Use this forum to flag up examples of red tape and gold plate
#1306792
We used to use a chipmunk for tailwheel training however due to the huge costs of running such an aircraft it has been placed on a permit and because of the it has actually gone up in valve. Sadly this means we can no longer be used as part of the club fleet.

Interestingly from a mainteanace point of view nothing changed its still being maintained by the same company. In fact the owner doesn't do any maintenance on it at all.

So why can't such aircraft if maintained by an approved engineer be used for instruction?
User avatar
By Cookie
#1310571
Unable to comment on this previously, but I see the CAA have now released details in their GA Unit update dated August 2014:

We are investigating relaxing rules affecting remunerated training and examination in group-owned UK Permit aircraft. We circulated a proposal to the GA Partnership Group during June and have established a working group. This will feed into the ANO review to deliver any changes.


http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201192.pdf

Cookie
By Bathman
#1311322
Which is great for groups but is sadly is no benefit to flying school.
By User72
#1315486
Permit aeroplanes are allowed to do things (mainly to do with maintenance) that CofA aeroplanes are not. So the risk mitigations now say that you can't use a permit aeroplane for commercial purposes, as the owner(s) are responsible for the maintenance and so should be aware of any 'short-cuts' taken. So if that is to change you would have to maintain your permit aeroplane to CofA standards - but you can't as there is no TC holder and no spares support. So, sadly, I think you are stuck - the only slack is to allow owners to pay a flying instructor.

72
By Cubflyer
#1318317
"permit" aircraft have been used in flying clubs in France for years with no apparent problems there. And the French CNRA system (their equivalent to our permit to fly) would seem to be less rigorous than the LAA oversight on airworthiness of permit aircraft in the UK.
I don't think any risk assessment would find the maintenance of permit aircraft is any "riskier" than maintenance of C of A aircraft. There are a few poor examples in both worlds but generally the standard is very good and in a lot of cases better in the permit world. After all being responsible for ensuring the aircraft you are going to fly in is properly maintained, is a lot better than just entrusting it to some company who's main objective is making a profit for the shareholders and employing the cheapest people they legally can to get the work done. That's not to say there aren't some very good commercial maintenance companies.
However there is a difference between maintaining your aircraft for 100 hours a year and 2 or 3 people flying it, compared to maintaining it to do 500 hours a year with anyone and everyone flying it, so to enable permit aircraft to be used for flight training, I would have thought some sort of approved maintenance program would have to be put in place.
There is of course the equivalent of the TC holder already in place, that being LAA engineering, who know far more about most permit aircraft than anyone in the current Piper factory would know about a Tri-Pacer, or Cessna factory know about a Cessna 195, both aircraft that have to be maintained on a C of A.
Similarly the lack of approved parts is not a problem, the parts you use still have to be suitable for the aircraft, but now in general can be much better than the approved part you would have to use on a similar C of A aircraft and a lot cheaper.
User avatar
By peter272
#1318323
Cubflyer wrote:There are a few poor examples in both worlds but generally the standard is very good and in a lot of cases better in the permit world. After all being responsible for ensuring the aircraft you are going to fly in is properly maintained, is a lot better than just entrusting it to some company who's main objective is making a profit for the shareholders and employing the cheapest people they legally can to get the work done. That's not to say there aren't some very good commercial maintenance companies.


Similarly the lack of approved parts is not a problem, the parts you use still have to be suitable for the aircraft, but now in general can be much better than the approved part you would have to use on a similar C of A aircraft and a lot cheaper.


Sorry, but can we ban this sort of statement

I have seen some shoddy work from both LAA inspectors (suffered from that) and by fully approved maintenance organisations (not yet). I would hesitate to rate one against another and both need to make a living. You seem to be implying that LAA inspectors are better than commercial maintenance companies and I don't agree that is the case.

Similarly, although I would agree fitting standard parts without a Form 1 would be cheaper, some items I've seen fitted to Permit aircraft would make your flesh creep.

The CAA and EASA want some assurance that the Permit maintenance regime is quality assured and from what I have heard, some progress has been made, but they are not there yet.
#1328278
I put this up, as no doubt many others did, in the red tape challenge. There are hundreds of excellent permit aircraft out there which could be hired out. However there are a number of issues. Firstly airworthiness regarding handling etc., and secondly, maintenance. Owner maintenance varies hugely, I have seen some permit aircraft which really shouldn't be on any airfield let alone fly, and let's be honest, the reason so many of us have permit aircraft is the reduced cost realised by the permit system. My suggestion, therefor is that permit aircraft could be hired out provided the maintenance is carried out by a licensed engineering company. This would seem to me to be a perfect solution, those of you who wished to continue on the permit system could do so, and those who wished to hire their aircraft out could also do so. I would have thought the regulatory hurdles would be relatively straightforward to overcome. As an owner of both types, I in fact have my permit aircraft maintained as if it had a full c of a.
User avatar
By Cookie
#1328439
Owner maintenance varies hugely, I have seen some permit aircraft which really shouldn't be on any airfield let alone fly, and let's be honest, the reason so many of us have permit aircraft is the reduced cost realised by the permit system. My suggestion, therefor is that permit aircraft could be hired out provided the maintenance is carried out by a licensed engineering company.


Is this not adding complexity, where the aircraft is already safely operated under a continued airworthiness regime? It is a common misunderstanding that an owner might believe they may conduct a wide variety of maintenance tasks without any oversight. The LAA system requires all work carried out on an aircraft, except those listed as Pilot Maintenance within the Air Navigation (General) Regulations contained in the ANO, to be "certified" by a LAA inspector.

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co. ... enance.pdf

Cookie
By cockney steve
#1328451
@ Falcoflyer You insinuate that the maintenance in private hands is most probably going to be inadequate.
The statistics do not support this position. To the contrary, SSDR is now completely unregulated, I guess it's on the basis that anyone who satisfies the requirement to hold the appropriate Pilot's licence, demonstrably has sufficient intelligence to mitigate the risks to his own skin.
I would guess that the vast majority of Permit -flyers do -so primarily because of the lack of overbearing, unrealistic rules of compliance.

CAA now allows overflight of buildings by Permit Aircraft.
Night flight is under consideration....Instrument flight?
CAA has accepted there is no "unsafe" case to answer with amateur-maintenance. (Owners of classic cars are now completely exempt from annual MOT test!)

I would suggest that the owner-maintainer has no commercial-pressure and time-constraints and knows his own aircraft far more intimately than a person who may very rarely work on the specific type. He also has that added incentive of self-preservation!
Do not forget, also, a second pair of eyes inthe form of an LAA inspector, is there to pickup any error....they are not infallible, but as many will testify, neither are the C of A safeguards.


ISTR seeing that one may now train in a Permit aircraft that one doesnot own, and froman unlicensed "aerodrome" BUT UNDER THE CONTROL OF AN APPROVED TRAINING ORGANISATION....
Again, quite logical,if you think about it....What actual control does an instructor have, when he sends you off somewhere to do something solo?
Jumping up and down , screaming "get back here, NOW you clown" doesn't really do it, does it?

It's great to see some common-sense entering the regulatory regime, - hopefully, it'll resurect the corpse of GA in this country.
#1477670
It well known that I am not very clever and the contents of my post have done nothing to disprove this. So here goes

When the revised ANO comes into force will a flying school owned permit to fly aeroplane be able to used for an initio instruction, training to a licence holder and/or self fly hire.

And if so what type of permit aircraft eg UK or EASA?

I have read the ANO review report CAP1335 but I don't understand it.
#1477674
Links above should be
http://www.caa.co.uk/CAP1271 (initial consultation)
http://www.caa.co.uk/CAP1335 (results of that consultation)

My reading of it is that they plan to remove the specifc "thou shall nots" from the ANO, instead having a general "thou shall not do this (Aerial work?) with a Permit aircraft unless the CAA give permission.
Then they would (potentially at a future time, potentially at the same time as the ANO gets updated) give general exemptions, which wouldn't have to go through the full legislative process, so could be more flexible in the future.

They seem to say they want feedback on the following proposal:

All permit aircraft may be used for any flight training if the recipient of the training
holds a licence, regardless of the ownership status of the aircraft;
• All permit aircraft may be used for any flight training if the recipient of the training
is a sole or joint owner of the aircraft and is paying an instructor to teach them
on their aircraft;
• Ab initio flight training provided in a manner that meets the definition of a
commercial operation, may be permitted with permit aircraft which:
o Are type approved; or
o Formerly held a Certificate of Airworthiness and are still in conformity to
the associated type design.
• All permit aircraft may be used for self-fly hire.

But it is far from cast in stone.