is too expensive to operate.
Bang on with the value bit. I had hoped this was the revival of the top machine, but alas its just the begining of the end now.
P.s you wont need that prop now your auster is too expensive to operate.
AAD she's already advertised on the Auster website mate. If I'm going to have the inconvenience of C of A maintenance I'm going to get a fourseater!
I've thoroughly enjoyed Annie the Auster but had always held out the hope that common sense would eventually kick in and they would go the PFA Permit route. Maybe I'll look for an Aiglet or an Autocar instead because I do like the breed.
I've thoroughly enjoyed Annie the Auster but had always held out the hope that common sense would eventually kick in and they would go the PFA Permit route. Maybe I'll look for an Aiglet or an Autocar instead because I do like the breed.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: australia
Age: 51
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LNS,
I have an Autocar available but the only problem is its 11,000 miles away in oz. Still the trip back to blighty would be fun. I would even offer to supply the in flight catering if you go for it.
I have an Autocar available but the only problem is its 11,000 miles away in oz. Still the trip back to blighty would be fun. I would even offer to supply the in flight catering if you go for it.
OAD I'm afraid I don't have the adventurous spirit of the Alex Henshaws and Amy Johnsons of this world so your Autocar, as nice as I know it is, remaisn a little too far away!!! Whatever happened to the Aiglet you sold a while ago?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: australia
Age: 51
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It ended up on an EASA CofA i would imagine! Another words it was scrapped. I hope the JPT's of this world are in this for the long haul? I certainly am and look forward to seeing the result of his dribble.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 60
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The End?
I don't think I will bother getting OI finished, this decision will probably see an awful lot of Austers being de registered and withdrawn from use.
Truly a great shame for a classic British aircraft
Bet there are a lot of fed up disappointed owners out there
?
Truly a great shame for a classic British aircraft
Bet there are a lot of fed up disappointed owners out there
?
In all fairness I don't think it's that bad at the moment. My recently completed Star Annual cost me just under £2k (including £280 to the CAA for delayed paperwork shuffling).
What is the process for rebuilding an aircraft? At what stage(s) do the CAA get involved or will they take the signature of an LAE as proof of the completion of the work? Don't forget that, like a Permit aircraft, you can do the work yourself as long as it is under the supervision of an appropriately licensed LAE. Don't forget that a lot of the "engineers" working in the industry are doing so "under supervision". Unfortunately, finding a LAE that will do this is getting harder and harder. Soon it will be impossible I fear.
What is the process for rebuilding an aircraft? At what stage(s) do the CAA get involved or will they take the signature of an LAE as proof of the completion of the work? Don't forget that, like a Permit aircraft, you can do the work yourself as long as it is under the supervision of an appropriately licensed LAE. Don't forget that a lot of the "engineers" working in the industry are doing so "under supervision". Unfortunately, finding a LAE that will do this is getting harder and harder. Soon it will be impossible I fear.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: australia
Age: 51
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
costs
I think it is the end. The requirements for a CofA already require a JAR 145 facility and god fobid you ever need to recover the thing. The other problem is type rated engineers on wood and fabric, how many are coming through the system these days?? Under the PFA this process, including recovering, mods, repair can all be carried out at home by the one inspector, no CAA surveyor or JAR145 B2 approval and so on. Who do you think pays the CAA fee for a big facility every year? Bear in mind also the removal of B and D rated engineers for engine and recovering/repair work, that was removed by the CAA this year also. Gone have the days of a engineer and owner mutually agreeing on what can be done. Under current regs an auster out of annual will require a local surveyor to clear it for a ferry flight, not as it was the engineer himself. Thaink about it carefully.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deepest Warwickshire
Age: 47
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part M surely?
Low, on the below photo, is this a Fairey prop? Sticker looks McCauley-ish. Either way, you might be able to get a transferable AD within "Euroland"
Low, on the below photo, is this a Fairey prop? Sticker looks McCauley-ish. Either way, you might be able to get a transferable AD within "Euroland"
Join Date: May 2006
Location: australia
Age: 51
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BR,
Thats a Hoffmann prop pictured not a Fairey Reed. The Auster is a J5B Autocar with a Gipsy Major 1 engine, LNS Auster has a Cirrus Minor 11a.
Nice picture though. Where was it taken?
Thats a Hoffmann prop pictured not a Fairey Reed. The Auster is a J5B Autocar with a Gipsy Major 1 engine, LNS Auster has a Cirrus Minor 11a.
Nice picture though. Where was it taken?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deepest Warwickshire
Age: 47
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update on the Auster Club website
http://www.austerclub.org/club_stuff/news.htm
Which owners wanted to remain CofA as a proportion of the total Auster ownership? "The CAA feels" is hardly quantifiable!!!
http://www.austerclub.org/club_stuff/news.htm
AIRWORTHINESS UPDATE: May 2006
The last update confirmed that under ANO Article 9A(1)(b), "the CAA shall refuse to issue a permit to fly in respect of an aircraft if it appears to the CAA that the aircraft is eligible for and ought to fly under and in accordance with a certificate of airworthiness".
Whilst circumstances have not changed, an update is necessitated following a letter to owners from the PFA.
The following statement has been issued by the CAA this week:-
SUMMARY OF THE CURRENT SITUATION REGARDING THE CERTIFICATION STATUS OF AUSTER AIRCRAFT AND OTHER ORPHAN TYPES
1. In early 2005 the CAA concluded that it was no longer appropriate to continue to take direct responsibility for the aircraft types listed in Airworthiness Notice 26 Appendix 3 in order to maintain their eligibility to hold a Certificate of Airworthiness. These are colloquially known as "orphan" types as they have no designated type certificate holder. We issued Letters to Owners/Operators 2776 and 2792 in March and May 2005 with information on the activities at that time.
2. Since May 2005 we have been working with several organisations who expressed an interest in becoming Type Responsibility Agreement (TRA) holders for some of these aircraft types. A Type Responsibility Agreement is an arrangement with the CAA by which an organisation agrees to take on a minimum continued airworthiness monitoring role. A TRA can be put in place instead of there being a type certificate holder for the type. In accordance with ICAO requirements, having a TRA in place means that the relevant type maintains its eligibility for the issue of international standard Certificates of Airworthiness to individual aircraft.
3. We expect to put four TRAs in place in the next few weeks for the following aircraft types:-
a) Auster/Beagle (except Beagle 206)
b) Beagle 206
c) Percival
d) Miles
4. While we appreciate that there are some owners who would prefer to have an opportunity to transfer to a Permit to Fly, the CAA felt that, as there were also many owners who wished to maintain the C of A status of their aircraft, the initial work should go towards putting TRAs in place to achieve the latter objective and maintain the current position.
As we anticipate that this will be achieved shortly, there will be no possibility of aircraft transferring to a Permit to Fly as the requirement in the Air Navigation Order, put simply, is that if an aircraft is eligible for a Certificate of Airworthiness it must have one.
Aircraft Certification Department, CAA, 22nd May 2006
In the event that the CAA’s negotiations fail then the permit route would become the alternative procedure. However, as we have been saying over the last year and as is clear from the above, there is no choice on offer. The suggestion in the recent PFA letter that some critical time scale is applicable and that owners must urgently choose which way to jump, is incorrect and misleading. The Auster fleet are not “EASA” aircraft, and the decision by the CAA to withdraw as the responsible body for the Type is an internal policy decision, and not directed by EASA.
Some of us have been ”witness” to this debate for over a year! One body of owners who cannot understand why anyone would not want to be on a permit, and another who for historical reasons, privilege, status, or whatever, are equally keen to retain a C of A.. The reality is that opinions are very divided and held passionately. Much of the confusion and frustration however has been unnecessary, and brought about largely as a result of poor communication.
In 2004, and before any official CAA statement, some PFA Struts were being informed that Austers were “going onto a permit”, and subsequent CAA “consultation” implied a choice might be possible. By the time some clarification was achieved the damage had been done, and the myth of choice was free to gather momentum. The current PFA attempt to frighten owners into a course of action (which doesn’t exist) with inaccurate statements is irresponsible, and for some, only acts to harden attitudes.
Another myth that exists in some circles is that the Club committee are responsible for resisting a permit, contrary to the wishes of the “majority. This is also untrue; individuals on the committee represent both standpoints, but have since last year been aware that choice was not an option, and have been equally conscious from correspondence, that owners views have been very evenly split; a fact endorsed by the CAA statement above.
Hopefully this will help to clarify the current position, and calm some fevered brows! Whatever the outcome of the CAA’s negotiations, one can’t help but assume this is just the beginning, and a long period of change lies ahead. The maintenance uncertainties outlined in the PFA letter are certainly of concern, and were addressed by the Club with the CAA last year, without it has to be said, too many answers! They are indeed of concern throughout the EU, and as the PFA Chairman himself points out in the latest magazine, huge efforts are being made by EAS on behalf of GA to tackle regulatory issues with EASA(European Air Sports is a co-ordinated representation of GA bodies). It is an interesting article which suggests that .EASA is listening, and maybe… just maybe, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Let’s hope so.
The last update confirmed that under ANO Article 9A(1)(b), "the CAA shall refuse to issue a permit to fly in respect of an aircraft if it appears to the CAA that the aircraft is eligible for and ought to fly under and in accordance with a certificate of airworthiness".
Whilst circumstances have not changed, an update is necessitated following a letter to owners from the PFA.
The following statement has been issued by the CAA this week:-
SUMMARY OF THE CURRENT SITUATION REGARDING THE CERTIFICATION STATUS OF AUSTER AIRCRAFT AND OTHER ORPHAN TYPES
1. In early 2005 the CAA concluded that it was no longer appropriate to continue to take direct responsibility for the aircraft types listed in Airworthiness Notice 26 Appendix 3 in order to maintain their eligibility to hold a Certificate of Airworthiness. These are colloquially known as "orphan" types as they have no designated type certificate holder. We issued Letters to Owners/Operators 2776 and 2792 in March and May 2005 with information on the activities at that time.
2. Since May 2005 we have been working with several organisations who expressed an interest in becoming Type Responsibility Agreement (TRA) holders for some of these aircraft types. A Type Responsibility Agreement is an arrangement with the CAA by which an organisation agrees to take on a minimum continued airworthiness monitoring role. A TRA can be put in place instead of there being a type certificate holder for the type. In accordance with ICAO requirements, having a TRA in place means that the relevant type maintains its eligibility for the issue of international standard Certificates of Airworthiness to individual aircraft.
3. We expect to put four TRAs in place in the next few weeks for the following aircraft types:-
a) Auster/Beagle (except Beagle 206)
b) Beagle 206
c) Percival
d) Miles
4. While we appreciate that there are some owners who would prefer to have an opportunity to transfer to a Permit to Fly, the CAA felt that, as there were also many owners who wished to maintain the C of A status of their aircraft, the initial work should go towards putting TRAs in place to achieve the latter objective and maintain the current position.
As we anticipate that this will be achieved shortly, there will be no possibility of aircraft transferring to a Permit to Fly as the requirement in the Air Navigation Order, put simply, is that if an aircraft is eligible for a Certificate of Airworthiness it must have one.
Aircraft Certification Department, CAA, 22nd May 2006
In the event that the CAA’s negotiations fail then the permit route would become the alternative procedure. However, as we have been saying over the last year and as is clear from the above, there is no choice on offer. The suggestion in the recent PFA letter that some critical time scale is applicable and that owners must urgently choose which way to jump, is incorrect and misleading. The Auster fleet are not “EASA” aircraft, and the decision by the CAA to withdraw as the responsible body for the Type is an internal policy decision, and not directed by EASA.
Some of us have been ”witness” to this debate for over a year! One body of owners who cannot understand why anyone would not want to be on a permit, and another who for historical reasons, privilege, status, or whatever, are equally keen to retain a C of A.. The reality is that opinions are very divided and held passionately. Much of the confusion and frustration however has been unnecessary, and brought about largely as a result of poor communication.
In 2004, and before any official CAA statement, some PFA Struts were being informed that Austers were “going onto a permit”, and subsequent CAA “consultation” implied a choice might be possible. By the time some clarification was achieved the damage had been done, and the myth of choice was free to gather momentum. The current PFA attempt to frighten owners into a course of action (which doesn’t exist) with inaccurate statements is irresponsible, and for some, only acts to harden attitudes.
Another myth that exists in some circles is that the Club committee are responsible for resisting a permit, contrary to the wishes of the “majority. This is also untrue; individuals on the committee represent both standpoints, but have since last year been aware that choice was not an option, and have been equally conscious from correspondence, that owners views have been very evenly split; a fact endorsed by the CAA statement above.
Hopefully this will help to clarify the current position, and calm some fevered brows! Whatever the outcome of the CAA’s negotiations, one can’t help but assume this is just the beginning, and a long period of change lies ahead. The maintenance uncertainties outlined in the PFA letter are certainly of concern, and were addressed by the Club with the CAA last year, without it has to be said, too many answers! They are indeed of concern throughout the EU, and as the PFA Chairman himself points out in the latest magazine, huge efforts are being made by EAS on behalf of GA to tackle regulatory issues with EASA(European Air Sports is a co-ordinated representation of GA bodies). It is an interesting article which suggests that .EASA is listening, and maybe… just maybe, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Let’s hope so.
Which owners wanted to remain CofA as a proportion of the total Auster ownership? "The CAA feels" is hardly quantifiable!!!
Regardless of what the ANO states, the CAA made an exception to it for the Condor fleet. I realise that the Condor fleet is a lot smaller than the Auster fleet but it is a factory produced C of A aeroplane. An exception has been made and surely this sets a precedent.
The key statement is "the CAA felt that, as there were also many owners who wished to maintain the C of A status of their aircraft". Who were these owners? What proportion of the fleet did they represent? Did the CAA ask the owners (surely a mailshot of max 250 isn't too onerous if it settles a very contenious issue)? If they did, I never got a letter or an email. Who purported to represent the owners? I have my suspicions and am waiting for an explanation of the above from certain parties.
BlueRobin can you pm me the contact details for Kevin Russell of the CAA please?
The key statement is "the CAA felt that, as there were also many owners who wished to maintain the C of A status of their aircraft". Who were these owners? What proportion of the fleet did they represent? Did the CAA ask the owners (surely a mailshot of max 250 isn't too onerous if it settles a very contenious issue)? If they did, I never got a letter or an email. Who purported to represent the owners? I have my suspicions and am waiting for an explanation of the above from certain parties.
BlueRobin can you pm me the contact details for Kevin Russell of the CAA please?
LS, the Condor was not an exception, the CAA sent letters to all owners, and there were no objections.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a good pub (I wish!)
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know about a prop to give better climb, cruise and speed performance, I'd just like one that doesn't deposit so many dead flies on the fuselage, prop, wings and undercarriage! Nice day yesterday so had to go flying, well one does doesn't one. An hour of playing about, an hour of washing dead flies off! Grrrr!
Not an Auster, but share a hangar with a nice example (J1? with a third sideways facing seat, and another very nice Auster undergoing an A1 rebuild).
PS the dead flies really show the effects of propwash (i.e airflow, not washing the thing). RH tractor, far more flies on the port u/c and inner wing, few on the starboard or the outer part.
Not an Auster, but share a hangar with a nice example (J1? with a third sideways facing seat, and another very nice Auster undergoing an A1 rebuild).
PS the dead flies really show the effects of propwash (i.e airflow, not washing the thing). RH tractor, far more flies on the port u/c and inner wing, few on the starboard or the outer part.
TD&H lucky you to get flying yesterday.
Sounds like a J1 with the third seat. My third seat is on top of the locker in the hangar. I would need assistance from the curvature of the Earth to get off the ground three up with fuel even though it would be within the MTOW!
My prop must be a LH tractor as the starboard wing leading edge of the Auster is the one covered in dead bugs and 60 years worth of dents! It's also where they put the wind driven genny when one is fitted.
Sounds like a J1 with the third seat. My third seat is on top of the locker in the hangar. I would need assistance from the curvature of the Earth to get off the ground three up with fuel even though it would be within the MTOW!
My prop must be a LH tractor as the starboard wing leading edge of the Auster is the one covered in dead bugs and 60 years worth of dents! It's also where they put the wind driven genny when one is fitted.
Crouqueteer I meant that the Condors were an exception to the ANO requirement mentioned in BlueRobin's post:
"As we anticipate that this will be achieved shortly, there will be no possibility of aircraft transferring to a Permit to Fly as the requirement in the Air Navigation Order, put simply, is that if an aircraft is eligible for a Certificate of Airworthiness it must have one."
My point was that if they can make an exception to the ANO for one aircraft type then it could be done for another.
"As we anticipate that this will be achieved shortly, there will be no possibility of aircraft transferring to a Permit to Fly as the requirement in the Air Navigation Order, put simply, is that if an aircraft is eligible for a Certificate of Airworthiness it must have one."
My point was that if they can make an exception to the ANO for one aircraft type then it could be done for another.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Swindon, Wilts,UK
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm Probably wrong about this but weren't Condors and ARV's supplied as Kit Build as well as being a C of A aircraft? This sets a precident which allows an easier move. Whereas Austers have always been C of A only, despite a few which somehow slipped onto PFA permit. I'd like to know what's happening, having put an awful lot of effort into our old Girl it all now looks to be in vain
Windy M I think you are right about the ARV's but I seem to recall that the Condors were only ever available as complete aircraft.
What stage of completion is your "old Girl" at. Surely it'll be worth finishing off?????
What stage of completion is your "old Girl" at. Surely it'll be worth finishing off?????
Last edited by LowNSlow; 31st May 2006 at 07:41.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a good pub (I wish!)
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't read all the posts here, so forgive if it's already been discussed. However, are there Austers in the rest of EASA land? What schemes do they operate under? No experience or knowledge of the equivalent of permits in other European countries, but how are Austers regarded the shores of Blighty? Is there any chance of showing they have them under none CofA schemes that could help act as a precedent?