Gazelle: Flying, operating, buying
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reviewing my posts here, I find I'm probably blowing hard about very little. The outcome more than satisfies my concerns, which were perhaps overstated. Some people will take offence at anything. I know I do.
Ex Mil Gazelle's
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happened to the Swazi Gazelles?
This question has come up a few times. I think I've found out the answer.
Apparently the UK CAA refuses to recognise the CofA's issued by the Swaziland CAA to the ex-mil Gazelles.
This is so stupid.
The ex-mil Gazelles were produced on the same production line and to the same standards as the civvy machines. Customers were offered three variants of the engine. (ie it was the same engine in all Gazelles, slightly different specs). Only two of the variants were type certificated at the time - the one chosen by the mil didn't need to be.
The Swaziland reg came about because one of MW Helicopters was exported there. The Swazi CAA treated it as a variant of a certificated engine.
They looked at its long established impeccable safety record, confirmed that the mil engines had been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, confirmed there was full manufacturers back-up and, very sensibly, issued a C of A for the ex-mil Gazelle.
MW Helicopters then put some of their ex-mil's on the Swazi register.
The UK CAA, in their infinite wisdom
, refuse to recognise the Swazi certificates (even though it's an ICAO country), will not allow Swazi registered Gazelles to fly in UK airspace, and will only issue a Permit with silly, irational and completely unnecessary restrictions.
Typical of our (in)famous Campaign Against Aviation.
Well done to MW Helicopters at Stapleford for trying to help.
Apparently the UK CAA refuses to recognise the CofA's issued by the Swaziland CAA to the ex-mil Gazelles.
This is so stupid.
The ex-mil Gazelles were produced on the same production line and to the same standards as the civvy machines. Customers were offered three variants of the engine. (ie it was the same engine in all Gazelles, slightly different specs). Only two of the variants were type certificated at the time - the one chosen by the mil didn't need to be.
The Swaziland reg came about because one of MW Helicopters was exported there. The Swazi CAA treated it as a variant of a certificated engine.
They looked at its long established impeccable safety record, confirmed that the mil engines had been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, confirmed there was full manufacturers back-up and, very sensibly, issued a C of A for the ex-mil Gazelle.
MW Helicopters then put some of their ex-mil's on the Swazi register.
The UK CAA, in their infinite wisdom
, refuse to recognise the Swazi certificates (even though it's an ICAO country), will not allow Swazi registered Gazelles to fly in UK airspace, and will only issue a Permit with silly, irational and completely unnecessary restrictions.Typical of our (in)famous Campaign Against Aviation.
Well done to MW Helicopters at Stapleford for trying to help.
Last edited by Hoverman; 18th Apr 2002 at 08:10.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the post.
The question has come up every now and again since the Swazi-Reg machines were seen at Helitech.
I agree it's completely stupid, but wish I could say I was surprised!
From what everyone says, what MW Helicopters don't know about restoring and maintaining Gazelles isn't worth knowing, it's a shame the CAA didn't attach more weight to MW's experience and judgement.
I wonder why it is that common sense never seems to influence CAA decisions on this sort of thing.
Does anyone know exactly what restrictions the CAA put on the Permits for Gazelles?
And why?
The question has come up every now and again since the Swazi-Reg machines were seen at Helitech.
I agree it's completely stupid, but wish I could say I was surprised!
From what everyone says, what MW Helicopters don't know about restoring and maintaining Gazelles isn't worth knowing, it's a shame the CAA didn't attach more weight to MW's experience and judgement.
I wonder why it is that common sense never seems to influence CAA decisions on this sort of thing.
Does anyone know exactly what restrictions the CAA put on the Permits for Gazelles?
And why?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While lots of people are getting hot under the collar about the CAA not accepting these Gazelles on the UK register without restrictions, it should hardly be unexpected. Don't the ex-Mil machines in the US generally end up on the Restricted / Experimental category? This restricts the usage and the people you can have on board (only crew necessary for the operation I think, but I'm sure some of our American cousins can clarify).
Another point to consider (though I'm sure the CAA didn't) is what about the people who have paid out pots of cash for a "pukka" Gazelle costing twice the price of these Swazi-reg ones? Is it fair on them that there is suddenly a flood of cheap machines on the market?
Another point to consider (though I'm sure the CAA didn't) is what about the people who have paid out pots of cash for a "pukka" Gazelle costing twice the price of these Swazi-reg ones? Is it fair on them that there is suddenly a flood of cheap machines on the market?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stevie terrier
no the americans put ex mil helis that were made to the same specs as civvy ships on normal cat cofa
however ex mil hueys go on restricted because of they are not 205,s
ex usa hillers ,b47.some oh6, ect. all can go on normal certs.
no the americans put ex mil helis that were made to the same specs as civvy ships on normal cat cofa
however ex mil hueys go on restricted because of they are not 205,s
ex usa hillers ,b47.some oh6, ect. all can go on normal certs.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stevie
People are hot under the collar because of the CAA's intransigent attitude. I agree it's 'hardly unexpected' - it's exactly what anyone with experience of the UK CAA would expect.
But Hoverman's point was a different one.
The UK CAA refuses to recognise CofA's granted by the Swaziland CAA - even though both countries belong to ICAO - and won't let Swazi registered Gazelles fly in UK airspace.
Top Slice
What don't you understand?
MW Helicopters' superb efforts help people who've bought or are thinking of buying an ex-mil have been thwarted by the CAA's decision.
End of story.
It's back to Permits with restrictions.
People are hot under the collar because of the CAA's intransigent attitude. I agree it's 'hardly unexpected' - it's exactly what anyone with experience of the UK CAA would expect.
But Hoverman's point was a different one.
The UK CAA refuses to recognise CofA's granted by the Swaziland CAA - even though both countries belong to ICAO - and won't let Swazi registered Gazelles fly in UK airspace.
Top Slice
What don't you understand?
MW Helicopters' superb efforts help people who've bought or are thinking of buying an ex-mil have been thwarted by the CAA's decision.
End of story.
It's back to Permits with restrictions.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD600 Driver. You posted "the americans put ex mil helis that were made to the same specs as civvy ships on normal cat cofa"
Isn't that the problem with our ex-Mil Gazelles? They are not the same spec as the civvy ones?
Heliport - Yes the refusal to allow the Swazi-reg machines to fly in the UK is completely out of order. (Especially when you can fly a home-built Rotorway without being sectioned into a mental home.) What reasoning have they given for it?
How about a compromise solution? If all the prospective owners of these Gazelles pony up another £20K, could MW not get them certified as a new type? Probably not, but I thought I should ask!
Isn't that the problem with our ex-Mil Gazelles? They are not the same spec as the civvy ones?
Heliport - Yes the refusal to allow the Swazi-reg machines to fly in the UK is completely out of order. (Especially when you can fly a home-built Rotorway without being sectioned into a mental home.) What reasoning have they given for it?
How about a compromise solution? If all the prospective owners of these Gazelles pony up another £20K, could MW not get them certified as a new type? Probably not, but I thought I should ask!
This is an interesting problem, but also one with a defined and common history.
Ex-military aircraft were part of the foundation of each and every part of the Aviation business, be it pax, cargo or utility. It continues today, and has the potential to become an even more significant aspect of military aircraft selection in future, as the cost benefits of operating a shared commercial/military model, where appropriate, are significant. Additionally, the residual value of an aircraft with direct commercial application is significantly higher - as there is likely to exist a demand for these products.
Every regulatory authority has tackled this problem in its own way. Some have permitted ex-military aircraft that have an identical civil counterpart to be conformed to the civil Type Certificate in a process and manner that ensures the two products are indeed identical (think DC-3 here). Others have permitted the product to be modified, sometimes significantly, to allow conformity to a civil type certificate.
Then comes the issue of ex-military aircraft which either do not conform to an existing TC, or for which no TC exists. In this arena the authorities head in a multitude of directions, each with it's own solution and definition of the issue. This is the area where each authority maintains the right to define it's own certification process and the recognition (or not) of another authorities process.
I do not know the specifics of the Gazelle production and certification, but in order for the aircraft to be conformed to the existing TC, it will have to either conform entirely, or specify an approved exemption for the variance to the TC. In the instance of these Gazelle's, you have the additional problem that the engine does not (apparently?) conform to any existing TC, so you have to address the issues entirely and in the correct sequence.
This process is the same no matter which authority you are certifying them under. If you are unable to provide conformity to this TC, then many (but not all) authorities may permit certification to a limited Airworthiness Certification, with specific restrictions applied to the aircraft. This is the current status for the Gazelle as I understand it.
IMHO the CAA is not really being unreasonable, as they are simply holding the aircraft to the identical certification standard that any other aircraft that wishes to claim identicality to the product identified in the TC. This issue would be identical under most Airworthiness Authorities, including the FAA.
The solution is to either create a new TC for the ex-mil Gazelles (prohibitively expensive); or to modify the the engine TC to include the military variant (potentially prohibitively expensive). Either way, there are certification issues involved, and both will include the manufacturer (as the TC holder).
Perhaps the CAA position regarding the Swazi registration is really not that surprising, considering the CAA knowledge of the product concerned and the lack of the same by the country of registration, and probably the ability to make a reasonable determination - this is similar to the Flags of Convenience in the shipping industry. Tough issue.
Question: If you install a commercial variant engine in these ex-mil Gazelles, do they conform to the existing TC?
I can't offer the definitive solution to this problem, but it will cost MONEY.
The issue of FAA certification is also somewhat confusing to many. The FAA will allow ex-military aircraft to be operated under a variety of certifications, each with it's own limitations and restrictions.
Standard Category - an aircraft that conforms to an existing TC, or to a new TC created for that product - unlimited use. This includes aircraft previously used by foreign military operators.
Restricted Category - provides for the use of ex-US military aircraft only, with specific limitations on application and use, but can be used in commercial aviation (no pax operations). Some manufacturers hold Restricted TC,s, but the vast majority are created and maintained by individual companies (sometimes dozens of TC's for the same basic product).
Experimental - very limited and restricted in non-commercial application.
A thread here some time ago, noted that there was an ex UK-mil Gazelle, in the States. It would be limited to Experimental category; ineligible for Restricted Category (foreign military); but could be certified in Standard Category if it were able to conform to the TC.
Although there may be similarities, an OH-6 is not a 500; an OH-58 not a B206, a UH-1H not a B205, a CH-54 not a Skycrane. The majority of certification authorities recognise these issues and deal accordingly. The last big ex-mil civil project in the UK was the S58T programme, where ex German (round-motor) military aircraft were concverted into a CAA certified product.
In the last decade, Worldwide, there have been some significant issues concerning foreign registrations, foreign manufacture and certification, bilateral agreements, regulatory oversight of products operated outside the country of certification and many others. One that immediately springs to mind is the Canadian certification of the Kamox KA-32 and the conflict that was created within Canada, as well as outside!
The proliferation of military operators (and Government agencies) utilising exact commercial products offers an interesting perspective. Many foreign military users bypassed various trade restrictions by purchasing commercial aircraft rather than the military variants - now years later these same products are eagerly sought by the commercial sector to be reconfigured and returned to commercial service!
The recent Government agency purchases in the US, of A-stars for example, will eventually allow significant residual resale value when the aircraft return to the commercial marketplace.
Perhaps one of the greatest investments the Military (or Government agencies) could make today, would be to specify the products they buy (where appropriate) are delivered conformed to a commercial TC, so that when there useful military life is completed, they can be sold along with parts and tools, and gain a useful resale value as part of the overall deal! There are a couple of Heads of State who probably wish they had taken that into consideration when they purchased helicopters then tried to sell them back into the commercial marketplace and found the inability to ever reclaim the value, even though there was an active demand for the identical civil product in commercial operation.
Ex-military aircraft were part of the foundation of each and every part of the Aviation business, be it pax, cargo or utility. It continues today, and has the potential to become an even more significant aspect of military aircraft selection in future, as the cost benefits of operating a shared commercial/military model, where appropriate, are significant. Additionally, the residual value of an aircraft with direct commercial application is significantly higher - as there is likely to exist a demand for these products.
Every regulatory authority has tackled this problem in its own way. Some have permitted ex-military aircraft that have an identical civil counterpart to be conformed to the civil Type Certificate in a process and manner that ensures the two products are indeed identical (think DC-3 here). Others have permitted the product to be modified, sometimes significantly, to allow conformity to a civil type certificate.
Then comes the issue of ex-military aircraft which either do not conform to an existing TC, or for which no TC exists. In this arena the authorities head in a multitude of directions, each with it's own solution and definition of the issue. This is the area where each authority maintains the right to define it's own certification process and the recognition (or not) of another authorities process.
I do not know the specifics of the Gazelle production and certification, but in order for the aircraft to be conformed to the existing TC, it will have to either conform entirely, or specify an approved exemption for the variance to the TC. In the instance of these Gazelle's, you have the additional problem that the engine does not (apparently?) conform to any existing TC, so you have to address the issues entirely and in the correct sequence.
This process is the same no matter which authority you are certifying them under. If you are unable to provide conformity to this TC, then many (but not all) authorities may permit certification to a limited Airworthiness Certification, with specific restrictions applied to the aircraft. This is the current status for the Gazelle as I understand it.
IMHO the CAA is not really being unreasonable, as they are simply holding the aircraft to the identical certification standard that any other aircraft that wishes to claim identicality to the product identified in the TC. This issue would be identical under most Airworthiness Authorities, including the FAA.
The solution is to either create a new TC for the ex-mil Gazelles (prohibitively expensive); or to modify the the engine TC to include the military variant (potentially prohibitively expensive). Either way, there are certification issues involved, and both will include the manufacturer (as the TC holder).
Perhaps the CAA position regarding the Swazi registration is really not that surprising, considering the CAA knowledge of the product concerned and the lack of the same by the country of registration, and probably the ability to make a reasonable determination - this is similar to the Flags of Convenience in the shipping industry. Tough issue.
Question: If you install a commercial variant engine in these ex-mil Gazelles, do they conform to the existing TC?
I can't offer the definitive solution to this problem, but it will cost MONEY.
The issue of FAA certification is also somewhat confusing to many. The FAA will allow ex-military aircraft to be operated under a variety of certifications, each with it's own limitations and restrictions.
Standard Category - an aircraft that conforms to an existing TC, or to a new TC created for that product - unlimited use. This includes aircraft previously used by foreign military operators.
Restricted Category - provides for the use of ex-US military aircraft only, with specific limitations on application and use, but can be used in commercial aviation (no pax operations). Some manufacturers hold Restricted TC,s, but the vast majority are created and maintained by individual companies (sometimes dozens of TC's for the same basic product).
Experimental - very limited and restricted in non-commercial application.
A thread here some time ago, noted that there was an ex UK-mil Gazelle, in the States. It would be limited to Experimental category; ineligible for Restricted Category (foreign military); but could be certified in Standard Category if it were able to conform to the TC.
Although there may be similarities, an OH-6 is not a 500; an OH-58 not a B206, a UH-1H not a B205, a CH-54 not a Skycrane. The majority of certification authorities recognise these issues and deal accordingly. The last big ex-mil civil project in the UK was the S58T programme, where ex German (round-motor) military aircraft were concverted into a CAA certified product.
In the last decade, Worldwide, there have been some significant issues concerning foreign registrations, foreign manufacture and certification, bilateral agreements, regulatory oversight of products operated outside the country of certification and many others. One that immediately springs to mind is the Canadian certification of the Kamox KA-32 and the conflict that was created within Canada, as well as outside!
The proliferation of military operators (and Government agencies) utilising exact commercial products offers an interesting perspective. Many foreign military users bypassed various trade restrictions by purchasing commercial aircraft rather than the military variants - now years later these same products are eagerly sought by the commercial sector to be reconfigured and returned to commercial service!
The recent Government agency purchases in the US, of A-stars for example, will eventually allow significant residual resale value when the aircraft return to the commercial marketplace.
Perhaps one of the greatest investments the Military (or Government agencies) could make today, would be to specify the products they buy (where appropriate) are delivered conformed to a commercial TC, so that when there useful military life is completed, they can be sold along with parts and tools, and gain a useful resale value as part of the overall deal! There are a couple of Heads of State who probably wish they had taken that into consideration when they purchased helicopters then tried to sell them back into the commercial marketplace and found the inability to ever reclaim the value, even though there was an active demand for the identical civil product in commercial operation.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting response Cyclic.
We'll have to disagree over whether the CAA is being unreasonable!
I know and concede that if someone takes a 'jobsworth/rules is rules' approach to the issue, then strictly, the CAA is correct not to issue Gazelles on the UK Register with a full CofA.
However, the difference between the spec of the three variants of the same engine is so marginal that a pragmatic and sensible approach from the CAA would have been a welcome breath of fresh air.
The CAA had the perfect opportunity to allow the problem to resolve itself given to them on a plate, but they went out of their way not to take it. Even if the CAA felt it would compromise its own principles too much to issue a full CofA itself, all they had to do was nothing. Instead, they decided to take a positive (and unusual) step of questioning, and then refusing to recognise, the Private Category CofA issued by another ICAO member state.
That is where I think they are being unreasonable. They weren't asked to do anything. They aren't required to do anything. They just chose to take the active step.
The restrictions attached to the UK Permit are also unreasonable.
Just two examples I've heard are
*Essential crew only, including ground handling crew: Getting around that one is not exactly rocket science.
*Maximum of four pob: If the machine is safe enough to be flying around with 4 pob, what could possibly be the safety reasoning behind refusing to allow 5.
We'll have to disagree over whether the CAA is being unreasonable!
I know and concede that if someone takes a 'jobsworth/rules is rules' approach to the issue, then strictly, the CAA is correct not to issue Gazelles on the UK Register with a full CofA.
However, the difference between the spec of the three variants of the same engine is so marginal that a pragmatic and sensible approach from the CAA would have been a welcome breath of fresh air.
The CAA had the perfect opportunity to allow the problem to resolve itself given to them on a plate, but they went out of their way not to take it. Even if the CAA felt it would compromise its own principles too much to issue a full CofA itself, all they had to do was nothing. Instead, they decided to take a positive (and unusual) step of questioning, and then refusing to recognise, the Private Category CofA issued by another ICAO member state.
That is where I think they are being unreasonable. They weren't asked to do anything. They aren't required to do anything. They just chose to take the active step.
The restrictions attached to the UK Permit are also unreasonable.
Just two examples I've heard are
*Essential crew only, including ground handling crew: Getting around that one is not exactly rocket science.
*Maximum of four pob: If the machine is safe enough to be flying around with 4 pob, what could possibly be the safety reasoning behind refusing to allow 5.
Last edited by virgin; 21st Apr 2002 at 00:19.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree. And there's no logic.
If the CAA genuinely thought the Gazelle with the mil engine was so unsafe it shouldn't fly over built up areas, they wouldn't let it fly at all, let alone with 4 pob.
But when did logical arguments ever carry any weight with the CAA?
The CAA know as well as the Swazis and anyone else who's been in helicopters, is that the Gazelle engine has an impeccable safety record, civil and mil variants.
The truth I suspect is that their arrogant noses were put out of joint by MW Helicopters finding a solution to the problem. True it was probably a 'flag of convenience' as Cyclic suggests in his post, but it was a very sensible one.
The CAA couldn't possibly allow such a sensible solution to survive.
If the CAA genuinely thought the Gazelle with the mil engine was so unsafe it shouldn't fly over built up areas, they wouldn't let it fly at all, let alone with 4 pob.
But when did logical arguments ever carry any weight with the CAA?
The CAA know as well as the Swazis and anyone else who's been in helicopters, is that the Gazelle engine has an impeccable safety record, civil and mil variants.
The truth I suspect is that their arrogant noses were put out of joint by MW Helicopters finding a solution to the problem. True it was probably a 'flag of convenience' as Cyclic suggests in his post, but it was a very sensible one.
The CAA couldn't possibly allow such a sensible solution to survive.
Last edited by virgin; 22nd Apr 2002 at 22:06.
I think you will find on the permit that an ex mil gazelle is not allowed to spin ? Sounds like a fixed wing permit with the CAA doing a cut and paste on a PC.
Shows the amount of work and effort put in by the staff at the Belgano, pity Mrs T didnt sort it!!
Shows the amount of work and effort put in by the staff at the Belgano, pity Mrs T didnt sort it!!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: cheshire
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-UZEL Gazelle
A Gazelle, reg G-UZEL, flew into Chester (Hawarden) airfield today, lovely dark blue (I think) colour scheme and a rare sight for me to see.
Anyone know who flies it or has flown it themselves? Does it fly as good as it looks?
It was also followed by a couple of Pumas (Hawarden being quite near to Shawbury and Valley, Mil a/c are quite common). Top day for drooling at the office window, though my boss tends to roll his eyes every time an "egg whisk" approaches and mutters 'what pay rise' these days.
Not much point to this thread really just had a good day gawping at the big uns!!!!!
NigD
Anyone know who flies it or has flown it themselves? Does it fly as good as it looks?
It was also followed by a couple of Pumas (Hawarden being quite near to Shawbury and Valley, Mil a/c are quite common). Top day for drooling at the office window, though my boss tends to roll his eyes every time an "egg whisk" approaches and mutters 'what pay rise' these days.
Not much point to this thread really just had a good day gawping at the big uns!!!!!
NigD
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ask the voices!
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can easily find out who owns it using the G-INFO section of the CAA Safety Regulation Group website!
"Some days you are the pigeon, some days you are the statue!"
"Some days you are the pigeon, some days you are the statue!"