Permit air law
Moderator
Thread Starter
Permit air law
It occurred to me during a conversation in "another place" (okay the moderators forum) that we in the UK have an ongoing problem. Specifically we have about 1/3 of the G-xxxx fleet on permits to fly of various sorts (whether it's a Hunter or a Weedhopper, or points in between).
Yet, apart from the brief mention of the bits that affect microlights in the NPPL(M), nobody is forced to learn permit-related air law.
The JAR-FCL air law exams cover issues like overflight, rule 5, pilot maintenance in ways that are totally irrelevant to a PTF aircraft, yet a great many people taking those exams will go and fly permit aircraft for most of their career (and quite right, they are usually lovely aeroplanes).
So, should the UK version of the JAR-FCL air-law exam syllabus include permit rules? Should there be some requirement to have familiarised yourself with them before flying as PinC of a permit aircraft? If so, who should impose the requirement - CAA, PFA, or somebody else?
Whilst we're at it, how many air-trafficers know that PtF rules may force pilots to often decline instructions (except that often the pilot doesn't, because possibly he or she doesn't properly understand them either).
G
Yet, apart from the brief mention of the bits that affect microlights in the NPPL(M), nobody is forced to learn permit-related air law.
The JAR-FCL air law exams cover issues like overflight, rule 5, pilot maintenance in ways that are totally irrelevant to a PTF aircraft, yet a great many people taking those exams will go and fly permit aircraft for most of their career (and quite right, they are usually lovely aeroplanes).
So, should the UK version of the JAR-FCL air-law exam syllabus include permit rules? Should there be some requirement to have familiarised yourself with them before flying as PinC of a permit aircraft? If so, who should impose the requirement - CAA, PFA, or somebody else?
Whilst we're at it, how many air-trafficers know that PtF rules may force pilots to often decline instructions (except that often the pilot doesn't, because possibly he or she doesn't properly understand them either).
G
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very good point, Genghis.
But perhaps an even better question would be to ask why we have to have different rules for permit aircraft at all?
Of course the maintenance regulations have to be different for permit aircraft. But the rule about overflying built up areas just defies all logic as far as I can tell! Why would a permit aircraft be any less safe over a built up area than a CofA aircraft, as long as it is complying with the glide clear rule? The only thing I can think of is the possibility of structural failure overhead the built up area. Does anyone know how many structural failures of PFA aircraft there are on the AAIB records? I don't, but I'd guess it's not very many.
FFF
---------------
But perhaps an even better question would be to ask why we have to have different rules for permit aircraft at all?
Of course the maintenance regulations have to be different for permit aircraft. But the rule about overflying built up areas just defies all logic as far as I can tell! Why would a permit aircraft be any less safe over a built up area than a CofA aircraft, as long as it is complying with the glide clear rule? The only thing I can think of is the possibility of structural failure overhead the built up area. Does anyone know how many structural failures of PFA aircraft there are on the AAIB records? I don't, but I'd guess it's not very many.
FFF
---------------
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point FFF. It seems strange to regard a modern PFA aircraft such as an RV 7 or a Lancair as any more dangerous over a town than a clapped out club aircraft on a Certificate.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Why different rules?
- More relaxed construction
- More relaxed maintenance
- More relaxed certification rules
- Uncertified engines
- Uncertified instruments.
In fact all the things that make them more affordable (and also often more fun) also, in the CAA's eyes, make them potentially less safe.
G
- More relaxed construction
- More relaxed maintenance
- More relaxed certification rules
- Uncertified engines
- Uncertified instruments.
In fact all the things that make them more affordable (and also often more fun) also, in the CAA's eyes, make them potentially less safe.
G
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I check out pilots in a permit to fly aircraft I make a point of pointing out the conditions of the permit.
Perhaps this subject should be brought up at the instructor seminars that we all attend on a regular basis to renew our ratings.
A safet sense leaflet wouldn't go a miss either!
Regards,
DFC
Perhaps this subject should be brought up at the instructor seminars that we all attend on a regular basis to renew our ratings.
A safet sense leaflet wouldn't go a miss either!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Harpenden
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds reasonable.
The PPL exams basically tell you the rules for CofA aircraft, which I think could be summarised as 'Leave well alone'. Since the PPL exams are set for a CAA syllabus I guess this is reasonable.
The PFA are the governing body for permit aircraft and so I suppose that they would be the best people to devise a test to determine someone's knowledge of the rules for use and maintenance of Permit aircraft.
The problem seems to be that I could go out and buy a permit aircraft without being a PFA member and o woudl fall outside their remit.
I know the basics of permit rules (no nights, no IMC, no flight over built up areas), but I might well be sufficiently ignorant to transgress the rules in some way.
Rest assured that I certainly would read the rule book from cover to cover if I did start flying a permit aircraft, but there no guarantee that everyone will.
Currently the permit system certifies the airworthiness of the aircraft, but no of the pilot.
Would it be possible to add a rule that the permit is only valid if the pilot in charge has passed a test in permit air law and has familiarised themselves with the PFA paperwork pertaining to that aircraft ?
I need to get sign offs for wobbly prop, tail dragger, retractable gear and TMG so one more hurdle might not be too onerous really.
As for flying over built up areas in a SEP, frankly I prefer not to. If it all goes quiet up front, I'd prefer to hit something soft and cheap.
The PPL exams basically tell you the rules for CofA aircraft, which I think could be summarised as 'Leave well alone'. Since the PPL exams are set for a CAA syllabus I guess this is reasonable.
The PFA are the governing body for permit aircraft and so I suppose that they would be the best people to devise a test to determine someone's knowledge of the rules for use and maintenance of Permit aircraft.
The problem seems to be that I could go out and buy a permit aircraft without being a PFA member and o woudl fall outside their remit.
I know the basics of permit rules (no nights, no IMC, no flight over built up areas), but I might well be sufficiently ignorant to transgress the rules in some way.
Rest assured that I certainly would read the rule book from cover to cover if I did start flying a permit aircraft, but there no guarantee that everyone will.
Currently the permit system certifies the airworthiness of the aircraft, but no of the pilot.
Would it be possible to add a rule that the permit is only valid if the pilot in charge has passed a test in permit air law and has familiarised themselves with the PFA paperwork pertaining to that aircraft ?
I need to get sign offs for wobbly prop, tail dragger, retractable gear and TMG so one more hurdle might not be too onerous really.
As for flying over built up areas in a SEP, frankly I prefer not to. If it all goes quiet up front, I'd prefer to hit something soft and cheap.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By "forced to learn" I take it you mean "examined in".
The variations pertaining to Permit aircraft are relatively simple, as are the variations between Transport Category and Private Category.
As the JAR PPL is an International qualification I would not expect it to cover national rules. I would therefore no more expect a German PPL student to be examined on the UK IMC rating than I would expect a British PPL student to be examined on French national law regarding microlights.
As the NPPL is a National qualification I would expect it to include national rules.
The real issue is surely that all aircraft should be operated in accordance with the conditions contained in their Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit to Fly? If you understand and comply with that you are most of the way there.
The licensing system is not there to turn out pilots with a perfect knowledge of the law. It is there to ensure that those who are granted licenses have reached a standard of knowledge and competence where they can be permitted to fly without the flight being authorised by the holder of an FI rating and to carry passengers.
Let's not introduce more obstacles.
Mike
The variations pertaining to Permit aircraft are relatively simple, as are the variations between Transport Category and Private Category.
As the JAR PPL is an International qualification I would not expect it to cover national rules. I would therefore no more expect a German PPL student to be examined on the UK IMC rating than I would expect a British PPL student to be examined on French national law regarding microlights.
As the NPPL is a National qualification I would expect it to include national rules.
The real issue is surely that all aircraft should be operated in accordance with the conditions contained in their Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit to Fly? If you understand and comply with that you are most of the way there.
The licensing system is not there to turn out pilots with a perfect knowledge of the law. It is there to ensure that those who are granted licenses have reached a standard of knowledge and competence where they can be permitted to fly without the flight being authorised by the holder of an FI rating and to carry passengers.
Let's not introduce more obstacles.
Mike
Moderator
Thread Starter
The PFA are the governing body for permit aircraft and so I suppose that they would be the best people to devise a test to determine someone's knowledge of the rules for use and maintenance of Permit aircraft.
By "forced to learn" I take it you mean "examined in".
Let's not introduce more obstacles.
G
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No they aren't. They are the governing body for light permit aircraft
But, at present the existence of permits and their rules aren't even mentioned to most JAR students, and they may not get checked out on their permit a/c by an instructor who knows about it either....
While it may be a source of iritation to you it has few safety implications. All permit aircraft are placarded to state that they are not certificated to any international requirement and most of the restrictions are contained within the Permit. The only one that appears in Law is the Daytime VFR one. Anything else is generally permissive rather than restrictive.
In any case I stick to my previous point. If you have a harmonised set of JAA licensing requirements then national variations should not form part of the examination.
Mike
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most "differences training" is signed off in your log book. Turbo/pressurisation etc.
Couldn't the same requirement exist for "permit knowledge".
Flying a Turbo is not that much different, but I suspect insurance would be invalid without the differences sign off in a logbook.
This method is not cumbersome or costly and puts the onus where it belongs - on the pilot...
Couldn't the same requirement exist for "permit knowledge".
Flying a Turbo is not that much different, but I suspect insurance would be invalid without the differences sign off in a logbook.
This method is not cumbersome or costly and puts the onus where it belongs - on the pilot...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all makes about as much sense as glider pilots who want an RT licence having to do the whole CAA/PPL RT syllabus.
i.e.
requesting permission to taxi/take off - a glider?
route diversions - when route changes are dictated by available lift every 5 minutes or so.
Mayday calls for an engine failure - ????
which puts off about 90% of glider pilots from ever getting an RT licence and therefore talking to ATC - which sometimes really is a good idea.
Over-regulation/examination in one direction can lead to ignorance in other directions. Same as with the CofA and permit aircraft argument.
i.e.
requesting permission to taxi/take off - a glider?
route diversions - when route changes are dictated by available lift every 5 minutes or so.
Mayday calls for an engine failure - ????
which puts off about 90% of glider pilots from ever getting an RT licence and therefore talking to ATC - which sometimes really is a good idea.
Over-regulation/examination in one direction can lead to ignorance in other directions. Same as with the CofA and permit aircraft argument.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgot to add
As a Permit aircraft cannot fly for the pupose of Aerial Work or Public Transport it follows that it can't be hired out. Therefore the pilot is going to be an owner unless he happens to have a very good friend who is willing to lend him the aeroplane for nothing.
This is somewhat different to the situation that obtains in the Microlight world.
Mike
As a Permit aircraft cannot fly for the pupose of Aerial Work or Public Transport it follows that it can't be hired out. Therefore the pilot is going to be an owner unless he happens to have a very good friend who is willing to lend him the aeroplane for nothing.
This is somewhat different to the situation that obtains in the Microlight world.
Mike
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely a brief list of the main rules regarding the type of permit issued could be inserted in the ownership documents and a requirement for the pilot/owner to confirm that he has read and understood the conditions of use.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what I don't get.......
The CAA control air safety in the form of regulation. On one hand we have the JAR requirements and on the other hand we have the national requirements. For example, someone could be considered medically "unfit" to command an aircraft under JAR, yet the CAA could determine them fit to command exactly the same aircraft in UK airspace. Likewise, one aircraft owner could maintain their aircraft under the permit scheme, at a reasonable cost yet a second owner is forced to maintain a CofA on his aircraft at extrordinary cost. However, by allowing said permit holder to maintain their aircraft according to the permit rules, the CAA are saying that this aircraft is not a danger to fly (else they wouldn't allow it to fly) even though as Gengis points out the relaxation in maintenance / construction etc rules.
So why can't ALL light aircraft be maintained under the permit rules for persons who just wish to fly inside of the UK? (or can they?) If I owned a TB20 for example, using it just for private flying inside UK airspace, then why can't I carry out all maintenance / modifications how I see fit myself, with an inspector to inspect?
I think a difference sign off for Permit aircraft would be a good idea, as I for one am not 100% sure of how the rules differ between permit / CofA types.
EA
The CAA control air safety in the form of regulation. On one hand we have the JAR requirements and on the other hand we have the national requirements. For example, someone could be considered medically "unfit" to command an aircraft under JAR, yet the CAA could determine them fit to command exactly the same aircraft in UK airspace. Likewise, one aircraft owner could maintain their aircraft under the permit scheme, at a reasonable cost yet a second owner is forced to maintain a CofA on his aircraft at extrordinary cost. However, by allowing said permit holder to maintain their aircraft according to the permit rules, the CAA are saying that this aircraft is not a danger to fly (else they wouldn't allow it to fly) even though as Gengis points out the relaxation in maintenance / construction etc rules.
So why can't ALL light aircraft be maintained under the permit rules for persons who just wish to fly inside of the UK? (or can they?) If I owned a TB20 for example, using it just for private flying inside UK airspace, then why can't I carry out all maintenance / modifications how I see fit myself, with an inspector to inspect?
I think a difference sign off for Permit aircraft would be a good idea, as I for one am not 100% sure of how the rules differ between permit / CofA types.
EA
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why can't ALL light aircraft be maintained under the permit rules for persons who just wish to fly inside of the UK? (or can they?) If I owned a TB20 for example, using it just for private flying inside UK airspace, then why can't I carry out all maintenance / modifications how I see fit myself, with an inspector to inspect?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA only allows certain types to be on a PFA Permit. Broadly speaking these are homebuilts. An exception was made some time ago to allow some commercially built types to be included where support was no longer available from the manufacturer but I understand this concession has now been withdrawn. Those which are already on a Permit remain OK but no new registrations (e.g. on importation or transfer from another registry) of commercially built aircraft are allowed.
A full list of the current types that are eligible can be found here
Mike
A full list of the current types that are eligible can be found here
Mike
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: kent
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is important to remember with a PFA permit that the pilot can only do maintenance, without it being signed off, which is specified in the ANO and which any pilot could do on a Private Cat C of A aircraft.
Any other work needs the approval and signature of a PFA inspector (many of who are also licenced engineers). The owner of a Private Cat C of A aircraft could do any work he chooses to on an aircraft so long as he can get a licensed engineer to sign it out.
The question of flight outside the UK for homebuilts on a permit is fairly easy and all PFA permit aircraft have a blanket permission to fly in French airspace.
Any other work needs the approval and signature of a PFA inspector (many of who are also licenced engineers). The owner of a Private Cat C of A aircraft could do any work he chooses to on an aircraft so long as he can get a licensed engineer to sign it out.
The question of flight outside the UK for homebuilts on a permit is fairly easy and all PFA permit aircraft have a blanket permission to fly in French airspace.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a point of pedantry:-
In case anyone misinterprets this
It still requires signing off. However the pilot can sign it off if he is the owner or operator of the aircraft and it does not have a Transport Cat C of A and the work is included in the list (not in the ANO but in the Air Navigation (General) Regulations).
A Certificate of Release to Service is not required in these circumstances if the pilot makes an entry in the aircraft logbook and signs and dates it.
The details are in Article 12(5) of the ANO and the list of maintenance items that can be so signed off by the pilot are contained in Regulation 16 of the AIR NAVIGATION (GENERAL) REGULATIONS 1993 (Both contained in CAP393 available here
Note this concession does NOT apply to a Transport Cat C of A. There is of course nothing to stop you from doing work that does require the Issue of a Certificate of Release providing an engineer is prepared to issue the certificate. You can save yourself a packet by cultivating your engineer and doing the work that he is prepared to allow you to do. (Be warned this is usually the that part of the work that results in you lying on the floor getting covered in gunge)
It is important to remember with a PFA permit that the pilot can only do maintenance, without it being signed off, which is specified in the ANO and which any pilot could do on a Private Cat C of A aircraft.
It still requires signing off. However the pilot can sign it off if he is the owner or operator of the aircraft and it does not have a Transport Cat C of A and the work is included in the list (not in the ANO but in the Air Navigation (General) Regulations).
A Certificate of Release to Service is not required in these circumstances if the pilot makes an entry in the aircraft logbook and signs and dates it.
The details are in Article 12(5) of the ANO and the list of maintenance items that can be so signed off by the pilot are contained in Regulation 16 of the AIR NAVIGATION (GENERAL) REGULATIONS 1993 (Both contained in CAP393 available here
Note this concession does NOT apply to a Transport Cat C of A. There is of course nothing to stop you from doing work that does require the Issue of a Certificate of Release providing an engineer is prepared to issue the certificate. You can save yourself a packet by cultivating your engineer and doing the work that he is prepared to allow you to do. (Be warned this is usually the that part of the work that results in you lying on the floor getting covered in gunge)
