Tuesday 21 May 2013 19:49 UTC
This forum is for anything to do with light aviation
Its the 8110-3 DER approval that's approved data, not a recent (post-1955) 337. An important distinction in my mind because most 337s do not reference DER analysis. A little more research to dig up the specifics for my post above surfaced the following...
Approved data can be Type Certificate Data Sheets (TCDS), Airworthiness Directives (AD), Designated Engineering Representative (DER) data, Designated Alteration Station (DAS) data, FAA-Approved data, FAA-Approved Manufacturer’s data, Supplemental Type Certificates (STC) and appliance manufacturers manuals, and Form 337s dated before October 1, 1955.
If anything was needed to increase the impetus behind the Part M review this must surely be it. I think 2014 just became the end date.
The cynical pessimist in me sees this as a classical political ploy from Brussels.
Part M failed to increase the cost of maintenance sufficiently to drive everyone onto freedom-limited (*) permit Sport Aircraft.
So this is the next move. Crippling regulation and maintenance has ensured that most training is done on 40-year-old aircraft (talk about playing the long game) and so it is "quite reasonable" to require these inspections. The Part M maintenance costs mean that the cost of these inspections are excessive (neatly done - increase the cost of maintenance, then increase the maintenance itself).
Ergo, the remaining IMC-capable light aviation fleet is wiped out.
Camlobe may believe that he is quite safe with his Pipers. But anyone who has ever seen a politician at work in any environment will be well aware that divide and conquer is the standard approach. "First they came for the Cessnas, and I said nothing as I was a Piper Owner ..."
Once the "aged aircraft" are eliminated it will be trivial to dispose of the newer ones, if required (with a near-zero training fleet, there won't really be a need).
Socata owners are already orphaned, more or less. Look what happened to Concorde when EADS pulled the plug. EADS is "controlled" by EASA of course.
Cirrus has the "chute repack" vulnerability. Mandatory inspection of the explosives every year perhaps?
Diamond ... invent a problem with the engines requiring a strip down every year
Robin/Apex/Whatever go bust regularly, so it would take minimal political manoeuvring to keep them bust.
Once the above are eliminated, the end goal will be achieved. Light Private Aviation will be confined to grass strips in microlight-type aircraft which, although theoretically capable of touring will in practice spend 95% of their time in the local area. The only Private Aviation will be bizjets and helicopters for the super-rich; freedom for "normal" people will have been eliminated.
Like I said, cynical. But that is the way Brussels works.
I'm fairly cynical when it comes to EASA, but that's way beyond cynicism, and a very long way from any facts that I recognise.
Steve - I said "more or less", and with my cynics hat on. They don't make TB9/10/20 any more, just like they stopped making Concordes and then later on decided not suppor them either.
Ian - I'm simply taking the extemely cynical view of what the ultimate motives are. What we eventually see is undoubtedly a watered-down version of what was originally planned. So who can imagine what they wanted originally. "Ratchet and release" is I think the political term - you ratchet up a restriction, then release a little bit after the complaints so people think you're not so bad, then ratchet down harder once they have become used to the regime. I'm also not inclined to believe that there is no political influence over the manufacturers, who depend on EASA to certify their products. A "suggestion" that the RTC for the latest Day-VFR product will be more forthcoming if the IFR product has some extra mandatory inspections added to the regime doesn't strike me as that impossible.
Are we looking forward to a repetition similar to the casein glue failure saga of the 1960s?
Banking: a licence to create money. Let's be out of the bureaucratic monstrosity; and EASA too!
It strikes me as extremely unlikely to be honest. I can only think of one manufacturer making a range of aircraft from those requiring an RTC to those requiring full EASA certification. I can't imagine manufacturers readily agreeing either - "…make your expensive profitable aircraft difficult and expensive to own and we'll give you an easy ride on the lightweight tight margin stuff"
A potential source for the extra expense is the Cessna SIDs, and I really struggle with the notion that EASA persuaded Jack Pelton (who was at the helm at the time) and the rest of the Textron/Cessna board to do this in order to ramp up costs and reduce personal freedoms in Europe.
Part M has been an unmitigated disaster, it has ramped up complexity, costs and confusion and for no benefit whatsoever. They guy who drove it through EASA ought to hang his head in shame and resign (he won't). We too have to share some of the blame. I can remember Miles McCallum writing in FLYER about the impending doom years before anyone had really heard of Part M. Almost everyone shrugged their shoulders and buried their heads in the sand.
If we want things to improve we need to join AOPA and/or the LAA, we need to educate ourselves, we need to push back with reasoned, logical arguments, and above all we need to work together as an entire community rather than as 150 different tribal factions.
In Europe we have the regulators we deserve.
Ridders, back in the loop now and in answer to your query the Airtourer is, as you say, Annex 2 with a UK CAA Cof A. There was a glimmer of hope that we could go the Permit route but as there is a Type Certificate holder in Oz we're stuffed. However as long as the UK CAA support the NPPL with doctor's certificate we should still have a niche for those who can't/won't get an LAPL but can get an NPPL.
On EASA have you noted the intransigence about the "valve problem" with the Robinson R66. Same valve on the Jet ranger (and how long have they been flying?) but EASA want a guarantee that they are safe for a BILLION hours. Amazing
camlobe has made some very bold statements regarding the 140 and Rotax machines – lets have a look at some numbers;
Your Permit, Rotax powered two-seater will probably be charged a similar price for hangarage as a type-certified single, so little cost difference there.
Airfields usually charge hangarage on one of three systems;
Weight – expect big savings for the Rotax
Area – expect big savings for the Rotax
Number of seats – expect big savings for the Rotax.
Real world around me expect a 25 – 50% saving But the situation for the 140 is actually even less attractive. The typical Rotax machine has good stoll and will land at around twice as many locations in the UK that the 140 will. This reduces the cost of hangarage by vastly increasing the number of locations you can base the aircraft.
Your Permit, Rotax powered two-seater will probably be charged similar landing fees as a type-certified single, so little difference there.
Many airfields charge landing fee by weight and the Rotax machine will usually fall one category below the 140. Look at Doncaster for example – the saving would be 50%, same at Lee and many others. Again the situation for the 140 is even worse as many of the strips it cannot visit are free.
Your Permit, Rotax powered two-seater will probable cost at least five times as much as the shed of a Cherokee, and at least twice the price of a good Cherokee.
You can get a good Europa for around £26k.
Now lets look at a real world trip. I am just back from a tour of Scotland two up with bags, so lets work out the numbers for that, ignoring the 140’s inability to get into and out of some of the strips.
My machine is about 30% faster and burns 26% less fuel. My return flight was 3hours. The 140 would not have had the range – even at full tanks – to have made it with reserves! That is another stop, another landing fee and time lost. My total fuel usage for the trip was 120l, to cover the same ground the 140 would need over 200L!
My maintenance cost all in for the last 7 years averages out at under £400 a year.
A 140 at current prices may look attractive, but in reality you pay pay pay.
We need to all work together to push back on some of the really stupid things that are making flying so friggin expensive. Permit machines have a large part to play in the future of GA, but they are not for everyone and they aren't the only answer. Denigrating one strand of aviation will only make us all weaker.
It's people like Rod1 that make a large number of pilots avoiding LAA like the plauge. His passionate hate of PA28s and similar airplanes and complete lack of understanding why those airplanes still are popular and fulfill the needs of a market where a homebuilt 2 seater does not is only causing damage to the future of general aviation. This smug "I told you so.." attitude has to stop if we are going to be able to make the effort needed to improve the conditions for ALL of us.
Who is online
Login / Register