The Fighter Collection's Paperwork Woes...

Warbirdnerd · **Joined:** Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:34 pm **Posts:** 2943

From reading the Flying Legends 2009 photo threads it has become apparent something is amiss. Apparently the CAA grounded the entire TFC fleet registerd in the UK over a ‘paperwork issue’. The SeaFury and Mustang (N#s) were the only TFC birds allowed to fly. After an (admittedly) brief search I've come up with no more info than that. Anyone care to shed even the smallest amount of light on this one?

Holedigger · **Posted:** Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:39 pm

Looks like they had and audit and failed, a little digging showed up this

following an audit of of the Fighter Collection in October 2008 that the CAA wasn't happy with both some modifications and the use of alternative parts and materials which, in the CAA's words, had not been proerly validated. The CAA say they were also concerned by the lack of records detailing how some of the changes were accomplished.

The CAA says that for safety reasons certain aircraft are grounded until such time as the organisation can show the CAA how the work was undertaken and have completed any remedial work required.

jasonp51d · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:26 am

Please don't believe everything you read - the TFC fleet is maintained to the highest standards.

I think this may be a case of the CAA looking into the histories of some of the aircraft right back into th 1940's and suddenly finding fault with the paperwork on planes they have previously allowed to fly for many years.

Regards

Jason

Iclo · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:00 am

As I red, the CAA is audited by the EASA and made an example like "Look, we make our job fine , we stop these old dangerous airplanes".

Jim Beasley · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:51 am

This is exactly right and Rich and I have seen first hand with the Spit 18 and earlier with Princess Elizabeth TFC's fine attention to detail.

Here's an example of what the CAA was dissatisfied about with my 18 and I'm not kidding about this -- as part of the overhaul, the rudder as recovered with ceconite, not irish linen per the book. Well, since the book doesn't call for ceconite it's not right. No matter that ceconite is better and wasn't available in 1945 to be included in the book and that 99.99% of all fabric today is ceconite.

Also they were unhappy that the spar wasn't x-rayed, but this is a solid billet spar and not the nested spar like the other spitfires (in which x-raying is useful). No matter how many times the CAA were told that there is no benefit to x-raying a solid spar -- and no requirement in the books to do it (and this one actually was and was fine) they still complained, even though they had earlier approved the wing inspection. They were looking at the BBMF's suggestions for the nested spar and not the billet spar. No matter; it goes on and on.

In fact the nice people from the CAA even wrote to the FAA and "tattled" on me, listing these terrible violations. The FAA summarily rejected every one of their "concerns."

Jim

jasonp51d wrote:

Please don't believe everything you read - the TFC fleet is maintained to the highest standards.

I think this may be a case of the CAA looking into the histories of some of the aircraft right back into th 1940's and suddenly finding fault with the paperwork on planes they have previously allowed to fly for many years.

Regards

Jason

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:22 am

Very interesting....thanks for that insight.

Iclo · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:48 am

Jim: It's for these reasons your Spit did its first flight in the USA and not before leaving the UK ?

Regards

Jim Beasley · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:51 am

Pretty much, but as you saw as soon as it got here and was assembled it underwent a thorough FAA inspection and was found airworthy, even upon re-review.

Iclo wrote:

Jim: It's for these reasons your Spit did its first flight in the USA and not before leaving the UK ?

Regards

Lynn Allen · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:47 pm

Jim, are you all going to do a Horsemen type video with your 18? I really like what you all have done so far......

Fly safe,

Lynn

Jim Beasley · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:10 pm

Don't want to hijack this thread but Shipley has all sorts of ADD (attention deficit disorder) theater planned in addition to some other pretty neat stuff like an IMAX film. Maybe he'll do something on it beyond the short thing he did already. Maybe we can be the spitmen or something cheesy like that :roll:

Lynn Allen wrote:

Jim, are you all going to do a Horsemen type video with your 18? I really like what you all have done so far......

Fly safe,

Lynn

needle · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:20 pm

Jim Beasley wrote:

Maybe we can be the spitmen or something cheesy like that :roll:

Or Firemen.........

Flying might be a bit difficult...bulky uniform, and big hat!.. :lol:

Julian

51fixer · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:47 pm

Jim Beasley wrote:

This is exactly right and Rich and I have seen first hand with the Spit 18 and earlier with Princess Elizabeth TFC's fine attention to detail.

Here's an example of what the CAA was dissatisfied about with my 18 and I'm not kidding about this -- as part of the overhaul, the rudder as recovered with ceconite, not irish linen per the book. Well, since the book doesn't call for ceconite it's not right. No matter that ceconite is better and wasn't available in 1945 to be included in the book and that 99.99% of all fabric today is ceconite.

Also they were unhappy that the spar wasn't x-rayed, but this is a solid billet spar and not the nested spar like the other spitfires (in which x-raying is useful). No matter how many times the CAA were told that there is no benefit to x-raying a solid spar -- and no requirement in the books to do it (and this one actually was and was fine) they still complained, even though they had earlier approved the wing inspection. They were looking at the BBMF's suggestions for the nested spar and not the billet spar. No matter; it goes on and on.

In fact the nice people from the CAA even wrote to the FAA and "tattled" on me, listing these terrible violations. The FAA summarily rejected every one of their "concerns."

Jim

jasonp51d wrote:

Please don't believe everything you read - the TFC fleet is maintained to the highest standards.

I think this may be a case of the CAA looking into the histories of some of the aircraft right back into th 1940's and suddenly finding fault with the paperwork on planes they have previously allowed to fly for many years.

Regards

Jason

Incredibly, the CAA stated in it's letter to the FAA, unsolicited of course, that a test pilot hadn't been specified as one of the items in it's notice. Seems in the UK an owner can't make a 1st flight in his own aircraft but must use a CAA approved pilot and the CAA must approve that pilot for that specific 1st flight. Ironically Jim making the 1st flight in his Spit with the proper LOA endorsement for Spitfire type aircraft earned earlier in Texas, wouldn't have been allowed in the UK.
The CAA's current view is that everything on the aircraft has to be as it left the factory or you have to engineer a replacement and prove to the CAA every thing you engineer is the same or better. It is a ton of work and paperwork for an aircraft that is basically registered in their Experimental category. My hat is off to the TFC and others over in the UK who have to deal with the CAA. It really adds a ton of expense to operating the aircraft that could go to better use.
Its a different world over there.
Rich

JDK · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Thanks for the qualified input, gentlemen.

51fixer wrote:

It is a ton of work and paperwork for an aircraft that is basically registered in their Experimental category.

Isn't part of the problem that the UK doesn't have an experimental or limited category as such? I presume you are referring to the UK's Permit to Fly (rather than the full C of A) which IIRC some warbirds operate under. My somewhat rusty understanding was that a permit covered extant types that would not get a full C of A in the UK under current regs, but did not allow modifications from the original design? In other words, while they are where things like Spitfires would be 'put' in the UK and US, they are legislating for a different principle.

The Australian CASA (FAA /CAA equivalent) have an Experimental scheme, although the main airworthiness process is based on the UK rather than the US system - happy to be corrected again.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the CAA is working hard to cripple or destroy the vintage and warbird business in the UK. While it may be due to bureaucratic ignorance rather than actual ill-will, it is still inexcusable and a blow to the UK's economy if it drives business and aircraft and users overseas.

Regards,

jasonp51d · **Posted:** Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:38 am

Couldn't agree more with JDK's last paragraph!

Let's all get behind the TFC and I'm sure they will be flying again soon.

Regards

Jason

51fixer · **Posted:** Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:55 am

JDK wrote:

Thanks for the qualified input, gentlemen.

51fixer wrote:

It is a ton of work and paperwork for an aircraft that is basically registered in their Experimental category.

Isn't part of the problem that the UK doesn't have an experimental or limited category as such? I presume you are referring to the UK's Permit to Fly (rather than the full C of A) which IIRC some warbirds operate under. My somewhat rusty understanding was that a permit covered extant types that would not get a full C of A in the UK under current regs, but did not allow modifications from the original design? In other words, while they are where things like Spitfires would be 'put' in the UK and US, they are legislating for a different principle.

The Australian CASA (FAA /CAA equivalent) have an Experimental scheme, although the main airworthiness process is based on the UK rather than the US system - happy to be corrected again.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the CAA is working hard to cripple or destroy the vintage and warbird business in the UK. While it may be due to bureaucratic ignorance rather than actual ill-will, it is still inexcusable and a blow to the UK's economy if it drives business and aircraft and users overseas.

Regards,

I was trying to make that point, the Permit to Fly as their Experimental category.
Although in the US several of the WWII A/C have Limited Type Certificates, such as the P-51B,C,D and K along with a few others. This is very close to the Standard Cat that the Cessnas, Pipers and all the "Normal" types of aircraft are registered as. So operating these aircraft in the US is relatively hassle free. The UK does not have an equivalent to the Limited Category and all the P-51s, ect are then treated the same as a Vulcan Bomber in the process to earn the Permit to Fly.
Rich

Warbird Information Exchange

The Fighter Collection's Paperwork Woes...

Who is online