Maintaining Warbirds… Major upheaval on the horizon

I’m still not aware of Warbird operators who dont have at least one licensed engineer.

I am aware of organisations that share an engineer, but that is hardly an issue.

Bruce

Nothing, and I think it closes a door that should have been shut long ago, but you then have a quandary for those smaller companies that may not have one, you either have to increase your staffing by one to add one, reduce the other staffing to allow for the financial burden of adding one, or train one of your existing staff up to be licenced, something you would struggle to do in a year….

Another LAE BTW

, with Licenced Engineers and the like onboard, along with all the other parts that will entail, human factors courses etc… These will be big changes and costs will rise.

Whats wrong with that? The proper CAA licenced aircraft engineers keeps EVERYONE safe.
If historic aircraft operators can’t afford them they should not be operating any sort of aircraft.:mad:

Rgds Cking (LAE;))

The American side of things certainly needs tightening up . However it isn’t helped by the FAA system of how you can get an A&P! In terms of anyone who doesn’t get paid to be repatriated – the simple answer is work for a reputable contracting company !

Oh Pooh sticks that makes life awkward for putting vampires and JP’s back into the air as the costs will surely go through the roof.A friend is having his jet done on a major presently and its costing him buckets he has said that this set of changes could make the difference for owners as to do they continue or not it will also reduce the number of organizations undertaking the work as one man bands will find the costs prohibitive.So there will only be a few centralised companies employing numbers of engineers with all the facilities etc that come at cost.

Mike E

www.aircraftrestorationgroup.org

In related news, on another forum a licenced tin basher is having a moan

Thinking out loud here a little, but…. How would one go about starting a union in an industry that doesn’t have one?

In the aircraft industry, there is no regulation in place for the contractors working on said aircraft. This boils my ****, seeing as I and many others spent years training in apprenticeships to a high level, just to have car mechanics and truck drivers working along side us in an industry where they haven’t been trained. No offence to car mechanics et al, but, airplanes are not cars/trucks, and require a different skill set and respect.

Contractors deal with agencies. Agencies generally don’t give a toss who they put forward for a contract, as it’s all ‘bums on seats’ to them. This is the sort of thing that needs regulating, and I’m sure passengers flying would feel better knowing the guys who’ve worked on their plane are properly trained and not just ‘chancers’ off the street. Sure, some chancers are good, and arguably better than some aircraft trained guys, but, Well, that’s not really the argument.

There are constant problems with agencies holding contractors money back, refusing to fly them home if they’re abroad (repatriation) and many other issues where aside from threats over the phone, contractors have very little weight behind them

Or, is that ‘little weight’ the joy of being a contractor and there’s little chance of supporting workers/contractors in such a large industry?

As I say, I am 99% sure that most of those affected will have read it – and very few of them comment on here anyway!

Increased costs will pass down to the customer, who then has a choice; to continue or not. Few of us on here are in the fortunate position of being able to pay those bills anyway!

Bruce

I do wish people that may or may not be effected read the damn thing and then comment, no skin off my nose as it won’t effect me day to day, but it may effect some people in here, and that’s the important thing.

Bruce I know of a couple, it’s not just that, you will get lumped in with the equivalent requirements and set up an airline requires, along with the costs that go with it.

Well I gave it my best shot to get it in the public forum , it’s now up to them, but I hope people do not come back moaning about it, as they have their chance.

I would expect that the majority of organisations who already maintain and repair warbirds and similar sized aircraft, will have been in consultation with the CAA, both on their own account, and through organisations like the HAA. I doubt there will be many surprises here.

Tony, I cant think of many organisations who dont employ at least one (usually more) licensed engineers, who are working at this level.

Bruce

Fournier boy, this isn’t about B3 ? this is about A8-20 going and being replaced by a part M and Part 145 equivalent…….anything over 2730kg as we read it will require part 145, it is all about permit aircraft, read it.

As for those holding approvals simpy being issued licences the poo will hit the fan, when we had to convert fron our section L it cost a lot of people a lot of money as indeed did the original licence, I amongst others worked hard for our licences with not a minor cost, and if they are simpy handing them out as per France did then the licence is not worth the paper it is printed on and I can see people taking it further.

You want to read
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2537/Chapter%20A8-23%20and%20Supp1,2,3%20and%20Appx3_A968.pdf

And in particular

BCAR A8-23 has been developed from Part 145 which is an Annex to European Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2042/2003. As guidance for the reader the Part 145 paragraphs corresponding to their BCAR A8-23 equivalents have been tabulated in Appendix 3 of this chapter. It should be noted however, that for BCAR A8-23 the applicable legislation is the Air Navigation Order 2009, as amended.
3) Definitions and lists of EASA and Non-EASA aircraft can be found in the CAA publication, CAP 747, ‘Mandatory Requirements for Airworthiness’.
4) This requirement applies to organisations maintaining:
 Aircraft required to hold a Certificate of Airworthiness or;
 All Turbine Engined Aeroplanes of Military Design and Service that only qualify for the issue of a National Permit to Fly or;
 All Rotorcraft of Military Design and Service that only qualify for the issue of a National Permit to Fly or;
 Fixed Wing, Piston Engined Aeroplanes of Military Design and Service that only qualify for the issue of a National Permit to Fly, except that those types with a Maximum Total Weight Authorised of 2730 kg or below may be maintained by organisations approved in accordance with the Requirements of BCAR Chapter A8-24.

And that is the like of Spits, JP’s etc etc.

🙂

I have to put an input in here too, a lot of this is scarmongering as Mr Boddington has already pointed out I’m afraid. For the moment, the Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) applies to EASA aircraft operated on a CofA. Please do not get confused, this is being driven by EASA, not the CAA. The CAA have to implement what EASA legislate, there can be minor local alternative means of compliance which is what the CAA will negotiate on our collective behalfs following the consulatation but these will be based on the consultation responces.

From my understanding, everyone holding current approvals will transfer over to holding B3 Licenses, mostly on grandfather rights for the practical and maybe some minor license exams that could take place at a “local” level depending on previous experience/qualifications. This will be sufficient for Annual inspections and day-to-day defect rectification.

“Complex” tasks will be required to be certified by a B1 Licensed engineer, which includes major repairs and overhauls.

As far as Workshop licensing goes, as far as I see it, I think it will be better. As most of these aircraft are not operated public transport, you will not have to hold a 145 approval, personal licence approval and a sensible approach to workshop practices will continue to suffice. Personally, I run my workshop to the old M3 procedures as this has always been a commonly accepted base standard for workshops, and my audits have never been a problem. If you run on Public transport already, maintenance will already be by B1 engineer and therefore not a problem under the changes.

With all due respect to those on here outside the industry but concerned about changes in legislation, please can all correspondance that goes to the CAA on the NPA be from people who know what they are talking about and are directly affected as company owners/or employees under the guidance of your Chief Engineer. Blanket letters of “this isnt fair” will just be ignored. NPA consultations require constructive concise comments. The CAA are keen to work with UK business’ to ensure the best outcome that fits the legislation handed down by EASA.

There are many of us working on this already, both associations and individuals alike. The NPA has been out a while and internet forums are not the place to be calling for people to write in on mass. Personally I’m putting in a lot of work to ensure that my company is able to offer our customers a seamless transfer to the new system with minimal impact and have held meetings with the authorities already. i’m sure there are many others doing the same.

The Koln meeting only took place a few weeks where the CAA were able to air their existing views on the subject, more meetings will happen.

I personally think this NPA is a good thing for the industry and if brought in sensibly, will ensure a better future for the maintenance and repair of the airframes we know and love. Personally, when this NPA becomes law, MORE aircraft will come under the scope of my maintenance approvals and as an expanding company this is good for protection of jobs. Likewise, larger companies could in a way, lessen their approvals (and therefore costs) and still maintain the same aircraft. The only additional costs at the moment would be for those individuals who currently only hold approvals, not licenses, and this is negligable in the grand scheme of things.

FB (BCAR L and EASA 66 B1-1/B1-2 LAE)

No I was corrected on the chippies etc on the LAA early on but mentioned he should just clarify it is not going to change in the future.

Having just got off a long flight from China maybe its the way I am reading it then!!
However having looked at the CAA document it apears to be concerning the transition of A8 approved companies moving over to EASA approvals.
You seem to say that this also includes A/C such as Chipmunks and all PERMIT A/C.There is a big difference between A/C on a CAA Permit and those such as Chipmunks and other vintaged types that opperate on a LAA, Light Aircraft Association, Permit to fly. Your inclusion of ALL permit type’s infers that Jo blogs building his home built A/C in his garage under the LAA Permit system will have to now go to a EASA Part M approved company!!!!
I have seen nothing from the LAA that the system for looking after LAA Permit aircraft, including the vintage types is about to change.

What ever the issue groups such as HAA, VAC, Dh Moth club work hard on our behalf to keep our freedoms. It was the casual way you seemed to dismiss this as you didnt need it!
As I say maybe Ihave read more into the coment due to Jet Lag !!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyT
Does not effect me and we are already Easa approved, so we’ve been through those hoops already.
So im all right jack and sod the rest of you!!!!!

Hope you do not need support in you line in the future, as I only deal with A/C below 2730 kg does does not effect me either but I will still throw my support behind the fight against any threat to historic aviation in any form!

Where did that come from, I was simply replying to the question “had I joined”, to which I replied it does not effect me as we do not currently look after a Historic aircraft and hence as we are EASA approved already for our day to day work.
Actually is does effect permit aircraft under 2730KG as they will require the equivalent of Part M with or without a Camo.

If I didn’t care I wouldn’t have put the thread up in the first place and far from scaremongering I was bringing it to peoples attention…
With the web the CAA now no longer send letters out to every Company affected by changes, they simply put it on the web and state if you do not comment by XYZ date then by not commenting you are stating you agree with these changes in full, that is wrong.
People need to know these things, read these things and put in their objections / comments. With the CAA discussing these things with the big boys in the industry it means they can steer the CAA towards what they want to be done, which to be honest can often can be feathering their own nests, it’s the one man or one aircraft bands that suffer in the long run as they haven’t had a say.

The CAA tried to replace LAMPs recently under another such programme with a more restrictive, poorly thought out and costly scheme to the end users, it was only through the likes of myself bringing folks attention to it on several forums, allowing Companies that were unaware of the changes being pushed through, that sufficient comments were forthcoming that caused the changes to be cancelled and to be re looked at.

Not all permit stuff is maintained by licenced Engineers David, some Companies do not have them at all, it is simply done on approvals, so companies like that will need either to employ another engineer or retrain one.

Sorry if you see it as Scaremongering….. I would call it supporting them by informing them. Knowledge is everything

In reality David you are correct, most of the companies dealing with this will allready be dealing with this and have most of it in place. As a LAE on the books of a part 145 company I allready have to comply with hman factors etc. And to be honest i found this thread to be more scaremongering amoung those that really dont understand the process fully. As I understand it there are huge movement currently afoot with negotiation between organisations such as the VAC, HAA, LAA and CAA to hopefully make the opperation of Vintage and Historic aircaft easier and substainable for the future.
I do however find that to then post “Well I dont care because it dosnt effect me” rather strange??
We all have a passion and an interst in Historic Aviation, that is why we frequent this forum.

Is this really a threat to historic aviation? Anyone who is operating aircraft above those weight limits should really have a lot of this in place. Human factors is pretty much compulsory if your an aviation contractor. I don’t really see why any company would not wish to participate in it. In terms of licensed engineers -much of this relates to properly trained engineers who have a background in aviation. It doesn’t necessarily mean everyone is licensed -just that skills are known and documented.

As for the EU negociating the U.K budget contribution for the next seven years doesn’t strike me as a sign we are in a hurry to leave the EU any time soon!

Does not effect me and we are already Easa approved, so we’ve been through those hoops already. 🙂

So im all right jack and sod the rest of you!!!!!

Hope you do not need support in you line in the future, as I only deal with A/C below 2730 kg does does not effect me either but I will still throw my support behind the fight against any threat to historic aviation in any form!

Does not effect me and we are already Easa approved, so we’ve been through those hoops already. 🙂

One of the main activities of the Historic Aircraft Association in the last few months (and for that matter, years) has been ensuring that the vintage aircraft community has a voice in such dialogue.

I know that HAA Chairman Wally Epton and members such as John Romain have already been in meetings with the CAA. Hope you have joined Tony? 🙂

www.haa-uk.aero

Roll on the inevitable; Eurogeddon.