Auster on a permit (Merged)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Auster on a permit
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Forgive me if this topic has been raised before, but could someone please explain to me (in simple ex-mil aircrew language) the position with aircraft going on to the PFA register?
I have been informed that my Auster T7 (now a Terrier 2) will no longer have a C of A, but will have a Permit to Fly.
Are there any disadvantages to having a permit over a C of A?
What are the good points and what are the bad points?
Many thanks and kind regards to all
The swinging Monkey
Forgive me if this topic has been raised before, but could someone please explain to me (in simple ex-mil aircrew language) the position with aircraft going on to the PFA register?
I have been informed that my Auster T7 (now a Terrier 2) will no longer have a C of A, but will have a Permit to Fly.
Are there any disadvantages to having a permit over a C of A?
What are the good points and what are the bad points?
Many thanks and kind regards to all
The swinging Monkey
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Somewhere in England.
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally off the top of my head (and I'm open to correction) I understand that you'll derive these advantages from having a Permit to Fly as opposed to a C of A:
Cheaper maintenance. You can do more of it yourself.
No requirement to fit TSO'd parts.
Less restrictive regulatory regime.
Disadvantages:
No IMC flying.
No Night flying.
No hiring the aircraft out.
Permission required for international flights. (Note though that some regulatory authorities have issued a blanket approval for Permit aircraft to fly in their airspace. I understand at one time that the French were happy for homebuilt Permit aircraft to fly in their airspace, but they were not prepared to have professionally built aircraft, now operated on Permit, fly in France at all. I don't know if that remains the case. The PFA should be able to advise).
I can't think of anything else at the mo'.
Cheaper maintenance. You can do more of it yourself.
No requirement to fit TSO'd parts.
Less restrictive regulatory regime.
Disadvantages:
No IMC flying.
No Night flying.
No hiring the aircraft out.
Permission required for international flights. (Note though that some regulatory authorities have issued a blanket approval for Permit aircraft to fly in their airspace. I understand at one time that the French were happy for homebuilt Permit aircraft to fly in their airspace, but they were not prepared to have professionally built aircraft, now operated on Permit, fly in France at all. I don't know if that remains the case. The PFA should be able to advise).
I can't think of anything else at the mo'.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ashwell, U.K.
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There may be some confusion here as the Auster, I believe, is on the list of non-EASA types as contained in CAP 747. This means it will stay with the CAA but I didn't think it had been sorted yet as to whether it will be on a Permit or a C of A. We have the same problem with the Airtourer and Concorde is on the same list so you're in good company. Only positive is it will be non-EASA.
pronto you missed the one about no flight over congested areas.
TSM I would love to put my Autocrat on a PFA Permit but have been led to believe that I can't.
TSM I would love to put my Autocrat on a PFA Permit but have been led to believe that I can't.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low and Slow, I am informed that this ruling applies to ALL Austers, irrespective of whether they were built by Auster, Taylorcraft or Beagle.
I regret that I am a little ignorant of all the pros and cons, and would greatly appreciate any comments on the matter.
Is the general feeling that a Permit is Better/Cheaper/Easier than a C of A?
Kind regards to all
TSM
I regret that I am a little ignorant of all the pros and cons, and would greatly appreciate any comments on the matter.
Is the general feeling that a Permit is Better/Cheaper/Easier than a C of A?
Kind regards to all
TSM
TSM if you use an engineer to do the work on your aircraft then the cost difference between a PFA Permit and a Private C of A is insignificant. However, if you can do the work yourself (with the assistance of a friendly engineer if necessary) then you can reduce your costs significantly. It also removes the future requirement to have your aircraft at an M3 licensed establishment to do the Star Annual.
Personally I'd be glad to have my Auster on a PFA Permit as my Cub used to be. If nothing else it would probably increase the value as Austers have been traditionally seen as "expensive" to maintain because they weren't on a Permit.
I would not want to be on a C of A Permit as I have heard that this is onerously expensive but have no details as to why this should be.
What is the timescale for this changeover? Have you heard anything from the CAA?
Personally I'd be glad to have my Auster on a PFA Permit as my Cub used to be. If nothing else it would probably increase the value as Austers have been traditionally seen as "expensive" to maintain because they weren't on a Permit.
I would not want to be on a C of A Permit as I have heard that this is onerously expensive but have no details as to why this should be.
What is the timescale for this changeover? Have you heard anything from the CAA?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article 9A of the ANO
Various reasons why an aircraft may not be eligible for a C of A (non-compliance with the Type Certificate probably being the major one, as in the case of the Ex-Mil Gazelles)
(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.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graham Newby, CEO of the PFA has posted this on the PFA site:-
Can't help feeling this is slightly odd logic on his part. If their airworthiness is to remain the responsibility of the National Authority as detailed in CAP 747 then what has "Under EASA" have to do with it? Still we shall see.......
Mike
Under EASA, TC holders must also be able to support the type, therefore, the types that the CAA hold the TC for, which includes Austers, will probably go onto an EASA permit as they obviously cannot give support. We are waiting for confirmation from the Authority.
Mike
Well that begs the obvious question: what's an EASA Permit?
I suppose the process to change from a UK C of A to an EASA Permit will be a well thought out straightforward process like everything else that has been issued by them?
I suppose the process to change from a UK C of A to an EASA Permit will be a well thought out straightforward process like everything else that has been issued by them?
An EASA Permit is the document that is being used in EASA for aircraft not holding a CofA or delegated to national authorities (that is, Annex II aircraft).
It has replaced A and B conditions for what would otherwise be CofA aeroplanes. In other words - post maintenance and experimental flight testing and ferry flights. If it's also being used for aircraft that for some obscure reason aren't Annex II but don't hold a CofA that makes some kind of sense.
I believe that the EASA permit was launched on them at very short notice, has caused some considerable difficulty to our friends at CAA who are running around desperately trying to keep many aeroplanes in the air. Personally I think that in the long run they'd do everybody a favour by not trying to paper over the cracks of EASA and showing everybody what a mess this is more clearly than they have.
G
It has replaced A and B conditions for what would otherwise be CofA aeroplanes. In other words - post maintenance and experimental flight testing and ferry flights. If it's also being used for aircraft that for some obscure reason aren't Annex II but don't hold a CofA that makes some kind of sense.
I believe that the EASA permit was launched on them at very short notice, has caused some considerable difficulty to our friends at CAA who are running around desperately trying to keep many aeroplanes in the air. Personally I think that in the long run they'd do everybody a favour by not trying to paper over the cracks of EASA and showing everybody what a mess this is more clearly than they have.
G
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ashwell, U.K.
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I refer to my earlier note that if your aircraft is in CAP 747 then it will NOT be "supervised" by EASA. I believe the CAA have been a bit caught out as they thought they were getting "penny packets" of aircraft but were surprised when about 400 De Havilland aircraft turned up on their doorstep. If the PFA want to bung them all back to EASA then if you have an EASA approved engine e.g Lycoming or Continental then if it's over TBO or 12 years then you have a very nice boat anchor!! If the CAA manage to re-write AWN 35 then you might have a sporting chance as long as the CAA administer your aircraft. Hurrah for Europe...not
Here's hoping that the PFA and CAA take on the Auster family then as my engine is 58 years old! Even though it was rebuilt by Norvic 13 years ago it will still become a "boat anchor" under EASA. To echo ozplane Vive l'Europe...not.
I have just received a letter from the CAA stating that, as of 1st April 2006 my Auster is to be placed on a Permit unless an organisation takes over Type Responsibility.
I await clarification if the Permit is to be a CAA Permit (no thanks) or a PFA Permit (yes please).
Anybody else heard from the CAA yet?
I await clarification if the Permit is to be a CAA Permit (no thanks) or a PFA Permit (yes please).
Anybody else heard from the CAA yet?
I have been informed today that ALL Austers will either be put on a C of A (some lucky ones are currently on a PFA Permit) or will be put on a PFA Permit. As stated before, the decision is to be made by 1st April 2006.
Apparently there is some resistance within the Auster community to the move to the PFA Permit as they use the aircraft for pleasure flights, training or, rarely, for IMC / night flying. However, the people who have managed to get their Austers onto a PFA Permit in the past are going to have a terrible job getting them onto a C of A due to having non-approved parts fitted etc etc. Hopefully the majority will be like me who only use the bird for pleasure flights and we will get the opportunity to go onto the Permit.
Apparently there is some resistance within the Auster community to the move to the PFA Permit as they use the aircraft for pleasure flights, training or, rarely, for IMC / night flying. However, the people who have managed to get their Austers onto a PFA Permit in the past are going to have a terrible job getting them onto a C of A due to having non-approved parts fitted etc etc. Hopefully the majority will be like me who only use the bird for pleasure flights and we will get the opportunity to go onto the Permit.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Down the field!
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How strict is the CAA / PFA regarding flying over settlements? Whenever I’ve been fly with passengers, they’ve always wanted to see their house, and fly over the city to see the Cathedral! Indeed flying over fields can be fun, but I think flying on a permit without technically breaking the law is very difficult. I for one often use town and settlements for navigation. As some of you know, I’m still very new to the world of Austers, and owning my own aircraft (or at least having a share in it), but I can’t see the big advantage of being on the PFA? I have spoken to people who tell me it will become cheaper to run, but then there are others who say that overall it will make little difference on the operating costs. I for one am no engineer, and I think that whatever way the CAA go, our group will be paying an engineer to do any work that is required.
I just find it ludicrous that for 60 years an aircraft is safe to fly pretty much wherever it wants with 4 people in it… Then, overnight it’s restricted to flying over open fields with no more than two people in it. Mr CAA… where’s the logic in that please… Sir!
I can see choppy waters ahead!
LnS... Thanks for the PM... No problem, I know that you mean! We'll talk soon!!!
I just find it ludicrous that for 60 years an aircraft is safe to fly pretty much wherever it wants with 4 people in it… Then, overnight it’s restricted to flying over open fields with no more than two people in it. Mr CAA… where’s the logic in that please… Sir!
I can see choppy waters ahead!
LnS... Thanks for the PM... No problem, I know that you mean! We'll talk soon!!!
Will the Austers be relegated to 2 seats? I would have thought that, now the PFA is approving 4 seaters like the Jabiru etc, that they would approve 4 seat Austers, Jodels etc also. Mine is a 2 seater anyway as the third seat is sitting on top of my cupboard in the hangar!
I would suggest that if you are specifically going to fly to see a house, cathedral or other building located within a town then it would be better to hire an aeroplane for the purpose. Not ideal I know but realistically, how often do you NEED to fly over a town rather tha skirt around it?
I would suggest that if you are specifically going to fly to see a house, cathedral or other building located within a town then it would be better to hire an aeroplane for the purpose. Not ideal I know but realistically, how often do you NEED to fly over a town rather tha skirt around it?