Why isn't Private GA under the PFA?
Thread Starter
Why isn't Private GA under the PFA?
Prompted by a post from javelin I decided to see if anybody else feels that the PFA should handle all of the lighter end of the UK GA fleet.. .. .Please note that in the following I am not referring to aircraft used for Public Transport use ie flying training, charters, etc.. .. .I previously owned a Piper Cub on which, as a PFA aeroplane, I could carry out virtually all of the required maintenance / modification work myself. This of course had to be signed off by a PFA inspector. This resulted in maintenance costs substantially lower than my previous Cessna 150.. .. .I now own an Auster which, although it is structurally very similar to the Cub, for some arcane reason needs to be maintained to LAMS under the auspices of the CAA. Theoretically I can work on the aircraft as the owner acting as an unlicensed engineer. This work is subject to the same sign off procedure as a PFA aeroplane. However, when Star Annual inspection time comes around, I have to shell out a large chunk of change to the CAA purely for paperwork. Also, as I understand it, under JAR I will soon no longer be able to do/have the work done at my home base but have to take my aeroplane to an M3 licensed facility to have the work done. This work will be done by engineers familiar with wood and fabric aeroplanes? Probably not.. .. .As the PFA remit now covers four seaters up to 200hp, why are aircraft like the Auster, Super Cub etc still on an Certificate of Airworthiness rather than a PFA Permit to Fly. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" /> . .. .While we're at it, why can't appropriately equipped PFA aeroplanes fly IMC. I know a chap with an RV-6 that has an instrument fit that would put the majority of regional jets to shame. He also knows how to use it. Can he legally fly it in IMC? Nyet. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> . .. .Maybe PFA aeroplanes bounce off clouds. This could be due to the fact that the associated paperwork doesn't equal the max gross of the aeroplane thus the aeroplane in question does not have the neccessary momentum to successfully penetrate the moisture laden air. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> . .. .Rant mode off, calm returns to LowNSlow land <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a Permit you may not fly over built up areas, whereas in your Auster with a Cof A you can. In order to do this there has to be a risk assessment and guaranteed maintenance standards. Do people on the ground not have a right to expect that aeroplanes permitted to fly over their heads are safe? Unfortunately this process costs money.
Thread Starter
I appreciate your point noggin but I don't think that a Lycoming 0-320 when fitted to a Vans RV is more likely to fail than if it were fitted to a PA-28 or a C172. Guaranteed maintenance standards?. .Do you think the 50 hour, 100 hour and 150 hour plus Annual Inspections on a PFA type are any less rigorous or less well executed than on an aircraft maintained to LAMS? I'm sure that there are exceptions to the rules but not to the extent that they make the PFA fleet less safe than the CofA fleet. As javelin's post complaining about the condition of his "maintained with no expense spared" (my quotes) aeroplane made clear, a fresh CofA is no guarantee that the aeroplane is in perfect condition. Exactly the same warnings apply as to an MOT certificate. Airworthy without a doubt (?) but I wouldn't be happy with gaffer tape over an inspection panel especially when it is so easy to get it done properly. . .. .Do the CAA really carry out risk assessments on light aircraft in these terms? I would be seriously surprised to find that they do. In addition, if they are doing them do they really contribute to safety for those on the ground?. .The town dwelling public is already protected because a pilot is obliged by the ANO to overfly towns etc at an altitude sufficient to allow him/her to glide clear in the event of an engine failure. So why can't a PFA type overfly towns given that they would be obliged by the ANO to obey the same rules as a CofA aeroplane anyway? . .. .Don't forget, I'm not talking complex aircraft here. No wobbly props, put away wheels etc just simple, single engined aeroplanes used by people for pleasure not work.. .. .It could be so simple:. .. .Privately owned (solo or in a group) PFA Permit. It's not compulsory to do maintenance work yourself. If the owner cannot or doesn't want to do it there will be the same level of engineering support that there currently is.. .. .Public Transport (aircraft for hire by members of the public) Public Transport CofA as they are now.. . . . <small>[ 29 March 2002, 10:39: Message edited by: LowNSlow ]</small>
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L.N.S. - I have no particularly strong feelings either way, but I wonder if the PFA have the mechanism and facilities to take on the task, or even want to.. .It would obviously increase their workload considerably, and all round costs for existing PFA members.. .The PFA do sterling work for G/A, but is there not a danger of them having to become a completely different organisation if this were to happen?
Thread Starter
Niknak, I suppose it would depend largely on the quantity involved. A large percentage of the UK CofA fleet are already on a Public Transport CofA with the flying schools etc.. .. .I'm sure it would involve the PFA expanding but there have been suggestions that they should merge with the BMAA and pool their engineering/admin requirements as the microlight/PFA aircraft performance envelopes are overlapping more and more.. .. .I would hate to see the PFA become the light aviation arm of the CAA if it entailed the current level of beaurocracy. I'm sure that there are people within the CAA who would prefer to concentrate on the Public Transport sector and devolve responsibility for the tiddlers to someone else. As the PFA has expanded it's remit to include up to 200 hp and 4 seats, I don't see why vintage aeroplanes eg Austers, Super Cubs etc should be excluded from the Permit system. Also, this bracket covers the "modern" aircraft like C150's, C172's, PA-28 variants, the larger Robins etc. Surely the revenue generated by the increase in members/inspection fees etc would fund the expansion if it was executed in a planned manner.. .. .As a side effect it would surely help the industry in general by lowering owners maintenance costs and thus encouraging aeroplane ownership. Hopefully this would expand the fleet and increase the economies of scale which would benefit us all.
Guest
Posts: n/a
LownSlow,. .. .Reading your post it struck me how similar your sentiments are to a couple of things that Richard Bach wrote way back 30 years ago in "A Gift of Wings". His feelings about maintenance - familiarity with wood and fabric - are exactly the same. . .. .Worth a read, if you haven't come across it.. .. .Sorry for the digression <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> . .. .SD
Thread Starter
Saab, it's been a few moons since I read A Gift of Wings. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . .. .Must try to rebuild my aviation book collection which was devasted by a missing box during a house move <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" />
