IMC/Night for Permit types: Time for a change
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its all in the mind(set)
Having flown permit and certified on both sides of the Atlantic I can tell you that the US system of allowing night and IMC for permit aircraft works well provided it is interpreted sensibly.
Factors getting in the way of this are - generally worse Wx over here, very limited range of night flying destinations over here and higher population density over here i:e you are more likely to hurt someone on the ground if you mess up.
I agree with a previous poster - there is a huge chasm of difference between ascending/descending through a couple of thousand feet of warm stratus to get on top and flying in solid IMC/icing having departed into windy OVC 0200 and landing into the same.
IMHO the best way is to continue with the current system, i:e loosely interpreted VFR for permit aircraft, the minute the CAA get involved the price will become astronomical, the aircraft will weigh a ton and you will be wishing you had never asked for it - after all if you do mess it all up in IMC the chances are you are not going to be around to face the music, so why do you need it to be legal?
SB
Factors getting in the way of this are - generally worse Wx over here, very limited range of night flying destinations over here and higher population density over here i:e you are more likely to hurt someone on the ground if you mess up.
I agree with a previous poster - there is a huge chasm of difference between ascending/descending through a couple of thousand feet of warm stratus to get on top and flying in solid IMC/icing having departed into windy OVC 0200 and landing into the same.
IMHO the best way is to continue with the current system, i:e loosely interpreted VFR for permit aircraft, the minute the CAA get involved the price will become astronomical, the aircraft will weigh a ton and you will be wishing you had never asked for it - after all if you do mess it all up in IMC the chances are you are not going to be around to face the music, so why do you need it to be legal?
SB
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540,
I generally find I agree with your approach to flying matters, but your last post on this thread does need some response.
1. The CAA is the sole authority on limitations on UK permit aircraft. Not only does the CAA have unfettered rights under the ANO to set such limitations as it thinks fit, but EASA specifically has no authority, at least at present, on Annex II aircraft, which include all home built aircraft.
2. The 1980 ECAC Protocol specifically enables home built aircraft of any signiture country free access to all others. Whilst politics being what it is, not all European countries signed it, and inevitably, it is being interpreted slightly differently where it has been signed, particularly in relation to microlights. Nevertheless, for Group A homebuilts, free coming and going without prior permission of UK aircraft is welcomed by Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Holland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Malta - (just some examples). Some others, eg Norway, Spain, Portugal, require prenotification a couple of days before by fax of Permit and Insurance, response always having been positive.
Standing out is Belgium, that centre of EU cooperation, who almost alone require a fee, 80 Euro, to be proven to have been paid before they give permission. Nevertheless, there is no significant restriction on European flight in UK Group A homebuilts. There's a paper on this on the PFA web site.
Interesting that the C.I. preserve their independence by requiring prior permission, but state that this is given by their acceptance of the flight plan. No hassle at all, I go there often.
3. As you say, 90% of PPLs don't fly abroad. Why is it not highly desirable to give at least those a very valuable upgrade, for useability of their aircraft in UK weather?
4. Very few PPLs ever fly at oxygen FLs, and your comments on this are almost irrelevant to the overall benefit to the majority. However, the very flexibilty and performance of the best kit types would give exactly the same, or better, facility if IFR flight is allowed, than you have in your TB20. I have seen a 300hp kit plane under construction which is having an oxygen system and de-iced prop fitted, in expectation of eventual IFR approval. It will cruise at least 40Kts faster than yours. And don't forget that Glasair III with a 450shp turboprop which had a photo shown on another Pprune thread a few months ago!
All the best, Mike.
I generally find I agree with your approach to flying matters, but your last post on this thread does need some response.
1. The CAA is the sole authority on limitations on UK permit aircraft. Not only does the CAA have unfettered rights under the ANO to set such limitations as it thinks fit, but EASA specifically has no authority, at least at present, on Annex II aircraft, which include all home built aircraft.
2. The 1980 ECAC Protocol specifically enables home built aircraft of any signiture country free access to all others. Whilst politics being what it is, not all European countries signed it, and inevitably, it is being interpreted slightly differently where it has been signed, particularly in relation to microlights. Nevertheless, for Group A homebuilts, free coming and going without prior permission of UK aircraft is welcomed by Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Holland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Malta - (just some examples). Some others, eg Norway, Spain, Portugal, require prenotification a couple of days before by fax of Permit and Insurance, response always having been positive.
Standing out is Belgium, that centre of EU cooperation, who almost alone require a fee, 80 Euro, to be proven to have been paid before they give permission. Nevertheless, there is no significant restriction on European flight in UK Group A homebuilts. There's a paper on this on the PFA web site.
Interesting that the C.I. preserve their independence by requiring prior permission, but state that this is given by their acceptance of the flight plan. No hassle at all, I go there often.
3. As you say, 90% of PPLs don't fly abroad. Why is it not highly desirable to give at least those a very valuable upgrade, for useability of their aircraft in UK weather?
4. Very few PPLs ever fly at oxygen FLs, and your comments on this are almost irrelevant to the overall benefit to the majority. However, the very flexibilty and performance of the best kit types would give exactly the same, or better, facility if IFR flight is allowed, than you have in your TB20. I have seen a 300hp kit plane under construction which is having an oxygen system and de-iced prop fitted, in expectation of eventual IFR approval. It will cruise at least 40Kts faster than yours. And don't forget that Glasair III with a 450shp turboprop which had a photo shown on another Pprune thread a few months ago!
All the best, Mike.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
We probably got our wires crossed on the presumed context of all this.
Even limiting IFR to the UK means potential airways operation, with the altitude/oxygen issues. I suppose one could limit these types to below Class A airspace which would be rather novel...
I would love to have a 450HP turboprop, and loads of homebuilts will run circles around a TB20 right now. I just don't think the powers to be are ready to swallow IFR flight for sub-ICAO planes, because of the implications within the UK, never mind abroad. They can't even agree to training at unlicensed airfields........
The info on 1 month wait came from a Permit flyer (on here, I believe) who waits for up to 1 month for Spain to get back to him.
I feel that in Europe an IFR approval is always going to be wrapped with a full CofA. That is how the regulation is set up. That then opens up the whole IFR can of worms.
We probably got our wires crossed on the presumed context of all this.
Even limiting IFR to the UK means potential airways operation, with the altitude/oxygen issues. I suppose one could limit these types to below Class A airspace which would be rather novel...
I would love to have a 450HP turboprop, and loads of homebuilts will run circles around a TB20 right now. I just don't think the powers to be are ready to swallow IFR flight for sub-ICAO planes, because of the implications within the UK, never mind abroad. They can't even agree to training at unlicensed airfields........
The info on 1 month wait came from a Permit flyer (on here, I believe) who waits for up to 1 month for Spain to get back to him.
I feel that in Europe an IFR approval is always going to be wrapped with a full CofA. That is how the regulation is set up. That then opens up the whole IFR can of worms.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read the recent threads from DFC, IO540 and Scooter boy with great interest but with respect feel they may be missing the real point. Which is, to work together to create a rational and professional case to enable certain UK CAA Permit aircraft to operate Night and IFR in the UK. Sure, there may be some give and take to achieve this, but that's the reality of life. The game has moved on significantly in the last decade!
I'd truely welcome any and all support to help make this a reality; please PM me and I'll be please to talk it over.
Mike
I'd truely welcome any and all support to help make this a reality; please PM me and I'll be please to talk it over.
Mike
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There would be two ways to approach this:
The CAA could do a UK-only scheme. However, AIUI, EASA will have jurisdiction ever all this within a few years so this could be a wasted effort. OTOH the CAA appears to have been rather keen lately to work on a JAA IR proposal with a reduced theory content (much discussed in this forum) in the sure knowledge that EASA has already stated it wants to do something pan-European, so the motivations are clearly complex...
EASA will be running the show soon, so why not let them do it. Then we could have a pan-European scheme, which would be not only much more useful but also future-proof. They have made various noises on this subject already.
Re the business of not many PPLs ever going abroad, on reflection I don't think this is correct in this case. The population of pilots flying non-CofA types (with reasonable performance) is quite different from the much larger population of PPLs who never venture abroad. I think the former group are largely in flying for the long term, while the latter group is a much more transient portion (renters, mostly) in which most individuals will pack it in within a year or so anyway. So flying abroad would be a very significant utility to Permit type owners.
The CAA could do a UK-only scheme. However, AIUI, EASA will have jurisdiction ever all this within a few years so this could be a wasted effort. OTOH the CAA appears to have been rather keen lately to work on a JAA IR proposal with a reduced theory content (much discussed in this forum) in the sure knowledge that EASA has already stated it wants to do something pan-European, so the motivations are clearly complex...
EASA will be running the show soon, so why not let them do it. Then we could have a pan-European scheme, which would be not only much more useful but also future-proof. They have made various noises on this subject already.
Re the business of not many PPLs ever going abroad, on reflection I don't think this is correct in this case. The population of pilots flying non-CofA types (with reasonable performance) is quite different from the much larger population of PPLs who never venture abroad. I think the former group are largely in flying for the long term, while the latter group is a much more transient portion (renters, mostly) in which most individuals will pack it in within a year or so anyway. So flying abroad would be a very significant utility to Permit type owners.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While not holding out much hope for change, I must admit to being disappointed that an aircraft like the Stinson 108, renowned for its stability, light control forces, and ease of use on instruments, is restricted to day VFR ops. That is just one example, but there are many types previously certified, but no longer directly supported my their manufacturers, which are now operating on permits. While I can maybe see merit in the argument that non-certified types MAY constitute risk, I do not see how 'orphaned' previously certified typed do, assuming of course that this is the case, what with me being in Australia and a bit 'out of the loop'.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi!
Thanks for your latest post. The working group could always use more help, so if you're willing please let me know! 01295-770219 / 07914 976262.
Our strategy is simple:
If we want something done we have to rely on self-help. Waiting for 'others' to do this isn't an option
The UK CAA route is vital both to have the privileges granted in the UK and this have a stronger and reasoned arguement when in due course but probably MUCH later EASA take over national Permits.
Look forward to hearing from you
Mike
Thanks for your latest post. The working group could always use more help, so if you're willing please let me know! 01295-770219 / 07914 976262.
Our strategy is simple:
If we want something done we have to rely on self-help. Waiting for 'others' to do this isn't an option
The UK CAA route is vital both to have the privileges granted in the UK and this have a stronger and reasoned arguement when in due course but probably MUCH later EASA take over national Permits.
Look forward to hearing from you
Mike
