Use this forum to flag up examples of red tape and gold plate
User avatar
By trevs99uk
#1347434
Will the CAA be releasing, something in relation to all the nogoldplating Requests.

I sent several emails in to nogoldplating. And never heard another thing.

What happens to these requests. ...????



Rgds trevor
By Joff
#1347453
Hi Trevs - we can't respond to every comment but we do monitor this site and have looked at all the responses to the emails (thanks for sending them in). As we progress the ones under our control that we can act on (i.e. those affecting national aircraft - for the CofA fleet we need to all influence EASA etc) we will either press release them at www.caa.co.uk/news and / or include them in our new 60 day updates that you can see at www.caa.co.uk/ga. Were there any specific suggestions you were chasing? You can also come and ask us at Duxford on 28 March http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?c ... l&nid=2417 or at Aeroexpo
User avatar
By Peter Gristwood
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1347604
Joff wrote: As we progress the ones under our control that we can act on (i.e. those affecting national aircraft - for the CofA fleet we need to all influence EASA etc) ...


How is this going with aircraft such as the Gardan Horizon and the Robin DR200 series. Are you getting anywhere influencing EASA?
User avatar
By kanga
#1347674
Peter Gristwood wrote:
Joff wrote: As we progress the ones under our control that we can act on (i.e. those affecting national aircraft - for the CofA fleet we need to all influence EASA etc) ...


How is this going with aircraft such as the Gardan Horizon and the Robin DR200 series. Are you getting anywhere influencing EASA?


HR200s (with TC holder in NZ) ?
User avatar
By Peter Gristwood
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1347680
Quite right Kanga

There was talk back last summer that we would be seeing progress on moving aircraft with limited or non-existant support from TC holder to Permit status. My understanding is that there has been some rolling back from that pledge.

We certainly haven't seen any sign that the CAA are doing much, but I could be wrong. What is the current situation please?
User avatar
By Human Factor
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1347759
Not a great deal apparently happening.

Something to add. Any chance of a more enlightened view regarding the display of registration marks on former military aircraft please? The US and Australia in particular seem to have quite a pragmatic approach in this respect.
User avatar
By Peter Gristwood
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1347823
Joff

Some of us met with CAA reps back in the summer at AeroExpo and other places, and there was a feeling at that point that the question of CofA types with limited or non-existent support would be a priority. Even though they were EASA aircraft, the CAA would be liaising and 'influencing'other members on this.

I've looked at the CAA document and, although much of this is welcome, it does not seem to show any progress in this matter. I have also heard that it might have been filed in the 'too difficult to worry about' tray.

It is nice to see that where they can, the CAA are taking action. I would like to see a bit of progress within the EASA arena that directly affects my flying.

Another example :

The LAA is sorting out Night and Instrument flying for LAA Permit types that can use unapproved avionics, potentially.These will generally be top end Permit machines, though some low-end ones are fitting impressive components. Why is it that we with aircraft like my Robin (marginal Annexe 2) are restricted to fully approved avionics? And are the CAA looking at that paradox?
User avatar
By Human Factor
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1347843
Thanks, Joff. I'd already seen it. Depends how relevant the changes are to you I suppose.

Joff wrote:re registration marks and military aircraft - what else were you after? here's what you can do now: http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid ... pageid=136


How's your Mandarin? :wink: Believe me, I've tried mine to little avail....

Seriously, our cousins (western and southern) are quite happy with a discrete reg on the side rather than the full size standard figures which the CAA insist upon. If that isn't Red Tape, I'm not sure what is?

Spot the difference....

Image

and

Image

Same airframe.

There is no requirement for foreign government permission if a registration is displayed. It's acceptable elsewhere in Europe too (look closely)....

Image
User avatar
By Cookie
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1347891
^^^^^ Isn't that Will's new machine?

Cookie
User avatar
By Human Factor
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1347900
I think so. I'm in the wrong job..... :P
By Joff
#1347924
I know orphan types is still being looked at - have asked for an update. Re the reg display why do you have to display it at all - many don't e.g Cubs etc - or is it that you can't get permission from the military authority whose marks you are showing?
User avatar
By Human Factor
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1347933
Hi Joff,

Joff wrote:Re the reg display why do you have to display it at all - many don't e.g Cubs etc - or is it that you can't get permission from the military authority whose marks you are showing?


The link you gave me above is the "Exemption to Article 10" (i.e. Exemption from displaying the registration for aircraft bearing a military livery).

Unless you operate a type which is in US markings having formerly been operated by the US military, the CAA requires that you get specific written permission from the government whose markings you show - including UK mil if appropriate. That is all well and good, however it is not always possible or practical to do so. I won't go into detail here of my case, suffice to say permission from the Chinese government is unlikely to be forthcoming in the near future. Interestingly, there has been a CJ flying in the UK in Chinese markings for many years with this exemption but the CAA alone insists the exemption must be airframe specific. The US case means this is clearly not a requirement beyond the CAA.

Our intention is to display the aircraft in its military livery as a retired military aircraft and having large CAA approved lettering emblazoned across the tail and the belly detracts from the effect, which is why where possible, all warbird operators apply for the Exemption to Article 10. This is also the reason why the exemption is offered in the first place. It is only valid in UK airspace anyway.

The point is though that if it is accepted by the FAA, CASA and the German authorities (so it's not an EASA issue) that it permissible to display a small discrete registration mark beneath the tail, rather than standard markings, why is this not acceptable to the CAA for those of us who are unable to obtain the necessary (only required by the CAA) permission to fly without it?

Please note it is solely a CAA requirement to gain permission from the appropriate national government. It is not necessarily a requirement of those governments. Note as I say, if a registration is displayed, permission is not required.

Of course we have the alternative of applying to a different country who operated the type for their permission. However, I'd rather pay £29 to the CAA than £15000 to a paint shop to paint over a perfectly good scheme in good condition.

Anything you can do to help here would be massively appreciated, please. Apologies for epic thread creep.

Another example. I suspect the Aussies don't care that a French operator is using their scheme (look closely again)....

Image