The End Of Vintage Aircraft???

I suppose.
Maybe if we didn’t have a government that cared about nothing then cash then maybe.

Be a bit pointless, since when did the petitions do anything?! Every single one gets the same old reply ‘yes thank you all for signing it and raising awareness, but we’re not actually going to do anything, because we’re the government’

Has anybody thought of putting a petition to reject the proposal on the Downing St. petition site?

The End of Vintage Aircraft?

Probably. Thing is, what we thought impossible or improbable ten years ago is going to or already has happened. All you need to do is project yourself ten years from now, when military hardware held in private collections will be outlawed by the EU. National institutions will be unable to cope with the influx of tanks and combat aircraft, and the scrapmen will have a field day.

Insurance premiums will rocket and health and safety concerns will see the end to most displays. All it will take is one really nasty accident and that will be the end to that. Off course, the Red Arrows and the BBMF will dispand due to the defence cuts, following on from more overspends on BAe Defence Projects. Etc, etc, etc.

I must admit I get pretty annoyed with all the doom and gloom merchants on here. Ok so it looks like the DC3 will not be allowed to carry passengers in future, and yes it could be see as a set back.

But then aircraft preservation has always been a case of two steps forward and one step back – result we have more historic aircraft on display than 25 years ago, more flying, more opportunities to enjoy flights in vintage aircraft, more aircraft under cover, better restorations etc etc etc.

As Atlantic 1 says negotiations are on going; so lets hope for a positive outcome – and who knows we might be surprissed and any new exemptions might open the door to people like the Aviodrome operating thier Connie on pleasure flights, or dare we hope for AACF to carry passengers in their DC6.

In the meantime if it really matters that much put your money (£65) where you mouth is, go to Coventry on one of AACFs open days and fly in a DC3. If you don’t take the opportunity then whether the Dakotas continue to fly passengers is pretty accademic isn’t it?

Steve

All,

The word “Grounded” is being used far too much at the moment. Can we be clear about this:

THE DC-3 IS NOT BEING GROUNDED! Nor are any other historic aircraft.

What is happening is a change in regulations for those people offereing Public Transport flights on aircraft such as the DC-3 and who do this using an AOC (Air Operators Certificate) but the aircraft will still be allowed to fly privately.

On July 15th this year, JAR-OPS will be replaced by EU-OPS. At the same time, the CAA will loose it’s power to grant exemptions to JAR and will be required to “apply” to the EU for any future exemptions from EU-OPS. In doing so, they must be able to prove that “an equivalent level of safety” is present. As a consequence of this, all exemptions from JAR-OPS will cease to be valid on July 15th. I believe any remaining ANO AOC’s will also become void after this date but I am not 100% certain of that.

How does this effect operators of historic aircraft? As an example, Air Atlantique currently hold exemptions from JAR-OPS for the DC-3 for items such as Cockpit Voice recorders, TCAS, Lockable cockpit doors, Emergency Lighting, Emergency exit dimensions and height from exit sill to the ground to name but a few. The problem is probably becoming clear. Without exemptions for these items the DC-3 will not be able to operate public transport flights in their current state. I should stress that these new regulations in no way ground the DC-3, but make it difficult to continue flying passengers until modifications have been made.

It is my understanding that the CAA are working with operators to get some of the items mentioned covered by exemptions under EU-OPS and are fighting the corner of the operators, so I don’t think bashing them is justified in this instance.

EU-OPS has been hurried in ahead of another change to EASA-OPS in a few years time and in truth aircraft such as the DC-3 probably were never on their radar, there being but a handful of people operating them on public transport flights in Europe. It is very much written for the A320/737!

The smaller historic aircraft will also be effected by the introduction of EU-OPS, but not to the same extent as the DC-3. The number of seats the aircraft has is irrelevant in this case.

Hope this makes sense. The world of JAR-OPS/EU-OPS is a mysterious and murky one best left well alone unless absolutely necessary, trust me!

Tom

I dont think EU regulation of air transport and registration categories should be allowed unapposed to ground historic and vintage aircraft, and understand the current issue is not relating to the airworthiness, but compliance with modern airline “operator” certification, either way dispensations must surely be able to be sought from rational people somewhere.

I would also agree that the vintage light aircraft will continue to fly as long as the private owner can justify it to his own bank balance.

The medium term threats to Vintage “heavy metal” would be the rising insurances that warbird and airshow accidents may attract, making it prohibitive to get insurance, and commercially untenable to operate without it.

I have previously raised concerns that the constant pressure to put on a show, or even show off, can cause a display pilot, or aircraft to exceed a safety margin with horrible resultant outcomes, each such event simply rises the risk and premiums for the following year.

Another obvious threat is airframe lives, and spares / parts availability, although warbird reproduction houses have shown that airframes and parts can be put into new production, and the same may be true of engines in the future, however the complexity and cost of engine castings and machining would probably only encourage very common engines such as the Merlin and PW 1340 / 1830’s to be so supported through new manufacture.

However the most interesting very long term threat to vintage aviation may not be the loss of servicable parts or the engines to bolt upfront, but instead the fuel to make it work.

The eventual dwindling of use of petroleum for automotive use and its flow on effect to other uses.

If the threat of peak oil, together with carbon gas emmission concerns bite as predicted just for car commuter use, there will be strong effort to develop combined cycle electric /hydrogen or other engines for cars and other modes of transport over the next 100 years.

(Obviously this isnt a problem for most of you, but it is for me as I am hoping to live well into next century ,which is still 92 years away – smiles)

While many existing automotive engines can be converted to bio-fuels, and I assume so may the Gipsy Major in Tigermoths be too which is already certified for low octane auto fuel? can some of the more complex and powerful aero engines also be so certified?

ie Can Merlins and large radials etc credibly move to such bio-fuels?, and what about jets?

Obviously new engines can be developed for new cars and aircraft to run efficiently on new fuels, including to maintain fast air travel and military air defence, but that doesnt mean new fuels will be developed to support old engines, or that new engines will be suitable for installation in existing airframes. (or viable to develop short runs to suit small populations of historic aircraft).

There are solutions, permit certain historic vehicles, aircraft to be exempt from emission standards and continue to operate.

However the price and availability of petroleum products such as petrol/gasoline, diesel and turbine fuel is linked to the high volume uses, if all cars were forcibly pushed off onto hydrogen/electric, and trucks onto LPG or other fuels, would the refineries/exploration keep petrol prices low, would the levels of production and supply be maintained, or would supply eventually dry up?

This is akin to the reduction of coal use in Britain for steam production in trains, industry and power stations and the eventual closure of most (all?) coal mines, or the simple blacksmith being replaced by the automechanic in the transition from horse and buggy to cars?

Then there is the simple physical view of oil as a natural resource, ‘peak oil’ that we have already exhausted over 50% of the world’s acccessible oil resources and it will simply run out in the next 50 to 100 years given the current rates of production. Which will have dramatic impacts on the production of motive fuels, lubricating oils and the manufacture of plastics?

(‘peak-oil’ is a bit of a night-mare scenario for the world when you stop and think how many uses oil products are used in, my lunch is wrapped in glad-wrap and put into a tupperware plastic box,, my paper is delivered in a plastic wrap, many goods and drinks are in plastic packaging, and then I need to drive my car, heat my house – but its also then easy to see why production is measured in millions of barrels aday, and the risk of running out may be credible?).

Without affordable access to current technologies of lubricating oil and fuels, what would happen to most of our heavy metal warbirds and even light vintage aircraft. some people might be able to horde some private stock, but some aircraft use significant volumes of both at their current level of activities, and are used to finding it available where they fly, not having to BYO.

I think the physical availability, economics of production in the face of new alternatives, or carbon tax or regulatory limitations on the use of petrol and oil is likely to be the greatest threat to the future operation of historic aircraft, through impacting on the use of existing powerplants and the difficulty and reluctance to replace them with new powerplants on new fuels.

(but hopefully not in my intended very long life time).

regards

Mark Pilkington

Sadly in the UK for most ex military warbird aircraft we no longer have the option of putting them on the N register.

So this might be kind of off base mind you its come from a Yank. But I really think the folks who have the Warbirds like the Pink Lady need to tell the EU to shove it, its my aircraft as long as I have a current airworthy on it, then I’m going to fly it when I want and where I want and you can take your little Weight Class rules and shove it. And if the EU wants to make a big thing out of it then I would do what goes over very well make a major media stink about it. Get Vets involved start filing laws suits. Also I would change the registery to a US N number that would PO off the EU since they can’t do squat about that.

Its time for you folks over there to take back your rights as owners and stop cow-towing to the All Mighty EU.

Oh and I’m sure some of you are going to say but this is the EU and we don’t do things like that well you want to fly your aircraft then a little Revolution is needed. :dev2:

No.

Avoid the headlines, look at the facts, and draw conclusions. The shape of vintage flying has and will continue to evolve. However the same two things are required as they ever were – money and determination. More (or less) of each is required for differing types, locations and needs, but very few areas of vintage aviation have actually been closed down anywhere in the world, or are under actual threat of complete closure, despite hysteric reports.

As Tom Everitt pointed out, the DC3 isn’t ‘grounded’ in the EU, but operators need to re-negotiate exemptions – a tricky, but not impossible task, similar to many undertaken in the past.

There are of course real threats – rising fuel costs and availability; and insurance are both often, rightly quoted. While insurance is way beyond funny, I take complaints by rich individuals about cost as understandable, but have not proven show-stoppers to date; the cost of entry has always been very high.

If you want easy and cheap, don’t play with old aircraft. Galdri’s last point is a good one.

but is the beginning of the end of Vintage Flying??? 🙁
Ben

No it´s not. Yes, it might be the end of commercial flying in vintage aeroplanes, but not vintage flying in general. Commercial flying in vintage aeroplanes only accounts for a very small percentage of the overal operations of vintage aeroplanes. The waste majority of vintage flying is done in privately owned and operated, small-ish single engined aircraft. As sad as I´m to see the grounding of commercial passanger carrying aircraft, like the DC3, it is not the end of the world. For the B-17 (Pink Lady), it is insurance that will keep it out of the air, because of the unfair appliance of max take off weight criteria for a vintage aircraft. I´m not sure we have seen the end of that though, and I would not be surprised if she would be flying again before long.

The vintage fleet can be roughly divided into two groups. The heavy metal (warbirds) and the light stuff. The heavy metal is facing a Catch 22 situation. The overal operation is getting very expensive, maintainance, fuel and insurance. The funny (or sad) thing is, that the Catch 22 comes into play there. The overal cost of keeping the airframe airworthy, will lead to fewer hours being flown, which will lead to less pilot proficency, which will lead to higher (hopefully not!) incidence rate, which will lead to higher insurance, which will lead to less money in the purse, which will lead to still less money available for flying…………..I think you all get my drift. I think the warbird movement in Europe is slowly comming to terms with this and is pooling it´s resources to keep cost down, and to maintain pilot proficency. Now a days, you will see the same maintainance facility do a lot of the work, and the same pilots names on schedule. Gone are the days of every John, Dick and Harry flying heavy metal warbirds. As long as there are people with money interested in the warbird sector of aviation, you will see warbirds fly for as long as fuel for them is available. And 100LL is getting to it´s end. It will not be cost but fuel that will ground them.

The light stuff is a bit different. Agreed, it does cost you a lot more to keep a Tiger airworthy, than, say, a C150. But everyone does not have the same attitude towards flying, thankfully. People learn to fly with a lot of different motivations. For some, just hanging in the air is enough, and a C152 will do just fine for that. Most, aspire to greater things. What those greater things are, differe from one person to the next. Some want the latest wizz kit in town and buy themselfs a Cirrus (have you looked at the prize tag of one of those), others want touring capability with four up (C182 very expensive) etc. Others want nostraliga. At 50.000 for a good Tiger, it is a lot more of a bargin than about 100.000+ for a Cirrus. You can spend an awful lot on maintainance for 50.000 pounds! The insurance for vintage category aircraft is not greater than for normal one, at least not in Iceland. The thing that will kill off this kind of vintage flying, is the lack of spares if the aircraft has to be kept on a normal CofA. If experimental/permit to fly category would be issued to these aircraft they could fly until………No fuel available

So, basically it is not all doom and gloom. When was the last time you looked into a hangar and saw rows and rows of vintage aeroplanes gathering dust with no-one wanting them? In the 60´s maybe??

Operating costs such as fuel and mtce have gone up lately but I think the death of vintage flying will be from high insurance!!