Flight Restrictions By EU on Dakotas & Others
Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:20 am
From www.bloomberg.com
D-Day Dakotas Grounded for Aviators by EU Wants of Radar, Masks
By Tracy Alloway
July 15 (Bloomberg) -- Britain's Douglas DC-3 aircraft survived World War II and the Berlin Airlift. They won't survive the European Union.
The EU introduces rules tomorrow that require planes used for commercial passenger flights, even vintage models, to incorporate safety features found on modern Boeing Co. and Airbus SAS aircraft. The regulations will take passengers out of the U.K.'s last three DC-3s, which have carried tens of thousands of aviation enthusiasts since exiting military service in the early 1970s.
``It's bureaucracy gone mad,'' said Trevor Cherrington, 49, a civil servant who paid 90 pounds ($179) for one of the 64-year- old planes' last joyrides. ``If they've been flying this many years, how have they suddenly become dangerous?''
The DC-3s, known also as Dakotas, are operated by Air Atlantique Classic Flight Ltd. The model of aircraft, which during World War II filled the skies over southeastern England as they ferried soldiers across the channel, became a symbol of the Allied armed forces and featured in the television series ``Band of Brothers'' and movie ``A Bridge Too Far.''
``It's really about keeping these aircraft living and flying for people to see and not putting them in museums to become, as we call it, stuffed birds,'' said Richard Parr, Coventry, England-based Air Atlantique's commercial director.
The company, the U.K.'s largest operator of vintage aircraft, flew about 9,000 passengers on the DC-3s as part of a ``Goodbye Dakotas'' tour between April 19 and today.
`Pink Lady'
The new rules, EU-OPS, require weather radar, oxygen masks and escape chutes in all passenger aircraft. Air Atlantique says these aren't needed on aircraft that only fly in clear weather, at altitudes low enough to breathe, and with exits about four feet off the ground.
Elsewhere in Europe, vintage-plane operators face the same rules. In France, the ``Pink Lady'' B-17 may be grounded next year amid rising insurance costs, according to the Association Forteresse Toujours Volante, a group for vintage-plane enthusiasts. The Dutch Dakota Association, based in Amsterdam, plans to adapt its two DC-3s to comply with the regulations.
Three years ago, England's last B-17 Flying Fortress was grounded after EU rules meant the aircraft fell into a more expensive insurance category. The Sally B, which appeared in the film ``Memphis Belle,'' was classified in the same insurance group as a small airliner -- resulting in an extra 1,000-pound-a- day insurance premium.
Paratrooper Transport
``If you're going to put more safety features in, technically you're going to have a safer aeroplane,'' Parr said. ``But that's to imply that they're not safe in the first place, and we've been operating perfectly safely.''
The twin-propeller Dakotas, first built by Douglas Aircraft Co. in 1935, have a maximum altitude of 20,800 feet and top speed of 192 miles an hour, about 30 percent slower than the world's fastest car. In Europe, the model became famous for carrying paratroopers to France from England on D-Day, in 1944, and dropping supplies during the Berlin Airlift, in 1948 and 1949.
``After the war, DC-3s were the backbone of airlines around the world,'' said historian Henry Holden, the author of two books on the aircraft. ``It is an easy airplane to fly, `forgives' many pilot errors, and its reputation has been passed down from generation to generation.''
Fuel costs and soaring commodity prices are also making the upkeep of vintage aircraft more difficult, Parr said. Air Atlantique's DC-6, on display at the Farnborough International Air Show, takes 11,000 liters (2,905 gallons) of aviation fuel.
Canvas, Wood
Simply keeping the Dakotas in condition for aerial displays or film work will cost as much as 100,000 pounds an aircraft a year, Parr said.
The U.K.'s aviation regulator says it may be able to get an exemption from the European Union for vintage aircraft-operators like Air Atlantique if they're willing to make some of the required modifications.
The European Commission, the 27-nation EU's regulatory arm in Brussels, says exemptions from the legislation are possible.
``From a business point of view, we can't invest in the aircraft without knowing for sure whether they'll be able to fly or not,'' Parr said.
Douglas, bought by McDonnell Aircraft Corp. in 1967 and merged with Boeing 30 years later, built about 10,600 DC-3s between 1935 and 1945. About 500 are operating, said Parr, most flying freight in South America, Africa and Asia.
``They've been such a wonderful transport aircraft,'' said Teresa Davidson, a 64-year-old retiree as she waited for her husband and son to return from a Dakota flight. ``I think it is a pity because there will always be a demand for them.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Tracy Alloway in London at talloway@bloomberg.net
===========================================
What a shame!
Robbie
D-Day Dakotas Grounded for Aviators by EU Wants of Radar, Masks
By Tracy Alloway
July 15 (Bloomberg) -- Britain's Douglas DC-3 aircraft survived World War II and the Berlin Airlift. They won't survive the European Union.
The EU introduces rules tomorrow that require planes used for commercial passenger flights, even vintage models, to incorporate safety features found on modern Boeing Co. and Airbus SAS aircraft. The regulations will take passengers out of the U.K.'s last three DC-3s, which have carried tens of thousands of aviation enthusiasts since exiting military service in the early 1970s.
``It's bureaucracy gone mad,'' said Trevor Cherrington, 49, a civil servant who paid 90 pounds ($179) for one of the 64-year- old planes' last joyrides. ``If they've been flying this many years, how have they suddenly become dangerous?''
The DC-3s, known also as Dakotas, are operated by Air Atlantique Classic Flight Ltd. The model of aircraft, which during World War II filled the skies over southeastern England as they ferried soldiers across the channel, became a symbol of the Allied armed forces and featured in the television series ``Band of Brothers'' and movie ``A Bridge Too Far.''
``It's really about keeping these aircraft living and flying for people to see and not putting them in museums to become, as we call it, stuffed birds,'' said Richard Parr, Coventry, England-based Air Atlantique's commercial director.
The company, the U.K.'s largest operator of vintage aircraft, flew about 9,000 passengers on the DC-3s as part of a ``Goodbye Dakotas'' tour between April 19 and today.
`Pink Lady'
The new rules, EU-OPS, require weather radar, oxygen masks and escape chutes in all passenger aircraft. Air Atlantique says these aren't needed on aircraft that only fly in clear weather, at altitudes low enough to breathe, and with exits about four feet off the ground.
Elsewhere in Europe, vintage-plane operators face the same rules. In France, the ``Pink Lady'' B-17 may be grounded next year amid rising insurance costs, according to the Association Forteresse Toujours Volante, a group for vintage-plane enthusiasts. The Dutch Dakota Association, based in Amsterdam, plans to adapt its two DC-3s to comply with the regulations.
Three years ago, England's last B-17 Flying Fortress was grounded after EU rules meant the aircraft fell into a more expensive insurance category. The Sally B, which appeared in the film ``Memphis Belle,'' was classified in the same insurance group as a small airliner -- resulting in an extra 1,000-pound-a- day insurance premium.
Paratrooper Transport
``If you're going to put more safety features in, technically you're going to have a safer aeroplane,'' Parr said. ``But that's to imply that they're not safe in the first place, and we've been operating perfectly safely.''
The twin-propeller Dakotas, first built by Douglas Aircraft Co. in 1935, have a maximum altitude of 20,800 feet and top speed of 192 miles an hour, about 30 percent slower than the world's fastest car. In Europe, the model became famous for carrying paratroopers to France from England on D-Day, in 1944, and dropping supplies during the Berlin Airlift, in 1948 and 1949.
``After the war, DC-3s were the backbone of airlines around the world,'' said historian Henry Holden, the author of two books on the aircraft. ``It is an easy airplane to fly, `forgives' many pilot errors, and its reputation has been passed down from generation to generation.''
Fuel costs and soaring commodity prices are also making the upkeep of vintage aircraft more difficult, Parr said. Air Atlantique's DC-6, on display at the Farnborough International Air Show, takes 11,000 liters (2,905 gallons) of aviation fuel.
Canvas, Wood
Simply keeping the Dakotas in condition for aerial displays or film work will cost as much as 100,000 pounds an aircraft a year, Parr said.
The U.K.'s aviation regulator says it may be able to get an exemption from the European Union for vintage aircraft-operators like Air Atlantique if they're willing to make some of the required modifications.
The European Commission, the 27-nation EU's regulatory arm in Brussels, says exemptions from the legislation are possible.
``From a business point of view, we can't invest in the aircraft without knowing for sure whether they'll be able to fly or not,'' Parr said.
Douglas, bought by McDonnell Aircraft Corp. in 1967 and merged with Boeing 30 years later, built about 10,600 DC-3s between 1935 and 1945. About 500 are operating, said Parr, most flying freight in South America, Africa and Asia.
``They've been such a wonderful transport aircraft,'' said Teresa Davidson, a 64-year-old retiree as she waited for her husband and son to return from a Dakota flight. ``I think it is a pity because there will always be a demand for them.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Tracy Alloway in London at talloway@bloomberg.net
===========================================
What a shame!
Robbie
Last edited by Robbie Stuart on Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:58 am
Geeez Robbie! All this time I thought "Rectal Cranial inversion" was a local politician desease. Maybe some of our's have been cohabitating with some of their's.
Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:04 am
sgt hawk wrote:Geeez Robbie! All this time I thought "Rectal Cranial inversion" was a local politician desease. Maybe some of our's have been cohabitating with some of their's.
YES- THEY HAVE!
About all I have to say about politicians is they are a bunch of things, mainly ones which start with the F and the second word starting with A. And it is puralized, and unprintable here.
Robbie
Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:12 am
Your title is a bit confusing, they are not being grounded, as the article explains, the new rules will stop them from able to carry passengers, they will still be able to fly in displays or other work.
Pink Lady is a different situation all together. One of the commentators at Flying Legends was explaining that it was not just the costs that would ground it but not having any body to maintain the aircraft as the engineers are all nearing retirement age.
Pink Lady is a different situation all together. One of the commentators at Flying Legends was explaining that it was not just the costs that would ground it but not having any body to maintain the aircraft as the engineers are all nearing retirement age.
Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:20 am
The added expense for upgrades and now their unavailability for passengers for revenue production, will certainly limit their flight availability and render them useless. They will become smelt material or museum queens.
Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:50 am
No, it's not a misleading title. Several people involved with Classic Flight have already stated that the DC-3s will most likely end up grounded after this year because the non-passenger flight revenue is not sufficient to pay for their operation. In addition, the quickly dwindling funds being spent by airshow organizers (because of the cost of fuel and insurance) is making it harder and harder for aircraft like DC-3s which are "unglamorous" to get appearance fees or even fuel to appear at shows.
Re: Flight Restrictions By EU on Dakotas & Others
Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:50 am
Robbie Stuart wrote:From www.bloomberg.com
``It's bureaucracy gone mad,'' said Trevor Cherrington, 49, a civil servant who paid 90 pounds ($179) for one of the 64-year- old planes' last joyrides. ``If they've been flying this many years, how have they suddenly become dangerous?''
When a civil servant thinks it's bad it is really bad.
Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:08 am
The engines in the DC3 burn pretty much nothing as compaired to a jet.
And on another note, if they are so concerned about the flying publics safety, then all commercial aircraft should have ejection seats with parachutes, pretty much everyone on flight 800 and the planes that hit the twin towers would be alive if that was the case. I think its more to do with grounding the aircraft. Kinda like when the forest service did what they did. And gosh it wasn't an old piston engined plane that caused it all, it was the demise of the 130's that pretty much did that.
And on another note, if they are so concerned about the flying publics safety, then all commercial aircraft should have ejection seats with parachutes, pretty much everyone on flight 800 and the planes that hit the twin towers would be alive if that was the case. I think its more to do with grounding the aircraft. Kinda like when the forest service did what they did. And gosh it wasn't an old piston engined plane that caused it all, it was the demise of the 130's that pretty much did that.
Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:11 am
Sure is sad to this, I'm sure that they will find a way to park everything one day. I just hope it is a 100 years from now.
Scott.......
Scott.......
Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:19 pm
Such paranoia!
It seems pretty clear that these regulations do not have any intent to regulate a few vintage aircraft out of the sky, and any effect on the DC-3s is unintended and incidental. They are directed at making the thousands of commercial aircraft and millions of passengers in Europe safer, and seem reasonably calculated to do so.
Frequently, good laws have unintended bad consequences for a few people. There are several avenues to pursue in such cases. If you don't have the political clout to get the law amended, seek a variance or an exemption. The article specifically says that both UK and EU regulators are willing to consider such exemptions. The UK regulator suggests that the operator might improve its case by meeting them half way, making some of the modifications. That might make sense, or it might not. O2 masks seem unnecessary for a DC-3, and would be costly to implement. But maybe something can be done about the weather radar. Can we really credit Air Atlantique's statement that its airplanes don't need that because they "only fly in clear weather"? In the UK that would mean you hardly fly at all.
One thing that generally will NOT improve your chances of cooperation with a regulatory agency, at least here in the States, is whining to the press about how you are being shut down and how stupid the bureacracy is for not keeping your few little DC-3s in mind when trying to craft regulation applicable to the whole of commercial aviation across a continent. The paranoia and we-they mentality don't help either.
August
It seems pretty clear that these regulations do not have any intent to regulate a few vintage aircraft out of the sky, and any effect on the DC-3s is unintended and incidental. They are directed at making the thousands of commercial aircraft and millions of passengers in Europe safer, and seem reasonably calculated to do so.
Frequently, good laws have unintended bad consequences for a few people. There are several avenues to pursue in such cases. If you don't have the political clout to get the law amended, seek a variance or an exemption. The article specifically says that both UK and EU regulators are willing to consider such exemptions. The UK regulator suggests that the operator might improve its case by meeting them half way, making some of the modifications. That might make sense, or it might not. O2 masks seem unnecessary for a DC-3, and would be costly to implement. But maybe something can be done about the weather radar. Can we really credit Air Atlantique's statement that its airplanes don't need that because they "only fly in clear weather"? In the UK that would mean you hardly fly at all.
One thing that generally will NOT improve your chances of cooperation with a regulatory agency, at least here in the States, is whining to the press about how you are being shut down and how stupid the bureacracy is for not keeping your few little DC-3s in mind when trying to craft regulation applicable to the whole of commercial aviation across a continent. The paranoia and we-they mentality don't help either.
August
Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:06 pm
k5083 wrote:Such paranoia!
It seems pretty clear that these regulations do not have any intent to regulate a few vintage aircraft out of the sky, and any effect on the DC-3s is unintended and incidental. They are directed at making the thousands of commercial aircraft and millions of passengers in Europe safer, and seem reasonably calculated to do so.
Really!
Whether it’s intentional or not, that's exactly what these new EU aviation directives and regulations are doing!
You've only got to look at the insurance situation with Sally B & Pink Lady a couple of years ago, which was the result of the bureaucrats of Brussels not thinking things through.
Frankly, all UK & European based vintage aircraft should be automatically exempt from current, and any new EU aviation regulations drafted, which are aimed at modern day, passenger carrying airliners. They have no business affecting a 50 year old plus aircraft which, by no fault of their owners or operator, are deemed by the EU to be in the same class or category as an airliner, and therefore have to comply (at great expense and out of the of the owner/operators pockets) if they are to continue to fly in the way they have done for many years, without interference from their own country’s aviation regulatory body.
As for paranoia, I think the real paranoia is from those who insist on reminding and preaching to us that there is a continued threat from extremist Muslim terrorism (the main reason it seems these regulations have been drafted & introduced) and that we need to do everything we can to combat it. However, I see parallels here with the pans & pots for Spitfires campaign run in Britain during WWII, i.e. it is utter bollocks!
As someone who lives in the UK, I'm fed up of having to put up with the endless nonsense imposed on us by the EU and our Government (yes the very people who are supposed to protect the people of Britain & their interests), as they both seem to be hell bent on destroying thousands of years of our own laws & freedoms, and a way of life which was bravely fought and sacrificed for by many, many thousands in World War II.
I sometimes wonder why they bothered!
Rant over.
Cheers
Paul
Last edited by Bradburger on Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:26 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:49 pm
k5083 wrote:Such paranoia!
August,
The problem is that the "unintentional consequences" is what is wrong with 99% of the laws passed today. Had anyone actually thought about what a blanket law like that (or any other) might do, then we wouldn't have as many pointless laws that really do nothing more than make a talking point for the politicians.
Let's look at this rationally -
1) Lawmakers have no business writing laws pertaining to a regulated industry. That's why we have the JAA in Europe afterall - to regulate the aviation industry.
2) This law is simply copying what's already in the JAA regulations for required equipment. The law is already in place that any aircraft operating in the EU must meet JAA safety and airworthiness standards. Why do we need ANOTHER law telling operators and designers they need to have the same safety equipment they're already required to have to operate or certify an aircraft that will be flying into the EU?
This is the problem with so many laws today. They either affect people they "didn't intend to" (which leads to more laws) or they intentionally affect people that never did anything to deserve it without affecting those whom need to be affected (i.e. gun laws)
Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:17 pm
CAPFlyer wrote:k5083 wrote:Such paranoia!
August,
The problem is that the "unintentional consequences" is what is wrong with 99% of the laws passed today. Had anyone actually thought about what a blanket law like that (or any other) might do, then we wouldn't have as many pointless laws that really do nothing more than make a talking point for the politicians.
Let's look at this rationally -
1) Lawmakers have no business writing laws pertaining to a regulated industry. That's why we have the JAA in Europe afterall - to regulate the aviation industry.
2) This law is simply copying what's already in the JAA regulations for required equipment. The law is already in place that any aircraft operating in the EU must meet JAA safety and airworthiness standards. Why do we need ANOTHER law telling operators and designers they need to have the same safety equipment they're already required to have to operate or certify an aircraft that will be flying into the EU?
This is the problem with so many laws today. They either affect people they "didn't intend to" (which leads to more laws) or they intentionally affect people that never did anything to deserve it without affecting those whom need to be affected (i.e. gun laws)
Well said CAPFlyer.
It seems that those who make laws today seem to adopt a 'One size fits all' approach, which of course it doesn't!
K5083,
In my previous post, I forgot to respond to your remarks about the Birtish weather.
Can we really credit Air Atlantique's statement that its airplanes don't need that because they "only fly in clear weather"? In the UK that would mean you hardly fly at all.
Clearly, the above comments are ill thought out, and by someone who has little ,or no knowledge and indeed experience of our weather. I think you could count the number of days on ONE hand where the country or parts of it are IMC! In addition, I'm sure the crews of AA don't need weather radar to tell them this! So I think you’ll find Air Atlantiques comments regarding weather radar are totally justified.
Re-reading your post again, it would seem you were trying to be provocative and stir things up, and I should have known better before posting, and took your comments with the pinch of salt they deserve!
However, it seems I took the bait & bit!
Cheers
Paul
Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:36 pm
Well, I was joking about the weather -- a little.
I was serious about the law. Of course laws are "one size fits all," they are not generally tailored for individual people or special interests. Think about it for a moment and you will agree it's better that way.
To say that the regulators should have been thinking about vintage aircraft when they crafted the law is greatly to exaggerate the prominence and importance of vintage aircraft in the scheme of things. Vintage aircraft are a special interest. As such, it is nice if they can lobby prior to passage of a law for special treatment, but if not, it may be easier and more rational for them to seek exemptions after the fact.
In any case, I wish the DC-3 operators the best and hope they go about getting their variance in a mature, rather than accusatory and alarmist way.
I just chuckle at the idea that lawmakers have no business writing laws pertaining to a regulated industry. Here in the US, the government is thinking of requiring that banks actually verify that lenders have the ability to repay loans before they lend them money. But banking is a highly regulated industry here, so I'm sure there is no need for such laws.
August
I was serious about the law. Of course laws are "one size fits all," they are not generally tailored for individual people or special interests. Think about it for a moment and you will agree it's better that way.
To say that the regulators should have been thinking about vintage aircraft when they crafted the law is greatly to exaggerate the prominence and importance of vintage aircraft in the scheme of things. Vintage aircraft are a special interest. As such, it is nice if they can lobby prior to passage of a law for special treatment, but if not, it may be easier and more rational for them to seek exemptions after the fact.
In any case, I wish the DC-3 operators the best and hope they go about getting their variance in a mature, rather than accusatory and alarmist way.
I just chuckle at the idea that lawmakers have no business writing laws pertaining to a regulated industry. Here in the US, the government is thinking of requiring that banks actually verify that lenders have the ability to repay loans before they lend them money. But banking is a highly regulated industry here, so I'm sure there is no need for such laws.
August
Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:28 pm
No, there isn't a need for such a law. If it's an issue, then the FDIC or the SEC needs to put out a regulation.
Regulatory agencies, by their own charters, are supposed to be the sole authority on an industry. Thus, if it's pertaining to Aviation, then any changes should come from the FAA. If it's pertaining to the railroads, it should come from the FRSA or STB. If it's pertaining to ships, then it should come from the Coast Guard.
My point being - when the industries are regulated, an entity is appointed to regulate them. The regulators should be the only ones regulating that industry from that point forward. If the regulators are failing to properly regulate, then it is the responsibility of the lawmakers to replace the regulators, not write laws of their own, especially in an area of such specialized knowledge as a transportation industry.
Think of it this way as well - the EU made this law in absence of any published commentary period. Just like the FAA, the JAA has a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and comment process. Had the JAA been instructed to put in the regulations, this would not have happened as the operators in question would have had the opprotunity to point out the blanket approach hurting them as it has and the JAA would have ammended the rule. It's happened here in the US more than once and each time, the ill effects have been avoided.
August, what you're failing to account for here is that most politicians don't care about anything about the law itself. I'll bet half of them never even read past the first paragraph. They just read the title of the law and listen to their party leaders and their aides and let them make the decision and then vote, not ever knowing or caring what their actions may do to their constituents. It's a problem and while "vintage airplanes" may be a "special interest", the elected government (who has no knowledge of the industry nor should) has no right to infringe on the ability of an operator to conduct legitimate business on the premise that they know better than the regulators and people who have knowledge of the industry know. That is what this law says. 'We the elected government of the EU know more about how to make a plane safe than the JAA, the manufacturers, or the operators.'
Regulatory agencies, by their own charters, are supposed to be the sole authority on an industry. Thus, if it's pertaining to Aviation, then any changes should come from the FAA. If it's pertaining to the railroads, it should come from the FRSA or STB. If it's pertaining to ships, then it should come from the Coast Guard.
My point being - when the industries are regulated, an entity is appointed to regulate them. The regulators should be the only ones regulating that industry from that point forward. If the regulators are failing to properly regulate, then it is the responsibility of the lawmakers to replace the regulators, not write laws of their own, especially in an area of such specialized knowledge as a transportation industry.
Think of it this way as well - the EU made this law in absence of any published commentary period. Just like the FAA, the JAA has a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and comment process. Had the JAA been instructed to put in the regulations, this would not have happened as the operators in question would have had the opprotunity to point out the blanket approach hurting them as it has and the JAA would have ammended the rule. It's happened here in the US more than once and each time, the ill effects have been avoided.
August, what you're failing to account for here is that most politicians don't care about anything about the law itself. I'll bet half of them never even read past the first paragraph. They just read the title of the law and listen to their party leaders and their aides and let them make the decision and then vote, not ever knowing or caring what their actions may do to their constituents. It's a problem and while "vintage airplanes" may be a "special interest", the elected government (who has no knowledge of the industry nor should) has no right to infringe on the ability of an operator to conduct legitimate business on the premise that they know better than the regulators and people who have knowledge of the industry know. That is what this law says. 'We the elected government of the EU know more about how to make a plane safe than the JAA, the manufacturers, or the operators.'