The other Coventry issues

Thanks spotty.

I guess they decided as it was going back at the end of the season anyway it wasn’t worth going through all the hoops just to keep it here for a few months.

I’d much rather see it go back to NZ rather then to the USA for example. A geniune RNZAF warbird for the country.
Very sad to see it go none-the-less.

M

Operators, Breitling in this case can apply for exemptions, and have done for 4 seasons, but had pressure put on them to register it in the UK.

However, the local powers(DUX area) at the CAA have become obstructive with paperwork issues, and i believe the P40 will head back to NZ, which it was anyhow at the end of the season.

Spotty M Driver.

Can someone update me as I might have got the wrong end of the stick. Has the P40 been refused a Permit to Fly and therefore has now got to back to NZ?

Originally posted by Willow
This P40 has been flying in the UK as ZK-RMH up until now. This is a New Zealand registration. It has been with us for at least 3 seasons now. Is there any reason why it cannot continue to fly as such?
Willow

I imagine that the CAA have decided that as it is registered to a UK based organsation it should be placed on the UK register, they have recently insisted that all these strangely registered YAK’s and the like also have to go on the UK register if they are to continue flying.

Originally posted by Willow

Several other aircraft based in the UK and Europe fly on US ‘plates’ such as the Duxford based T28 ‘N14113’ and the A26 and P51D from Norway which are ‘N167B’ and ‘N167F’. Also, OFMC have a T6 registered as ‘LN-AMY’ (a Norwegian reg). What is the difference between these examples and the P40?

Willow

These aircraft are (or at least were last time I looked) registered to owners in the US (or Norway in the case of the Harvard). There were moves to crack down on this some years ago by the CAA however there are some loopholes to enable owners to get around this, such as having an address or organisation in the US to enable them to be registered there and operated overseas.

In the CAA’s defence they set a high standard that everybody has to reach in order to operate their aircraft in this country. Their standards are higher than anybody else in the world with the aim of maintaining safety in the UK. This can at times be seen as a huge and expensive task to udertake by operators however by and large safety standards are mainained. As has been said earlier, the sooner you involve the CAA in your project and the more you work with them the more likely you are to be able to fly your aircraft in the UK.

When the annual comes up (MoT), you have to have the work done by a licensed engineer from the state of registry.

There are a few FAA ones in this country. Yet, D-FKMA AN2 at Wellesbourne has to return to Germany for this work. I guess the T6 likewise goes back to Norway. Would be interested to know how they’ve got aorund the NZ on the P40, if indeed, this is the case.

This P40 has been flying in the UK as ZK-RMH up until now. This is a New Zealand registration. It has been with us for at least 3 seasons now. Is there any reason why it cannot continue to fly as such?

Several other aircraft based in the UK and Europe fly on US ‘plates’ such as the Duxford based T28 ‘N14113’ and the A26 and P51D from Norway which are ‘N167B’ and ‘N167F’. Also, OFMC have a T6 registered as ‘LN-AMY’ (a Norwegian reg). What is the difference between these examples and the P40?

Willow

Willow

Don’t be to hard on the CAA they have to draw the line somewhere.

With regard to Jet Provest’s they are for the most part original so they will have beeen produced and certified by the original manufacturer. Since then they will have been maintained to an approved maintenace schedule and any repairs should have been carried out using official data (either manufacturers drawings or repair manual).

The problem sometimes with restorations rebuilds etc is very few original parts will end up in the finished aircraft. Therefore the CAA have to be satified that any parts produced have used approved data and conform to the correct part number for that type of aircraft. As David Burke has already mentioned you wil need a paperwork trail going back from the new component confirming that all items used in it are to the correct specification.

The CAA also need to be satisfied that the work has been certified by an appropriatly Licensed Engineer. Quite often Engineers who are only authorised to certify repairs have been certifying for rebuilds which include the overhaul of components which they are not necesary authorised to do.

Finally the CAA have to been involved from the beginging, so they can carry out stage inspections if they wish. Its no good presenting a finished aircraft to the C AA and expecting them to grant a Permit / C o fA, because they won’t!

I am not familiar with the P-40 case, the above is just a generalisation of the requirements.

I always thought that CAA stood for Campaign Against Aviation.

What with the current P40 issue, and the continuing Shackleton problem (badly missed from an otherwise excelent Sunday at Coventry), it looks like they intend to prove it right again.

What about all the Jet Provosts etc that haven’t been rebuilt. How do they get certificates as they don’t have all this paperwork?
Surely a rebuilt aircraft is better than one which has just been ‘kept going’.

Willow

Originally posted by Everton_1878
Could you just replace the stuff that doesn’t have the paperwork?

You could, but if its a major component it could be a bit expensive

Could you just replace the stuff that doesn’t have the paperwork?

Things like this always seem a bit strange when they’ve already been flying over here but on s different register

The has to be a clear and present paperwork ‘trail’ with the rebuild of an aircraft. It’s simply not a case of ‘this is what we rebuilt now give us the certificate’ – If your prepared to spend a large sum of money on rebuilding an aircraft you need to
have the certificates of conformity for the metal you use and the bolts and rivets that hold it together.
Simply put if you cannot be sure of the materials used
and who did the work you have big problems.

La-9 is due to arrive on sunday at the docks. So it should reach Dx by the end of next week. Unless the container ship sinks in the channel.
Bad news about the P-40, seeing that it’s the best restored and most reliable aircraft in OFMC. All because of paperwork discrepancies. Why can’t the CAA just say ‘ Give it here and we’ll have a look over it and if it’s O.K we’ll sort the paperwork out’. I suppose that’s just too easy.

I believe it’ll be off ‘home’ to New Zealand. Such a striking looking aircraft – I will miss it. We do of course still have the TFC P-40 in the UK…but there’s something about that shark mouth.

Where’s the P40 going then?? 🙁

I’m sorry to report that the P-40 is now unlikely to be seen on the UK airshow circuit again. On a brighter note, OFMC’s Lavochkin La-9 is expected any day now and will presumably replace the P-40 in the formation…

The P-40 has been grounded by the CAA and will probably be out for the rest of the season. It is due to a discrepency in the paperwork.

Re: Breightling Fighters

Originally posted by BlueRobin
Doesn’t the P-40 fly in this group and if so, what happened to it? Haven’t seen oe flyig before. In fact, ysterday was the first time I’ve been up close to a Corsair 😀

]

Normally it does
My Dad mentioned something about a delay getting it on the UK register

I’m sure someone will give you a more detailled answer soon 🙂

Breightling Fighters

Doesn’t the P-40 fly in this group and if so, what happened to it? Haven’t seen oe flyig before. In fact, ysterday was the first time I’ve been up close to a Corsair 😀

The Convair was damaged with a fuel fire in the exhaust, after the nice CAA test pilot carried out a engine shutdown, and did an incorrect re-start sequence.

The exhausts on Convairs route out the back of ducts on the wing, have a special name, augmentor ducts i think.

It is being repaired, just rather slowly i understand.

Spotty M Driver.