First Casualty Of New Ins. Rules..

Ive sent an e mail off to my M P and joined Sally B supporters club.Good luck all.
All the details of how to contact your MP are on Sally B website

http://sallyb.dcgservices.com/index.php

http://www.writetothem.com/

The problem of insurance under the new EU rules for the heavier “heritage” aircraft such as “Sally B” is attracting support from MEP’s in terms of alleviating the huge additional premium cost with no added value.

Release time: Immediate, Date: 25 May 2005, Issued by: Sir Robert Atkins MEP, Tel: +32 (0)2 284 5373

MEP campaigns to avert grounding of Memphis Belle plane

BRUSSELS, 25 May 2005 — The famous ‘Sally B’ war plane, the only World War II B17 bomber in flying condition and the star of blockbuster film Memphis Belle, faces a dishonourable discharge thanks to a new EU Directive that has sent the plane’s insurance bill soaring.

The Rt. Hon Sir Robert Atkins MEP, Deputy Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament and a member of the Parliament’s Transport Committee, has taken up the case of the ‘Sally B’ with the European Commission.

Sir Robert said:

“I have already discussed the situation with Sir Roy McNulty, Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, and as a result of his advice, have tabled an urgent Parliamentary Question to Transport Commissioner Barrot.”

“It appears that no-one spotted this flaw in the Directive when it passed through the Commission, Parliament and the Council of Ministers and unless it is rectified as soon as possible, vintage aircraft like the ‘Sally B’ will never fly again because of prohibitive insurance costs.”

“I want the Commission to return the specific insurance requirements of these popular veteran aeroplanes to the Regulatory Agencies in Member States – in Britain’s case, the Civil Aviation Authority. That way, minimal usage will only require minimal insurance, just like for veteran and vintage motor vehicles.”

You could help the campaign hugely by contacting your own regional MEP’s for your area and asking them to support this effort by Sir Robert and others in the EU parliament. In my opinion this is not a matter to divide on party political grounds. It is simply something that was missed in the drafting of the EU regulation.

Cheers,

Trapper 69

Janie,
As requested. We may be making progress. You could all lobby your own MP to add his or her name to the EDM. After all your vote, or otherwise, got them the position of MP for your constituency so they owe you one.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
__________________________________

EDM 141

B17 FLYING FORTRESS AND GENERAL AVIATION CHARGES. 18.05.2005

Howarth, Gerald supported by 7 signatures of other MP’s as follows –
Dismore, Andrew Duncan, Alan Loughton, Tim
Opik, Lembit Penning, Michael Waterson, Nigel

That this House, recognising that air shows are the UK’s second most popular outdoor spectator activity, greatly regrets that the B17 Flying Fortress was forced to withdraw from the VE day celebrations owing to a £25,000 increase in its insurance costs, resulting from new EU regulations; notes with concern the threat to air displays and the operation of historic aircraft posed by a new charging regime to be introduced by the Civil Aviation Authority; and calls on the authorities to reconsider these increased charges in the interests of ensuring that general and sporting aviation in the UK continues to flourish and inspire a new generation.

That is good news. Well spotted Trapper. Can you tell us more about the “early-day motion 141”. It sounds like we should we be lobbying our MPs to sign it too?

A question has been tabled by Geoffrey Van Orden MEP in the European Parliament in Brussels. It is being supported by other MEP’s.
Once again the message is getting to those who can influence matters though persuading them to take action is another matter.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
_____________________________________________

The question drafted is as follows –

Regulation 785/2004 and the grounding of an historic aircraft

Is it the case that Regulation 785/2004 is intended to apply equally to heritage aircraft as it is to commercial airliners that operate at incomparably higher third party risk? When Regulation 785/2004 entered into force on 1 May 2005 the “Sally B” B-17 (based in Cambridgeshire, UK) was effectively grounded because, by being placed in Category 6, the plane’s insurance premium was increased by an unaffordable £25000.

Given that the grounding of the Sally B is probably an unintended consequence of the Regulation, what is the procedure by which this Regulation might now be amended in order to ensure that such aircraft are not included in its scope?

Thanks for posting that, Skybolt. 🙂

Very interesting to see the comment regarding VAT on fuel – you and I have to pay it, but British Airways don’t and yet they still want to shift more financial burden onto GA and historic aviation.

Hats off to Messrs Howarth and Opik, and I sincerely hope for the sake of historic and general aviation in the UK, that their campaign is successful.

Hello there,
Thought you might like to see what was said in the House of Commons yesterday. It all helps the campaign.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
________________________________________________

Extracts from Hansard – Tuesday 24 May –

Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Con)

My third point relates to my principal passion outside politics, which is aviating. I have held a pilot’s licence since I was 17, and I am very proud to represent the birthplace of British aviation, Farnborough. Sadly, the Gracious Speech does not refer to any form of aviation. On 16 October 2008, which is within the probable lifetime of this Parliament, we shall celebrate the centenary of Samuel Cody’s first sustained flight from Laffan’s plain, Farnborough. Britain remains to this day a world leader in aerospace, and the movers and shakers in that business were invariably captivated from their earliest years by the magic of flight.

Today, general aviation faces a range of threats. As early-day motion 141 and the letter in yesterday’s The Daily Telegraph, which was signed by such legendary figures as Neville Duke and Raymond Baxter, testify, the wonderfully evocative vintage aircraft “Sally B”, the B-17 immortalised in the film “Memphis Belle”, is grounded thanks to new EU regulations, which demand that it be insured as if it were a passenger-carrying Boeing 737. How ironic that an aircraft that contributed to the liberation of Europe should be taken out of the sky by European bureaucrats. I hope that the EU will see the error of its ways and enable the B-17 to participate in the combined 60th anniversary VE-day/VJ-day celebrations on 10 July.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, LDem)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that example is typical of the kind of stresses faced by general aviation in the United Kingdom? This country should be a centre of global excellence for training tomorrow’s pilots, but we face some serious legal restrictions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should listen to existing aviators and try to change that dangerous and negative trend?

Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Con)

The hon. Gentleman is right. We are making common cause because, as he has said, the Civil Aviation Authority, otherwise known as the “Campaign Against Aviation”, is about to publish a new policy on charging for its inspection and licensing functions, the effect of which threatens to increase general aviation’s costs by up to 170 per cent. I understand that British Airways and Monarch Airlines are driving that policy, because they want to see transparency of charging by the CAA. Today, I will do little more than serve notice that I intend to mount a vigorous challenge to that attempt to inflict severe damage on general aviation. I am delighted to be joined by my fellow aviator of 17 years standing, my aviating friend, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), and we hope that Government Members will join us.

The CAA is due to publish its proposals on 10 June, but we expect the victims to include those who organise air shows, because members of the Air Display Association Europe, of which I have the privilege of being president, could be put out of business by the vastly increased costs. British Airways and other airlines draw some 70 per cent. of their aircrew from the pool of those who have learned to fly by paying their own way or obtaining sponsorship from the Air League or the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators.

The airlines are apparently seeking to transfer about £1.5 million of CAA costs to general aviation, which is less than British Airways paid a few years ago to have absurd, politically correct graffiti, over which my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher put her handkerchief, painted on the tail fins of its aircraft. It is simply galling that an organisation which has just reported annual profits of £540 is intent upon inflicting such damage on general and sporting aviation. We—this includes me and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire—pay about £5 million in VAT on the fuel that we consume as private aviators. British Airways pays no VAT on fuel or tickets, so we more than pay our way—I hope that Mr. Rod Eddington notes that point before he returns to Australia.

The issue is not confined to those of us who engage in recreational and sporting aviation. Air displays are the nation’s second largest outdoor spectator sport, attracting 6.5 million people according to the 2002 figures. I hope that hon. Members will take the time to visit their local airfields, to attend an air display, to sign early-day motion 141 and to support me, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and some clandestine operators on the Government Benches in our attempt to resolve the matter.

Okay, the research isn’t fabulous, but publicity is publicity.

www.adae.co.uk

Take a look at the above site and click on the “Lobby Letter” and see what you chaps think?

Just a daft idea to raise money to keep her airworthy:
Wonder if anyone has thought of / is able to contact anyone (cast/production crew/whoever) that was involved in the making of ‘Memphis Belle’ to see if they would like to make a donation ?
After all, she has been advertising the film in a roundabout way ever since it was made.
(If someone has already come up with this idea and I’ve missed it – Sorry)

I tend to agree with you Mike – it’d be a tragedy if she missed that engagement though.

Common sense, hopefully, will prevail.

At the moment no. As opposed to know, which means something entirely different.

anyone no if she will appear at waddington as she is booked in but now she has been hit by the insurance bill will she be doing any airshows this year ?

Eccles: “I resign!”

The floor is yours Mr B 😀

😀

As ever, we may not agree, but it’s an educational discussion. I’d include the Sperrin, because it was intended as a bomber, and would have been part of the V force, had there been problems. (Would it have become the Vperrin?) The Canberra, Avro 707 and TSR-2 (what’s the Swordfish got to do with it?) were all intended to do different jobs or at different times – i.e. not ‘V force.’ I’ll defer to your expertese in this area, but I think our categories are different!

Your last point is an interesting one, and good, not one I’d considered as you’ve put it; but the floodgates breaking the British ‘Empire first’ attitude came for Britain with the arrival of the Americans. The same shock had happened in Australia and New Zealand earlier, just pre war, and in Canada probably earlier still. The arrival of anti-black American racism in 1943 is often cited in historical studies as a shock to the British; who’d developed their own lovely racisms in differing directions.

And the important question: Where’s the money? Britain was effectively bankrupt by ’45. Chamberlain despaired in 1939, not just because of having to go to war, but because he knew the inevitable consequence of the start of W.W.II was the end of the Empire and the collapse of British power. You can’t peg that on the Yanks.

Are we far enough off topic yet? 😀

And once again I’m just pointing out how the lottery bods would tend to view it.

Yes, looking back on the post that triggered me, I think I’ve misunderstood your opening remark – “I also think that the lottery funding should be investigated.”

I thought that had an implied “…and all those responsible for saying yes to the Vulcan guys should be shot and the money taken back” tacked on the end 😀

Now realise you meant “investigated” as in the Sally B bods should find out if they can get any funding!

Cheers Damien, now I realise why you seemed so gruff for a bit. I hadn’t even cottoned onto the connotations of the word “investigated”. Yes, I meant the latter interpretation. Hey, when the Vulcan flies, I’ll be very pleased to look at your pictures onhere and won’t moan it was a waste of money – I just hope it will be flying alongside Sally B some day. Now, that will be a historic sight.

The Sperrin was the backup V bomber, if the others failed. Thought you’d know that? Your other red herrings nothing to do with the spearhead of the V force.

Historians (as opposed to boy’s toys fans like we are) regard the effect of the USAAF as one of the defining turning points in Britain’s 20th century. The effect of the V force itself, as opposed to the overall effects of the cold war are regarded as much more minor. Trying to have British history as only British built is a bit one eyed.

I think the V force was a fascinating part of aviation history. But in terms of Britain’s history, minor in comparison to the ‘Friendly invasion’. Both are important.

Willow – as I understand it, there is a global squeeze on aviation insurence premiums and issues arising; in the US, Canada, Brtiain, the continent and Australasia costs are going up and owners and operators are having to pay up, or go without, where and if they can. It’s often pegged to September 11th, and other issues, but like petrol pricces seems to be a one way trend. This new requirement is just an additional kick in the guts.

Cheers!

So what about the talk of insurance costs going up for all airshow performers then?
It may be a different issue, but I thought that the CAA, influenced by some of the airlines (BA, Monarch and Virgin) were going to increase insurance costs for General Aviation and warbirds

Please tell me I’m wrong.

Sally is a test case for ALL privately owned historic aircraft flying at displays in the UK. Any ruling on her will have far reaching effects.

Not as I understand it. It’s for the aircraft in the same weight bracket. i.e. no other UK warbirds; though I guess a B-24, Halifax etc. would face the same issues. 😉

The real issue is that there is effectively a monopoly on warbird insurence. If you want to insure your car, you can shop around. If you want to insure your warbird, you are forced to take what you can get and cough up what the company demands. The raised indemnity just exaccabates the problem.

Just a thought, but if British Aerospace have agreed to pay the insurance costs of the Vulcan, could not Boeing be approached to assist in the cost of keeping Sally in British skies?
She is, after all, one of Boeings products, and is airworthy in the country from which the type is most famous for being flown from?

This would be the same Boeing who tried to demand royalties from kit manufacturers for using the word ‘Boeing’ (Sorry, TM) in their kits?

Good idea, wrong company. I’d LOVE to be proven wrong.

However, just kow-towing to the new rules and paying up doesn’t strike me as a sensible solution, as it only helps out this one aircraft – what about all the others hit by the same problems of increased insurance costs?

Good point, well made.

Nice thought about the US forces. Compared to their annual budget, the insurance cost of a B17 would be insignificant.
Thinking of the Maddingley cemetary flypast alone, the cost of the fuel an maintenance for 4x F15s for an hours flight is probably more than the insurance cost for Sally for a whole year.

Prehaps any exemption could apply to aircraft not in commercial use or flown for profit, as in the case of Sally.

Willow