"Elf and Safety Gone Mad"

I wonder whether the Historic aircraft flyers should play them at their own game and call their aircraft ‘Home Builds’ because if its that stringent how on
earth do the home build aircraft get into the air?

Graham

A neat idea, but the CAA thought of it before you….

The Light Aircraft Association, which issues Permits to Fly to homebuilt and some light vintage aircraft in the UK, has very stringent restrictions placed upon them by the CAA. This effectively limits their juristiction (to quote from their website) to:

Minimum speed, power off in the landing configuration not to exceed 60 mph.
Maximum speed not to exceed 250 mph
Aircraft must be amateur built
Maximum number of seats – 2
Maximum take off weight not to exceed – 912 kgs (2006 lbs)
The installed power not to exceed 260 hp

There are types on the LAA register that do not strictly meet all of the above criteria, but each has been individually agreed with the CAA.

I wonder whether the Historic aircraft flyers should play them at their own game and call their aircraft ‘Home Builds’ because if its that stringent how on
earth do the home build aircraft get into the air?

Graham

There is a weight limitation associated with this classification which is lower than just about every aircraft we term ‘warbird’.

I wonder whether the Historic aircraft flyers should play them at their own game and call their aircraft ‘Home Builds’ because if its that stringent how on
earth do the home build aircraft get into the air?

Graham

Having read the post on WIX and the other posts here it does appear that the authorities in all major areas where historic aircraft are operated seem to be getting over zealous and in many cases may lack a true understanding of the nature of warbirds and the problems in operating and maintaining them and in procuring parts.
It makes me fear for the long term operation of many types and it would be better for everyone if a large dose of common sense could be injected but as others here have said most of the common sense disappeared when the old hands who knew and understood historic aircraft retired.
I went to the recent general aviation show at Booker. It was a bit of an eye opener after many years of little interest in anything non-vintage and I hadn’t appreciated just how far construction techniques have moved on.
I did notice that a lot of composite materials such as carbon fibre are used in structural areas of airframes now.
My attempts to restore a 40+ year old kit car have made me realise that there can be problems with less traditional materials and I wonder how the structures of modern light aircraft will fare over time. I am sure there are inspection procedures for the modern materials but perhaps the powers that be would be spending their time more usefully by looking at future resolutions for the problems that will inevitably arise with modern materials rather than making life very difficult for those who operate aicraft built using traditional materials and maintained ina proven and well tried manner.
For example:- I know that ceconite wasn’t an original spec covering for a Spitfire rudder but if it is good enough for use on aerobatic aircraft generating high levels of G then surely there is no problem using it on a Spitfire. If the issue is that the operator should have asked first then that is fair enough but if you want people to ask first then you have to give them the expectation that reasonable requests will receive a positive response.

I think this is more a case of non original modifications carried out in the rebuild/operation of singular examples, rather than types en-masse. Thats how i read it anyway.!

Okay, let me put it more simply.

If a P-40,for example, has its permit suspended ,ie grounds it, for a reason that effects all types of P-40 series aircraft. shouldnt all P-40s be grounded that fall under the same governing body,ie the CAA?

Im just looking for clarification.

Can only be a matter of time before other operators are effected by this.

If you ground one type be it P-40, spitfire etc, does it not put other operators of the same type in the same position with the CAA?

Or is it not a level playing field here?

Nobody has suggested or mentioned anything to do with ‘grounding a type’.

Flying as normal.

Can only be a matter of time before other operators are effected by this.

If you ground one type be it P-40, spitfire etc, does it not put other operators of the same type in the same position with the CAA?

Or is it not a level playing field here?

What is the situation with the ex-TFC P-40 at North Weald?

Flying as normal.

Sure Bruce,
Today you have to be nice cop, so I get to be nasty cop. :rolleyes: FWIW, I don’t know any details and if I did, I wouldn’t be discussing them.

Cheers,

PS, BTW, I have an unanswered e-mail for you – can you check your PMs?

James,

I wasnt being particularly charitable – just sitting on the fence on this one! I dont know enough about the situation from either point of view to be able to comment with any conviction.

Bruce

…It will get sorted…

For a given value of ‘sorted’… 😎 I’m sure there’s some very unhappy people and a good deal of effort, ex-trees and money being moved around in excess volume to achieving a worthwhile result. For a given value of ‘worthwhile’.

A view from the other side of the Atlantic, with a less charitable view of the CAA – and a very understandable one.

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=30999

I think its probably fair to say that there have been other organisations who have had these problems, and in all likelihood there will be others in due course. It is TFC who are currently in the limelight so to speak.

It will get sorted I have no doubt!

Bruce

Is only the TFC having this particular problem with the CAA, and if so, why? What is the situation with the ex-TFC P-40 at North Weald?

I copied the cv of the Chair Person Designate to a friend who works in the FAA, fairly high up. His reply – “You ARE joking”. Sorry bud, but no. 😮

Interesting and enlightening post by Jim Beasley over on WIX regarding this TFC-CAA issue and this rules is rules is rules with no leaway syndrome, in respect of the ex-TFC Spit 18 that he now owns.

I think we can wait for the official version from TFC please….

Bruce

I am 41 years old. How long do you think I’ll have to wait?

Personally I’d rather hear it from the CAA.

Any Civil Servants out there willing to defend their pension schemes and defend their position in the scheme of things, whatever it is, God help us.

Ok, I’ll bite…..I am an ex Civil Servant….only no longer one because the government saw fit to sell us off.
Please do not tar them all with the same brush…..CS’s cover all jobs from the mundane to the exciting….some do extremely worthwhile jobs….I know, I did…some risk their lives in war zones (ok, not as much as the Servicemen). Sure there are lots of bureaucrats but for everyone of those there are 100 good ones….civil/public servants include nurses, teachers, police, ambulance, fire…etc anyone on the public payroll.

I am as disappointed as others over the CAA sometimes….but do not assume all civil servants are the same!

What we are suffering from here is the ar@e covering exercise resulting from a Judge saying that ‘the Nimrod has never been airworthy’ (he obviously was an aircraft engineer before he took up law) which of course is utter tosh but after 40 years in service the rules have changed and sevicing budgets can only be pared so far.

Common sense..that thought pattern where one has to demonstrate self responsability.
Actually if she is smart she will open up and meet all the major players in the Historical,Experimental and Civil Aviation industries and have a bl00dy good chat.good luck guys.