Airworthiness of Ex-Military Aircraft

Then I stand corrected – its a while since i was involved with an A8-20 organisation!

Bruce

This letter puts the onus firmly and full square into the CAA’s court.

It always has been. You agree a set of game rules & procedures with them (A8-20 MOE), the CAA then give you that autonomy (A8-20 & other approvals) and they dont bother you as long as you do what you told them you will be doing.

Likewise, it has always been the owners job to ensure those game rules are being followed, and if not, to question why and ensure that they are.

Back to Irish Linen control surfaces then?

A direct bit of fallout from the TFC fiasco it appears.

To an extent, yes.

However, 3.1 places the onus on operators to review matters in respect of their aircraft with, presumably, CAA stepping in in the event of 3.2 being applicable…it thus falling into CAA’s court at that stage.

This would seem to run counter to the original ideas behind A8-20, which as I recall was to give a bit more autonomy to the operators/restorers, and to lighten the load on the CAA. This letter puts the onus firmly and full square into the CAA’s court. I wonder if they will employ more people to deal with the repercussions!

Ho-hum

Bruce