Fouga… She wont be scrapped. Some Nimrods will, but not this one. They wouldn’t go to all that trouble for flying her out in a 124 if there were going to turn her into baked bean tins… Then again, stranger things have happened!!!!

Here are a couple more pics… Hope they’re interesting…

I cant believe that so far, 34 people had the urge to read a post titled “Lee Howard – Please Clear Your PM’s”

And whats worse is that there are two replies… One of which is from me 😮

We’re all going mad!!!!

Any idea where we can contact him at?…

The one new in th link that new forest has posted has been for sale for a long time now… It was on ebay not too many months ago!

It seems that there is a list of people after PO2’s… I’m also looking for one!

HHA Eng,

Thanks for the update. While you’re here, can you please tell us what the current state of play is with the Buccaneer? Do you think we’ll see her flying any time soon?

It’s a point that could be argued both ways. I’ve not said that a permit aircraft is in any way inferior. I’m restoring an AOP9 and there is only one place she’ll be going… Onto a permit (low n slow – I think I’ll be dropping quite a few wings when she’s restored).

But the fact is that I don’t think that CofA Auster’s needed to go onto a permit system… Nor did many of the people I spoke with, so while I’m not saying that I’m in the majority, I do know that I’m not alone with my views.

I don’t think my views are blinkered I even accepted that there are pro’s and cons with both systems. But, on reflection, I don’t think that all Auster’s would be ‘grounded’ in the next couple of years if we stayed on a CofA. But I also don’t accept that it’s a fact of life… If i were a fact of life, then no 50 year old aircraft would have CofA’s. It’s just a difference of opinions…

I do want to keep her flying, and as I said earlier, this will certainly not be a reason for me to get rid of her…

You’re entirely welcome to your opinions VX. But if you want to spend your Sunday afternoons flying over built-up areas in a 50 year-old single-engined classic, please remember that CAA or PFA paperwork has no effect on the glide angle with a dead engine! 😮

Absolutely… I couldn’t agree more with you. In the same way as the engine could stop in an aircraft regardless of age. But as long as we fly within the law, and more importantly, within the limitations of the aircraft, then there is no problem with flying over built up areas… And generally speaking, I think most pilots take this into consideration.

But this is one of my ‘beefs’ with the permit system. One day, my Auster will be safe and legal to fly over Lincoln cathedral… The next day, I’m going to breaking the law… Nothing will have changed on the aircraft, but the paperwork will be different. Is that fair? I don’t think it is.

I know that there are some Austers owners who will be feeling pretty smug about the decision, there will be some that don’t care either way, but I honestly feel pretty lousy about it.

If by PT you mean public transport, then it’s not PT flying… As far as I was aware no permit aircraft are allowed to fly over built up areas… PT or not.

Of course there are pro’s and cons to both sides, and I do see the points that you are making. But that still doesn’t stop me feeling pretty fed up about it all!! 🙁

What did surprise me was that they were saying that the owner can choose to have a PFA permit or a CAA permit. I found that quite strange. I would have thought that responsibility should have been handed over to one body. Has anyone any opinions as to which permit would be better?