Sad news from Flugwerke and the UK Scene.

Originally posted by trumper
LOL,what a strange paperwork bound country we live in ,why do you need more paperwork if you make more than 10 planes,we are inundated with red tape,oh well.

Probably because you have to draw a line somewhere between a one off, or limited run PFA type stuff and a production run of a new type which would need design approval, manufacturers backing etc.

The reason I ask was that the whole purpose of JAR and now EASA was to align all of the participating countries under one system.

AFAIK all of this doesn’t apply to experimental category CoA’s. These are still subject to local regulations and approvals.

Originally posted by Snapper
Wasn’t it something to do with the number of airframnes being made? 12 being made, but any number over ten needs different paperwork or something?

LOL,what a strange paperwork bound country we live in ,why do you need more paperwork if you make more than 10 planes,we are inundated with red tape,oh well.

Wasn’t it something to do with the number of airframnes being made? 12 being made, but any number over ten needs different paperwork or something?

🙂 I think we’ve got to be careful about distinguishing between the subject of aircraft types to fly and the subject of the quality of restorations and workmanship outside the UK.
Lets hope for the best so we can stand a chance of seeing some warbirds ,rebuilds,replicas,whatever, flying in a safe and well maintained manner.:)

Nighthawk,

Just because the Lightning is allowed to fly in South Africa doesn’t make it any safer, and doesn’t necessarily make it right. Maybe the South African Authorities have different safety standards than the UK and, South Africa has a whole lot more open spaces for an aircraft to go down in than the UK.

As somebody has already said, the Lightning didn’t have a particularly good safety record in RAF service, even with a bottomless pit of cash and manpower being thrown at it, and relentless training at the taxpayers expense. Things are different in the civilian world in terms of how much gets spent on an aircraft before the owners lose interest.

Just imagine the outcry if a Lightning (or any other permit warbird for that matter) crashed into a public area, maybe injuring members of the public. Maybe the CAA are just addressing this concern?

Would you like to make the decision to allow it to fly and have your name on it when things went wrong? Maybe end up in a court answering awkward questions from a barrister who doesnt know 2/10ths of **** all about aircraft, about why you allowed that aircraft to fly?

Its a tough call, and I’m sure there’s a lot more to it that just allowing it to fly or not.

[Apologies for yet another thread being turned around to talk about the Lightning….]

:rolleyes:

This sounds encouraging. Hopefully a resolution will be achieved which serves all party’s interests. Good luck to all involved.

Regards,

Paul

😀 😀 😀

Just as i put the above post in i recieved another E Mail from Claus, keep fingers crossed,here it is below,thanks if anyone is listening at the CAA

Dear Sir,

I am somehow unable to post a responce on the discussion board ( can’t
login ), but some promising news can be given. Maybe you can do that for
me..?

Against all my expectations I have been contacted by a CAA-employee and he
indicated that he will discuss matters with me and give me some advice as
how to get the correct stream of papers and certifcates needed to be done.
He will also get me in link with a major warbird-restoration-facility in the
UK, who might even want to represent us. Thanks to your bulleting board I
might finally get a bit closer to a more satisfying solution for all of us.
Please stay tuned to our website under www.flugwerk.com and watch for some
more exciting news to come. Again my thanks to all the commentators, it
shows that there is the need for a bit of change…finally we talk about,
maybe no more than two of these aircraft in your country. Safe flying to all
of you !

Claus Colling

🙂 Oz plane,no sorry i dont know the answer to your question,i rmailed Flugwerke primarily to see if they would be able to display over here and if any of thier rebuilds were going to be sold and flown over here as i had heard many rumours and thought it was best to get the reply from the horses mouth so to speak.
I recieved a second e mail from them when i asked permission to post their reply on here,this is the 2nd e-mail i recieved.
I can only suggest e mailing Claus at the German contact address on their webpage and asking him.
Let us know how you get on,all the best
This is the second reply————————

Thank you much for your impetus towards our FW 190 and the UK-Airshowscene.
Feel free to repeat my words in the internet-forum, as they just reflect the
current situation with the UK-CAA.

Many thanks..possibly somebody changes his mind or shows us a way that is at
least manageable.
I, for my part, have given it up. I had a few inquiries from some of the
more reputable warbird-restauration shops in your country, but apparently
they all wanted just sensible information about our projects, but their
“offered help” never came into being…all big-talkers, no doers so far.
Besides, I think that your country has the most beautiful museums and
collections of aircraft and some of the nicest airshows on tis side of the
Atlantic and it is a pitty that we are hindered by the officials, who ( this
is just my personal opinion )are trying to “protect” your “warbird industry”
against any competitors from abroad ( good a few years ago, not any longer in
a unified Europe ).

Cheers Claus

Question for trumper. Do you know what standards the 190s have been built to? FAA Experimental, JAR or whatever. The reason I ask was that the whole purpose of JAR and now EASA was to align all of the participating countries under one system. I assume Germany joined so the CAA are a bit out on a limb in denying access to British airspace I would have thought. I guess the real problem is that like a lot of big organisations, the CAA are under-staffed particularly in the Airworthiness Dept and especially at the lighter end of the scale. An example of this was the engineer who came to check out a chums Private Cat 2-seater. He had just come from doing a 747 and it was his first light aircraft in 6 years.
I’m not bashing the CAA but just pointing out the realities of life and perhaps the 190s ended up in the wrong “In-tray”.

The thing about the whole CAA arguments is that its easy for us to sit her and criticize when we dont have to actually make the decision. If you look at something like the Lightning then you have to put emotion to one side and look at the facts as you receive them. The first place you look is the original manufactures, they tell you that in their opinion the aircraft is not safe for civilian operation. Know try going on television to explain why you gave it an authorisation to fly after it has just hit a school full of children, apart from the obvious emotional trauma you would feel you would no doubt soon be arrest and put on trial for manslaughter and could look forward to spending some time in jail.

The aircraft is indeed aloud to fly in South Africa but under the strict guideline that it must not be flown over populated areas, know you try doing that in the UK. I think that if the UK had the same geography as South Africa then the CAA would seriously look at letting the aircraft fly but unfortunatly we dont. No one would like to see a Lightning fly in the UK more than me but if you take the emotion out of the argument then you can see that it is a non starter. I dont wish to start the whole Lightning argument up again its just the easiest aircraft to use as an example. The fact is we are a to densely populated country to take a risk, more so than France, Germany, New Zealand etc. I’m not saying the CAA are always right just we should look more into the argument than just criticising all the time, every country has different circumstances.

Sad news again.

Yes, the CAA needs to apply other criteria than in South Africa. But why does it need to have other rules then the rest of Europe? (Belgium, France, Germany, …) Is the airspace in Europe more dangerous due to the other rules regarding aircrafts in these countries? And are there more warbirdcrashes in Australia and NZ due to their other rules?

I don’t believe the influence of the EASA on the CAA wil be seen in the near future. The UK has a more independant status within Europe (which I like: I love the pound and driving on the left side of the road 😉 ). So I think the CAA might keep its identity for a long time.

As nighthawk said, maybe the CAA need to re-evaluate the situation regarding certain aircraft. But all changes regarding rules take some time and you need to find enough people who support the change. I don’t believe that this will happen soon.

J.V.

Originally posted by DamienB
Trumper – I would suggest reposting that email from them with a remark like that in it wasn’t particularly wise, permission or not. The attitude is one thing but putting it out there for all to read will do nothing but harden attitudes at the CAA – they are human after all.

But surely the CAA judge things on a logical basis and criteria and not emotional feelings,therefore the feelings put into the e mail should play no part in any decisions,if it does then it proves the CAA are not sticking to the same rules for all.
It does ask a question though ,are the standards of rebuilds in other countries inferior to ours ??,i would think there are alot of people being insulted by the CAA in other countries if that is the statement seemly coming from the CAA.

You have to remember how densely populated the UK is,South Africa is a much larger country and the Thunder City guys work in close co-operation with the military,using restricted airspace for some of thier flying.If a Lightning comes down in SA,it’s far more likely to come down in an open area.The CAA have to legislate in a utalitarian manner,with the public’s safety as the top priority. Bear in mind that the Lightning did have a poor safety record during it’s early career,and there were still a number of accidents in the later years of service.

Originally posted by Nighthawk
Maybe the CAA need to re-evaluate the situation regarding certain aircraft.

But you know they won’t.

Flood.

The CAA aren’t always right IMO. Take The Lightening, they thought it could not be operated safely, and there are now several operating safely in South Africa. Maybe the CAA need to re-evaluate the situation regarding certain aircraft.

I have to agree with what MotF says, although you can understand thier frustration when you consider how thorough the CAA are compared to many other European aviation authorities. That said,I think that’s partly what makes the CAA the best of the bunch.
I wonder what effect the EASA might have on something like the Flug Werke 190 situation, would it be possible for FW190’s to fly in the UK if/when the EASA have more influence on the CAA?

Originally posted by Manonthefence
Very sad news

However

With an attitude like that no wonder they didnt get anywhere with the CAA.

Maybe he has tried and it has driven him to be like this,not wishing to be a flame war but N/Zealand -P40,L A -9 and Germany have gained and we have lost out.:confused:

Very sad news

However

Your CAA-people apparently have
invented flying and they are seemingly the only ones on mother earth who can
do things the right way in aviation

With an attitude like that no wonder they didnt get anywhere with the CAA.