FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1981
1981 - 0147.PDF
FLIGHT International, 17 January 1981 137 Letters SIR—In the last two years my various aviation companies have moved into overseas operations with ten of our 14 Heralds being based abroad, com plete with crews and engineers. As invisible exporters we face quite tough competition from foreign opera tors, and it is increasingly difficult to win overseas contracts by virtue of the very outdated rules imposed by our Civil Aviation Authority. One massive drawback is the unique calendar life on maintenance cycles. This odd restriction was originally imposed when operators grounded their aircraft in winter owing to lack of work, and this attitude still persists in the face of all-year-round utilisation that ensures regular inspections. The end result is that we have to carry out premature maintenance with a ferry flight costed into the contract, an imposition our competitors do not have to suffer. Many of our customers require some local aircrew to be: employed as part of the contract. Although they hold Icao licences, none are accept able to the CAA without an individual study being made of each candidate for a UK endorsement, usually requir ing the person to attend the CAA in London, which expense we have to bear. Not even an FAA rating is The Civil Aviation Authority replies: Whatever the origin of calendar life, it is not retained without purpose. Elapsed time is used in maintenance cycles where appropriate, both to con trol deterioration which is time-related and to cover periods of low utilisation not assumed when the maintenance schedule is drawn up. Only in such periods does elapsed time rather than flying time normally become critical. The policy of evaluating new foreign types coming on to the UK Register was examined in depth as recently as 1977 by the CAA with the advice of the Airworthiness Require ments Board. The desirability of in dependent assessment against UK air worthiness standards was reaffirmed. The question of accepting types on the basis of their proven record rather than that of literal compliance with SIR—Your December 20 article (page 2247) on BP's application to Shetland Islands Council (SIC) for an extension to their Scatsta operations does Sum- burgh less than justice. The £18 million cost of the splendid new terminal building you mention is but half of our total investment in recent years, to establish what has always been considered Shetland's main oil-related airport. While Scatsta was modestly developed to considered acceptable. We were recently asked to cost the placing of two FH-227 aircraft on the UK Register. Using £9 per man-hour and materials at cost, our estimate was over £100,000 per aircraft, and we have experience of F.27 type air craft, at least enough to eliminate any learning curve. Under the FAA rules, both aircraft required less than £5,000 being spent [FQJBiKnr Troublesh°°ter to allow them to fly some 7,000hr to their next major check, and it seems very difficult to justify this magnitude of difference simply to switch from one system of maintenance and air worthiness standards to another. Some time ago, when we were asked to look at the cost of placing Lockheed Electras on the UK register, we re ceived a quote of £80,000 for a CAA team to investigate their require ments. As only two aircraft were in- BCAR was also examined. It was con cluded that whilst the CAA, with ARB's advice, should indeed be pre pared to take more account of long and satisfactory safety records, a mas sive clear record would be necessary before items of high safety signifi cance could be accepted on this basis. Neither the Lockheed Electra nor the FH-227 (an aircraft significantly dif ferent from the F-27) can show ex perience of that order. So far as flight-crew licensing is concerned, under the Chicago Conven tion the state in which an aircraft is registered is responsible for ensuring that its flightcrew is properly licensed. Where the regulatory authority of another Icao contracting state is pre pared to take over formally complete operational responsibility for an air craft on the UK register, we are pre pared to validate flightcrew licences cater for the Sullom Voe construction phase, the CAA has consistently sup ported the SIC's development at Unst on the understanding that it would be complementary to Sumburgh. Apart from the recently completed new control tower building, Auto matic Terminal Information Service and domestic accommodation to house a substantial increase in staff, we have provided VOR/DME and sur veillance radar equipment (both volved, this ruled out the introduction of a well proven type on to the UK market. I fully appreciate that such an in vestigation has to be made by the CAA to meet BCARs. My argument is that some sensible rule ought to be made that exempts well-proven air craft from this expensive and com plicated procedure. Doubtless the CAA will argue about maintaining standards of safety. I am in full agreement, but this should not be an excuse for outdated thinking. There* are many aircraft in regular worldwide service with excellent safety records which are not eligible for UK certification without major modifications which a substantial body of engineers feels are totally unneces sary. I believe it is time that the Air worthiness and Licensing Divisions of the CAA looked at the changes in attitude that have taken place in route licensing within their own Authority, which have done a great deal to encourage our growth and influence around the world. Is it too much to hope that they can be as imaginative as their colleagues? British Air Ferries T. D. KEEGAN Southend Airport Chairman Essex SS2 6YL issued by that state. In such cases, no examinations or flight tests are re quired, but we would need to ensure that the licences were current and properly valid for the aircraft. Where, however, the operational re sponsibility remains with the United Kingdom, we have a clear obligation to satisfy ourselves at first hand as to the competence of its flightcrew in exactly the same way as if the aircraft were operating in the UK. The fact that it may be operating abroad does not reduce our responsibilities in this respect. Most other countries, includ ing the United States, take the same view and would not generally be pre pared to accept a foreign licence for purposes of professional flying in air craft for which they have operational responsibility without first satisfying themselves as to the holder's compe tence. primary and secondary) which give us instrument approach capabilities to all four runway directions. While Sumburgh has its share of the weather problems associated with coastal airfields, its facilities are un surpassed north of Aberdeen. Civil Aviation D. MACPHERSON Authority General Manager Aviation House 1A Traquair Park East Edinburgh EH12 7BD Sumburgh — the CAA's investment
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
