Interesting views from some warbird operators about the future of operating in the UK

I am intrested in why some operators are not happy with the proposed changes? it would give some clarification to this discussion from us non-flyers.

David B you can make statistics read what you want,

1 in 10 drivers killed on the road were under the influence of Alcohol…… Shock horror, but look at it another way, 9 were sober, so drink driving must be safer.

Its all too easy to make bad statistical analogies. For instance the one above would only hold water if, at any one time on average, 10% or more drivers were under the influence.

Much as people ‘hate’ H&S -risk assesment – etc – it appears that 150 people plus are still alive each year as a result of H&S improvement and education!

I think there’s a difference between administrative overburden in general and H&S paperwork. As for the first, lately I am seeing an ever widening gap between reality as reflected by the paperwork and reality itself as far as maintenance items are concerned. A worrying development…

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2836/CAP%201188%20GA%20policy%20consultation.pdf

Interesting reading, particularly Annex C;
“Framework for the evaluation of aviation activities for payment based on safety standards acknowledgement and consent.”

David B you can make statistics read what you want,

1 in 10 drivers killed on the road were under the influence of Alcohol…… Shock horror, but look at it another way, 9 were sober, so drink driving must be safer.

Having watched the CAA over the years I would say a lot of the changes are to do with simply the CAA being worried about being sued and their attempts to pass the buck.

Much as people ‘hate’ H&S -risk assesment – etc – it appears that 150 people plus are still alive each year as a result of H&S improvement and education!

Just think how many could be “saved” if we ban drinking and smoking! Same with fatty foods.
Make everyone drive bigger, safer cars and while you’re at it convert all roads to dual carriageways, ban all aircraft flights except for the latest jetliners because they have very, very good safety record.
Going too far?
Well, some feel the same thing about the abundance (overabundance) of H&S regs.

Just playing devils advocate….

CAP10 – this graph illustrates the fatal injury rates for the past twenty years http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm

Much as people ‘hate’ H&S -risk assesment – etc – it appears that 150 people plus are still alive each year as a result of H&S improvement and education!

Having attended to the result of an industrial accident -I can assure you that I would take dayglow vests -reams of regulation and a litigation awareness in companies
any day !

Snoopy -that is utter nonsense ! In the 1980’s and 90’s a number of warbirds moved to the U.K from the U.S . That was at a time that fuel was significantly cheaper than the U.K and regulation in terms of the FAA was simpler. That is still the case. Warbirds are moving to the U.S at the moment because collectors like Jerry Yagen -Rod Lewis -Tom Blair and the likes have serious personnel equity ! Its nothing to do with U.K owners not being able to afford to pay for certification or running costs – its because it’s a world market for aircraft and if you want a razorback P-47 for example and have something like $3 million dollars you can afford to buy it wherever it is!

As to the economy ‘picking up here’ -maybe you don’t watch the exchange rates but the pound is stronger against the dollar than it has been for a few years . Therefore its significantly more expensive to buy aircraft in the U.K for export to the U.S which blows a big hole in the economy premis.

All this comes down to the fact that multimillionaire owners can afford to have the likes of Spitfire Mk.1’s built in the U.K under British regulation and not really find the issue of a few thousand or so spent of CAA fees much of an issue at all!

Iam afraid these are the times we live in, too much regulation,litigation,blame culture,looking over your shoulder,risk assesments,method statements it goes on and on what happened to good old common sense!

I just now had replacement company approval certificates through the post, and they have changed them back from individual types back to generic weight groups, indeed as the licence groups were in the past..
If one thing is my biggest bugbear is when they dropped the licence ratings based on weight limits to groups that are always in a state of flux… Previously it was simple to know that whatever was at the door under 5700kg etc or any engine or unpressurised above 5700 was covered, now it’s a minefield as they jump in and out of groups at the drop of a hat, even your licence is worthless as what ever is on that bears no relationship to what is on it in reallity.

Tony T ;- Your point about EASA is well made. As with the rest of the EU juggernought, it has been hellbent on vacuuming-up regulatory power for itself, with, one may surmise, the intention of also vacuuming-up all the revenues ultimately…. The UK CAA has become, if effect, a local office of EASA. Rather amusing really, considering the lackadaisical and amateurish way that EASA got going. I think at one stage they thought they could get everything that flew to be fitted with a transponder so that they could charge for every flight….. Someone must have had a word in their ear.
Mentioning EASA though, does bring-up an interesting question;- If the UK leaves the EU – and there is a very good chance that it will – where will that leave the CAA…? Now there’s a thought to conjure with. I wonder if they have a cunning plan….

Victor Meldrew;- Vintage aircraft tend to flow like water towards where the best operating environment is. Witness the peregrinations of some aircraft to and fro across the Pond. If the economy picks-up here, and the regulatory – and cost-burden is ameliorated, – aircraft will flow here. T’was always thus.

Hmm, I would add that not ALL of the operators are happy about what is being proposed.

Why may i ask?
Is this better than staying where things are at the moment?

Hmm, I would add that not ALL of the operators are happy about what is being proposed.

Yep, I know of a couple that are not happy chappies over the changes as well.

E

Some changes have already been made. The CAA has already, as of last February, set-up a separate section to deal with GA, as it has all been lumped-in with Heavies and Commercial in the past and lesser voices drowned-out. This is a very positive step, as this means that, for the first time, GA will have it’s own seat at the top-table, and not have it’s interests totally pushed to one side by the big commercial interests.

Yes and no, part of the reason they have formed the GA unit is that with closure of regional offices and the fact CAA surveyors are leaving in droves is the fact they have no choice. My last Audit was done by someone from Gatwick that used to audit the likes of Air India…. He had no clue about GA and it showed. Simply because they haven’t got the manpower at regional offices to deal with the workload. The new proposed head of the GA, a man that would have been ideal I am lead to believe has quit. What I really find amazing in all the lightening the load on industry £)(&:: the fact my annual audit has gone from a couple of hours in the morning to two full days isn’t exactly lightening that load… A lot I put at the doorstep of EASA and the CAA having their hands tied, but surveyors are leaving in droves, that’s because they realise the new system is a pile of poo..

I am aware of the proposals regards parts manufacture -so yes I was interested to enough to read it ! As to ‘shooting the messenger’ -there is a big difference between stating fact and the notion that moving regulation sideways is in some way going to have a similar effect to the glut of warbirds post ‘Battle of Britain’ supposedly had in the U.K ! The reality was that the majority of HE111’s had an incredibly short flying careers before either joining museums or heading to the U.S -Spitfires and Buchons headed stateside and overall the U.K didn’t have a massive boom in airworthy historic aircraft . So to suggest that new regulation in new hands is going to have any meaningful effect is debatable – there are not masses of aircraft waiting on regulation change to make their restoration viable . People who operate vintage and warbird type aircraft are feeling the hurt from fuel prices -hangarage costs and insurance -the idea that historic aviation will have a massive renaissance post regulation change is a flight of fantasy.

Hmm, I would add that not ALL of the operators are happy about what is being proposed.

Parts manufacture etc is all part of the package of reforms proposed. If you were interested enough to read the proposals you’d know. Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m merely reporting what’s been going on and the intentions. When this happens, and what form it all takes, is ultimately up to the CAA, I’ve merely reported the main thrust. These changes are being asked for by the operators, not the CAA, so one must presume that they have some idea what the Dickens they are talking about. Similarly with the legal aspects. I can’t imagine that the law in an anglophone Commonwealth country is fundamentally different to the UK. The testimonies at the last Conference of some of those involved, including the guy who set-up the system on Oz, were pretty compelling. The various interested parties are merely trying to navigate a complex basket of problems – without compromising safety. What’s not to like about that….. :-/

I think this is being somewhat overstated! There are many vintage aircraft owners who have no intention of being parked at the local airfield each weekend waiting for punters to arrive for a quick spin! Add to this the high price of Avgas and the spiralling cost of keeping a Gipsy engine in the air and whatever changes the CAA wish to make will have little
effect on the owners who fly their machines a little purely for their own enjoyment. A number of Chipmunk owners I speak to dispair at the difficulties of keeping them in the air – in the last twenty years there has been little or no real progress in spares manufacture and whatever way you look at it there needs to be a serious sea change to make things better.

As to ‘informed consent’ and ‘disclaimer’ notices – legally not likely to stand for more than seconds if god forbid a serious incident happens and the pilot/ engineer is found liable!

Venture Aviation.

There are changes afoot which will have a great deal of bearing on the maintenance and operation of historic and vintage aircraft. I’m surprised that there have not been previous comments upon this subject on the Forum. The CAA has been in ongoing consultation with interested parties and there have been two major conferences at Duxford, in February 2013 and 2014 which were both interesting and well-attended. The 2013 Conference included some very robust and entertaining Q&A sessions. What became clear was that the CAA really were listening.

Some changes have already been made. The CAA has already, as of last February, set-up a separate section to deal with GA, as it has all been lumped-in with Heavies and Commercial in the past and lesser voices drowned-out. This is a very positive step, as this means that, for the first time, GA will have it’s own seat at the top-table, and not have it’s interests totally pushed to one side by the big commercial interests.

In terms of the restoration, maintenance and operation of older machines, there is a proposal to adopt the Australian model of what is termed ‘Adventure Aviation’. This has two important ramification. Firstly it involves the CAA delegating administration, so that the ‘industry’ becomes Self-Administering. Note – NOT self-regulating… Powers will be delegated in much the same way as they are to the LAA, but with important differences.

All of this is being driven by;-
1) The ‘industry’ complaining of high costs and burdensome regulation totally lacking in any cost/benefit analysis.
2) The inability of operators to make money from operating their a/c to defray sky-high costs.
3) The pressure from Government on the CAA to cut costs. This latter point is not to be underestimated in terms of it’s influence on this project…..

With regard to (2) above – this is an area which the average enthusiast is likely to see the greatest changes. Hitherto, it has been difficult to impossible for operators to charge for flights, as their a/c were not suitable for normal licensing. This applies to airshow appearances as well as rides etc. However, under the new proposals, there is an issue of ‘informed consent’. This would, in practice, boil-down to a punter having to read a risk-assesment document, and signing a waiver. One may easily see that if this were to go ahead, if could, potentially, make as much of a step-change in the historic aircraft scene as the glut of airworthy warbirds after the making of the BoB film in 1969, if not more so. Rides/air-experience flights etc, would become available in a whole range of older machines. Not only will enthusiast be able to get into the air in historic aircraft, but the prices would be significantly reduced….

If all this happens, and if it does it’s not yet certain what exact form it will take, it’s also likely to make it more probable that many more older aircraft will become viable to operate in the UK. Now, this hasn’t happened yet – it’s still ongoing, but that is the intention. Anyone interested in seeing what this system might look like can find plenty of references to it on Australian websites. The details are being thrashed out now, and I’m guessing – and it’s only a guess – that we’ll know a lot more by this time next year.

Finally, I’d like to say that I’ve never personally had any problems with the CAA. They have a big and onerous job. I’ve only ever found them helpful, friendly and quite flexible at times. Which is not to say that these changes are not overdue of course. However, they are very much ‘on-side’ with all this. Personally, I think it will happen, and, when it does, it’ll be the biggest shot in the arm that the vintage aircraft scene has ever had.

Jean Munns comments are amongst the best on there, and demonstrate real insight into the issues.

A sad reflection of the industry, especially when it is really obvious that the current CAA is only really interested in generating cash, at the expense of driving businesses out of existence, and paying very little attention to what is really happening at the “work face”.
The “Government” (have we got one, sorry going off subject!) keep “harping on” about the how buoyant our manufacturing industry is – if the CAA are allowed to carry on like this, a good proportion of this industry will disappear. My two penny worth!