Air Atlantique Flights scuppered

I think I saw on another forum that Air Atlantique were looking at the possibility of bcoming the TC holder for the Auster range. We were in the same situation with the Airtourer in that the CAA were the TC holder but had to find someone else. In our case the New Zealand CAA have taken it on as that’s where the Glos-Airtourers were built. We did try for the PFA Permit but nobody from the PFA turned up to the meeting we’d arranged and it was at Turweston!! As it happens a couple of the Airtourers are used for commercial spin training and therefore cannot fly on a permit. It ain’t easy.

The CAA is at the moment the TC holder for the Auster, however with the new Legislation coming in they can no longer be the TC holder. Therefore a new TC holder is required or the A/C need to go onto a PFA Permit. If i still owned an Auster i would welcomb it going onto a permit with open arms.

David: Just holding a load of drawings, even if the supporting design calculations, test reports and other data is also available, demonstrates no competency in aircraft design and conveys no authority to act as or assume the responsbilities of a Type Certificate (TC) holder. A TC holder has always had to show the CAA (and the ARB before that) that its design and airworthiness staff have the skill, knowledge and experience to discharge the responsibilities listed in British Civil Airworthiness Requirements (BCAR). Such people are not normally to be found in a local museum service, however capable that the Leicestershire Mueums Service has been in ensuring the supply of drawings; Peter Stoddart’s efforts have been sterling and he has helped me a number of times with my own aircraft.

In terms of the various Lycoming conversions which have appeared, I cannot say with any certainty what the design basis of each conversion has been – I have not studied in detail all of the AANs. Some converters may have modelled their work on Auster’s precedent whilst others may have adopted a clean sheet of paper approach. Whatever the approach used, the CAA will have ensured that all aspects of BCAR will have been complied with, some more easily than others. Ensuring that these powerful conversions have sufficient tail area is a problem that will have been confronted by them all, with the fin fillet perhaps being found the simplest and therefore cheapest solution. As they say in my part of the world, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Agcat – The library service at Leicester was for many years listed as the documentation holders for the type. It might have changed. The PFA might be the way to go but there are a few people wary of the PFA .
The situation as regards conversions is somewhat vague as Auster’s carried out the J1/U conversion which effectively apart from installing a 180hp Lycoming also had the undercarriage repositioned. The Beagle converson of G-ALXZ which effectively was the first conversion of type for glider towing (Mk.V / J.1 series) was carried out in the 1960s’. Anything following that is an interpretation of the drawings – in some ways I wish that the awkward fin fillet could be deleted as the larger rudder fitted to the type during the conversion gives it a fin/rudder area very similar to a Terrier which is 145 hp.

FLIGHTS IN PERMIT AIRCRAFT – AND AUSTER CERTIFICATION!

I think it needs to be made clear that the CAA position re pleasure flights in Permit to Fly aircraft does not apply just to Air Atlantique. All owners of PtF ‘warbirds’ were sent the letter (dated 12th October) reminding them of the requirements of the ANO and that the CAA would investigate and prosecute if necessary. AACF have perhaps been more overt than most in widely advertising their flights.

For David: I doubt that Leicester Museums have ever held the ‘Type Certificate’ for Austers. Firstly, there isn’t a TC for the Auster and the UK basis of certification for the different models will be a so-called exemplar Airworthiness Approval Note (AAN). To hold a TC or to assume the responsbilities as a Type Design Organisation requires compliance with British Civil Airworthiness Requirements (BCAR) Section A – design staff, procedures etc and pay lots of money to the CAA. Austers have been ‘orphan aircraft’ for eons, and have been listed as such in Airworthiness Notice 26 for yonks.

As for Lycoming conversions of Austers, these have all been done legit, and are fully documented on AANs. You can view them (for G-AGVG for example, which by my reckoning is one of the best) on the CAA website.

My own take on the situation is that Austers should go on a PtF, which is what the MAJORITY of owners want. This will keep them going safely and legally for the longest period of time. Why should the minority, who undoubtedly do want to stay on a CofA, sway the situation in their favour at the expense of the majority? Rant over.

From prescription to risk based

Many regulations in the UK are falling in to line with the EU’s less prescriptive risk case approach.

The UK rail industry is making such a move although it takes a long time to rewrite the standards. Another area falling in to line is British Standards for structural design which are to be replaced by Eurocodes from 2008.

The point of these comparisons is to cast some hope that in future the regulating authorities will make fewer mandatory regulations and instead rely upon individual risk assessments.

This approach is working well in other industries, let hope it catches on.

I really don’t understand why we cannot adopt the system used widely in the USA (among other places) , whereby you sign a form to confirm that you accept that the aircraft is not certified as a public transport aircraft , that the flight you are taking is at your own risk and that nobody will get sued if anything goes wrong.

Because we live in an over regulated nanny state. The big issue for me is that we have had our freedom of choice taken away. We are no longer allowed to evaluate risks for ourselves.

Roy.

I really don’t understand why we cannot adopt the system used widely in the USA (among other places) , whereby you sign a form to confirm that you accept that the aircraft is not certified as a public transport aircraft , that the flight you are taking is at your own risk and that nobody will get sued if anything goes wrong.

The ANO or “air law” hasn’t changed that much over the years :confused: Yes there specific rules governing charity flights where money changes hands and the hire/reward clause is exempted.

EASA is slowly consulting and adopting rules acorss Europe, taking rule-making bit out fo the CAA’s hands (though they still have a say). What gets dropped or introduced across the regulatory board will be very interesting.

By the way, PTF=no overflying densley populated areas.

Hopefully I shall be moving into an office soon that is nearer the AACF. 😎

It’s a shame that this has happened and I hope that AACF have not lost to much money on printing and advertising etc. I also hope this isn’t going to have to much of an adverse effect on the operation of these expensive old birds. I guess one of the reason’s this has happened is the fact that AACF have been alot more pro-active with there marketing than many of the other operators who offer these flights. If the CAA carry on like this will this not also see the end of the charity flying days where you get a flight for a charitable donation as I guess it’s all based on the same rule?

Hopefully if someone was to make a ‘donation’ of a similar ammount to AACF then they may get invited along for a free ride at sometime in the future.

Some of the owners are resisting because in the case of an Auster operated for reward the CAA regulations are clear. The PFA option means restrictions on the type of usage and in some cases on whether the machine can be operated abroad from memory.

It is possible to fly abroad with a Permit aeroplane – many do – subject to advance permissions, which are usually a formality.

I wonder how many of the other restrictions such as the inability to fly at night, in instrument conditions, or for hire and reward, apply to any Auster owners today.

For me, the benefits of owner maintenance and lower cost make flying a permit aeroplane of this type the preferable option.

The type certificate holder for Auster used to be Leicester Library service care of their technical archive! The situation as regards the Auster is rather cloudy as there have been a few Lycoming conversions carried out recently which don’t conform exactly to the Beagle drawings – who actually certifies these is open to question.
As for Austers travelling – certainly my Auster friends regularily travel en mass to the continent for various fly in’s.

Most of our immediate European neighbours accept PFA PTF aircraft within their airspace and I don’t think Austers venture that far. I am keen to see them transfer personally such that the type can be maintained more effectively outside the scope of certified original parts. I used this example to demonstrate that the CAA will do its utmost not to change the status quo. In the Auster case, yes they were getting a message that CofA was still desirable so iirc went off searching for a new TC holder.

Some of the owners are resisting because in the case of an Auster operated for reward the CAA regulations are clear. The PFA option means restrictions on the type of usage and in some cases on whether the machine can be operated abroad from memory.

You won’t get very far with the CAA on your tod, just look at the situation in getting Austers off CofA and onto PFA Permits. 1. Rules are rules and 2. it has always been so so the Authority in doing its business will be reluctant to budge unless a higher authority changes the rules.

I did flag up the PTF issue on another group last month and wonder…

I think you will find that the CAA are very keen to get Austers off of a CofA and onto the PFA, it is bizzarly some of the Auster owners who are resisting the change :confused:

You won’t get very far with the CAA on your tod, just look at the situation in getting Austers off CofA and onto PFA Permits. 1. Rules are rules and 2. it has always been so so the Authority in doing its business will be reluctant to budge unless a higher authority changes the rules.

I did flag up the PTF issue on another group last month and wonder…

Good point – I wonder if they would consider that if it’s the only way to enable wider appreciation of the type – I’ll lobby.

The provisions of the Permit to Fly with regard to former military machines largely relates to the airworthiness standard of those machines. In some cases such as the Auster AOP.9 this was because the type did not have any civil history and items like the single drive twin magneto set up initially caused some head scratching at the CAA.
In the case of the Anson – there shouldn’t be any massive problems getting a type like that on a PT C of A when it’s a direct modification of the civil Anson 19 Series.2 .

True – but the work and associated costs to achieve full certification has been the primary reason for operators not going that route with certain ex-military types. It’s wonderful that AA’s activities enable us to still witness (for example) an Annie in flight; but that’s not the same as experiencing a flight. Their intended initiative would have enabled that. I flew in an Oxford (albeit converted to Consul) many years ago and had looked forward to being able to compare that experience with the Anson – now it seems a forlorn hope. 🙁

Not aware of which machines it covers but there are provisions with the Public Transport Cof A which can be applied to the samller types of machines.