Use this forum to flag up examples of red tape and gold plate
User avatar
By Flying_john
#1387092
I think this falls into the Gold Plate/Red tape topic.

At last I have had confirmation that the Gardan Horizons GY80 in the U.K will be granted Permits to fly and the CAA have asked the LAA to administer the airworthiness on their behalf and make recommendations for the Issue of the PtF for each aircraft.

What is sad is that there are only 6 left flying in the U.K, many had become too costly under a CoFA with no type support and no spares to be viable aircraft. Perhaps some of those may come back to flying condition, but it is definately a diminishing fleet.

So well done CAA, EASA and LAA for allowing this all to happen.

JOhn
User avatar
By davey
#1387261
I own a Grumman aa1. There are 11 of these aircraft on the CAA register, 6 of which haven't flown for a number of years.

There are 4 which appear recently current, as in Arc renewal during the last 12 months.

There is 1 which is definitely still flying, yes that's mine. These are incredibly simple aircraft but because someone somewhere has a TC the CAA won't put these on permit, other countries have already put the aa1 on permit type maintenance ( S.Africa & Canada).

For the very small amount of this type left in this country I can only read this reluctance by the CAA as Red tape/ Gold plating.

Edit : Hi John, sorry to hijack your thread and I'm very glad your situation is sorted, but I'm also fairly sure others also see my point.
Last edited by davey on Mon Jul 06, 2015 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By Arnold Rimmer
#1387320
That is excellent news Flying John.

Can you give any info on how this came about?

Frankly, who built the aircraft (factory or enthusiast) seems immaterial when aircraft reach a certain age so all aircraft over 30 years old or maybe 20 years old should be given the option to go permit to fly.
#1387345
Is your glass half full or half empty?

Surely it is good that they can transfer from CofA to PtF?

:scratch:
User avatar
By davey
#1387365
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Is your glass half full or half empty?

Surely it is good that they can transfer from CofA to PtF?

:scratch:




Yes of course c of a to permit on simple/ old aircraft can only be a good thing...
By Arnold Rimmer
#1387368
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Is your glass half full or half empty?


First one is empty but just asked the barsteward for a refill.
User avatar
By kanga
#1387391
Excellent potential news for our and similar Robins (TC holder, not always quick nor helpful :roll: .. in NZ).

But presumably, in each case one would have to get LAA to accept Type (in principle) onto LAA books, then each aircraft (in particular) into its Inspectorate system. I have no idea how easily this worked out for other former CoA types, eg the Austers or factory Jodels.
User avatar
By Flying_john
#1387419
Yes - without doubt good news for Gardan Horizon's and may lead the way for other types that have not had an appropriate TC holder for years or any support or spares and are on Permits in other countries.

Our saga has been going on since 2002/3 just before EASA came to rule the skies the French offered the owners of the French fleet an option of Permit (CDNR) or a CoFA.

Some owners (about 40) opted for a permit. Then EASA came along and said Non - the aircraft should be on an EASA CofA, but to get those 40 back onto a CofA after they had been on a permit would have involved considerable cost which the French owners said no to. So EASA gave them (French only) grandfathered rights to a Permit !.

At the time I asked if the UK GY80s could transfer and was told Non!

Then in 2009 some more French aircraft were admitted to the list on a permit and again in 2013 and so I asked for help from the CAA to see if they could act on behalf of UK owners and explain to EASA the unfairness of keep admitting more French aircraft to the list of those on a permit and not any from the U.K.

They took this on board and about a year later EASA agreed to add the UK fleet to those that would be allowed Permits and the CAA said that they would delegate the admin of the PtF to the LAA if they would take on the type - which they have agreed to.

All that remains is for LAA engineering to review the type and any peculiaritys and decide how the PtF will be supervised and administered, hopefully through the existing network of inspectors who already have metal airframes and Lycoming engines on their authorisations. After all said and done, the GY80 is a well designed simple aircraft with no lifed components and with most of the firewall forward components being common to other well known types it presents no particular engineering challenges and because all the metal panels were painted and treated inside and out at manufacture are not subject to the same corrosion challenges that befall Rallye aircraft.
User avatar
By Airtime
#1387861
davey wrote:I own a Grumman aa1. There are 11 of these aircraft on the CAA register, 6 of which haven't flown for a number of years.

There are 4 which appear recently current, as in Arc renewal during the last 12 months.

There is 1 which is definitely still flying, yes that's mine. These are incredibly simple aircraft but because someone somewhere has a TC the CAA won't put these on permit, other countries have already put the aa1 on permit type maintenance ( S.Africa & Canada).

For the very small amount of this type left in this country I can only read this reluctance by the CAA as Red tape/ Gold plating.

Edit : Hi John, sorry to hijack your thread and I'm very glad your situation is sorted, but I'm also fairly sure others also see my point.


Davey

From my investigations, the Grumman is a very different case to the Gardan.
The Gardan was already on an EASA Specific Airworthiness Specification and that mentions that the DGAC had considered the type as Annex II. In the case of the Grummans, they still have a Type Certificate and an active Type Certificate Holder.
Someone needs to make a case to EASA that the AA1 and other aircraft with only a handful of airworthy airframes in the EU should be moved to permit-type maintenance and operation. The question is who at EASA to contact?
User avatar
By Peter Gristwood
#1387869
Good to see some common-sense being applied to the Gardan problem finally.

Be nice to see it applied to the Robin DR200/300 series as well, though, like the Grumman we still have a TC owner who wants to hang on to it.
#1438140
From LAA news, any good?
Following discussions with the LAA about the way forward for Gardan Horizon aircraft, EASA has reconsidered its policy on orphan EASA aircraft, and the good news is that last week they announced that in future any EASA aircraft with a Restricted CofA issued under an SAS (Specific Airworthiness Specification) rather than an active type certificate, including the Horizon, will be allowed to transition to an EASA Permit to Fly if the owner so chooses. The list of affected types - all orphan types with minimal realistic product support - includes the Beagle Pup. For others see https://easa.europa.eu/document-library ... ifications.


http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co. ... eagle.html
#1438259
Yes its true - I am pleased to say that my application went to EASA this weekend and Francis prepared the template and flight conditions to go along with the application.

It is not cheap however, for the initial permit there are fees to EASA, fees to CAA, fees to LAA and fees to an LAA inspector.

This is not what the French aircraft owners have to pay, but I guess its because it is a French National aircraft type that they have a different (much cheaper) mechanism.

So we must be thankful that finally the Gardan Horizon has made it and hope that other types, either on an SAS or with poor or non existant type support are able to get a PtF.

John
User avatar
By Airtime
#1438380
Ian Melville wrote:From LAA news, any good?
Following discussions with the LAA about the way forward for Gardan Horizon aircraft, EASA has reconsidered its policy................

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co. ... eagle.html


Excellent news.

By coincidence (?), received a long letter replying to an email to Mr Ky on the subject of aircraft such as the Grumman. (Note the original email was sent in October, letter from EASA received last week).
Even for Grummans, there may be a way to transfer to PtF if a case can be made. It is a long, detailed and regulation-filled letter but if anyone wants a summary, send a PM.