Warbirds Australia-An Overview

However, on top of this, who would have thought ten years ago, or perhaps even five that we would be seeing MiG-15’s and shortly MiG-17’s, regularly flying at air displays?

How has this come about and what is the state of the “industry” in Australia?

To find the answers, we visited the controlling authority, the CAA, for discussions on the rules and regulations covering the restoration and flying of these venerable aircraft. We also paid a flying visit to Bankstown to talk to two restoration companies based there who are putting old military, and civil aircraft back into the air and also spoke at length with the movement’s governing body, Australian Warbirds.

The Regulations

The regulations covering the issuing of permits to fly are already well covered in a document issued by the CAA as guidance material for intending operators of historical and ex-military (H&EM) aircraft. (It should be noted that the term “warbirds” is really just an international generic term and has no relevance in the context of theCAA guidelines. )This document was developed as a result of community interest in H&EM aircraft, to permit these aircraft which are not eligible for the issue of a Certificate of Airworthiness, to be operated for air display purposes.

Going back several decades; in the mid to late 1970’s, a number of aviation groups urged the then Department of Transport to allow certain aircraft to fly on a “Permit to Fly” system. The aim was to keep Australia’s Heritage in the country and in the air. Interestingly, the original intention in so far as ex military aircraft were concerned was that these aircraft should be of historical significance to Australia. As we will see later, this requirement has been dropped which has opened the doors for all and sundry foreign ex-military aircraft to be imported.

It was also the policy at the time the rules were being developed that “restoration” was to be the key and that replica aircraft would not be eligible. Finally, H&EM aircraft would only be allowed to fly a limited number of hours per year and only a small number of aircraft would be involved.

Unfortunately, clear definitions of historical and ex-military aircraft were not laid down and problems of interpretation began to arise. This lead to a review of the Permit policy in 1986 and new criteria were issued to determine whether an aircraft would be acceptable in the H&EM category.

Essentially the new rules developed were as follows: Historical Aircraft –

• the aircraft Type Certificate must be more than 35 years old (rolling time)

• the aircraft type is out of production

• the aircraft is not eligible for an Australian CofA

• the aircraft has a manufacture’s serial number, or some other evidence of authenticity in regard to the period during which it was manufactured. Ex Military Aircraft –

• the aircraft is not eligible for an Australian CofA

• the aircraft type is not in Australian military service

• the aircraft has a manufacturer’s certificate etc

• the aircraft has been restored so as to be able to be operated in accordance with the military Flight Manual/Pilots Notes.

In addition to the above, a comprehensive inspection would be necessary if the condition and history of the aircraft could not be established from the available documentation. As might be expected, a Permit to Fly would not be issued to any aircraft which exhibited unsafe flying characteristics when it was in service. Finally, restoration of H&EM aircraft would be predicated on at least some percentage of the original aircraft being incorporated otherwise it would be treated as a replica.

It should be noted that replica aircraft, which were specifically excluded under the old rules, are now permitted to operate under a Special Category CofA.

H&EM Permits would not normally be granted to aircraft which might otherwise be eligible for an Australian CofA. However, a Permit might be issued for a quasi-military type such as the RAN Dakota where expensive (and unnecessary) mods would be necessary to bring it up to the equivalent civil standard.

Scope of Operations

Permits to fly authorise the operation of the aircraft for demonstrations (air displays), training flights, test flights, and positioning flights associated with demonstrations. There are no maximum hours limitations on demonstration flying, training for the latter, or positioning flights, however pilot proficiency is limited to 50 aircraft hours per year.

The H&EM Permit prohibits aerobatics, however waivers have been granted to specific aircraft over recent years. The question of clearance for aerobatics is dependent on satisfactory fatigue surveillance of the aircraft specifically concerned. Owners of such aircraft are required to provide proof of a satisfactory surveillance program through either inspection techniques, fatigue meters etc, or linking in to the fatigue surveillance program for the aircraft when it was in service. An example of the latter would be that the aircraft concerned has significantly fewer hours than the lead aircraft in that program.

The aircraft must of course be operated in accordance with the Flight Manual/Pilots’ Notes in terms of speeds, techniques, ‘g’ limitations etc.

Finally although the Permit to Fly states that such aircraft will be operated to VFR procedures in VMC, waivers have again been processed in recent years permitting aircraft to be operated in IMC provided they were appropriately equipped.

Restoration – Approval

Anintending restorer may apply for a Certificate of Approval in his or her own right or may have the restoration performed by the holder of such a certificate. The latter will be responsible for any work that the owner might undertake on the aircraft. As might be expected, detailed documentation as to qualifications, premises, tools, equipment, data etc are required together with a comprehensive schedule of the work to be undertaken. All modifications and repairs must be approved by the CAA and inspections by the latter will be made throughout the restoration program.

Initial Issue of Permit

Following completion of the restoration, and the satisfactory test flying by an approved test pilot, the aircraft will be issued with a Permit to Fly for demonstration flying. The Permit will specify the actual pilots and maintenance personnel authorised to operate the aircraft.

Maintenance Required

Maintenance requirements for H&EM aircraft are determined from either manufacturer’s data, ex military systems or an approved maintenance system, whichever is the more stringent. The final system approved for an aircraft will be specified in a log book statement and must include at least a daily inspection and a 50 hour inspection. An annual inspection will embrace at least the scope of the 50 hour inspection. Due to the relatively low utilisation of H&EM aircraft, a more extensive daily inspection than normal may be required. The system allows for persons other than licensed aircraft maintenance engineers to be approved to undertake certain aspects of the maintenance schedule. Such a person may be a member or ex member of the defence force.

Operation of Ex Military Aircraft

The regulations for operating H&EM aircraft recognise that certain of these aircraft represent the limits of technology at the time of their introduction into service and require specified minimum experience levels for their safe operation. Accordingly aircraft have been categorised into four groups as follows:

Group A – single piston engined aircraft of less than 800hp. Group B – single piston engine aircraft of over 800hp and multi piston engined aircraft.

Group C – turboprop and turbojet engined aircraft. Group D – helicopters.

Obviously where dual control aircraft of the type concerned are available they are to be used for training and endorsements. Where such an aircraft isnot available, a type with similar operating characteristics will be specified.

Group A aircraft are essentially treated as normal single engine aircraft and are included in that group for endorsement. Aircraft in the remaining three groups require individual type endorsement and a pilot engineering examination is required; in the case of helicopters this is only required if the aircraft is over 2,750kg.

Where a dual control single engine Group B aircraft is not available, prior to endorsement pilots will require a minimum of 300 hours pilot in command experience and 30 hours and 35 take offs and landings in a similar type, or have prior military endorsement on type. Similar rules apply to multi enginegroup B aircraft.

Group C aircraft require a minimum 500 hours command time and 20 hours experience in turbine engined aircraft plus a pass in the gas turbine examination, and a course in the aerodynamics appropriate to the performance characteristics of the aircraft concerned. In addition, pilots of aircraft in this category must undertake a course in the physiological aspects of high altitude andhigh speed flight. Finally, to gain an endorsement on a Group C aircraft, an applicant must demonstrate to a person specifically approved by the CAA that he/she has completed a flying training sequence in a suitable two place dual control aircraft. Aircraft assessed as suitable for this purpose include the Vampire, MiG-15 and MiG-17 Trainers. A further six hours of command time is then required of the applicant under the direct supervision of the approved check person on the type for which the endorsement is sought; this is to include six full stop landings. The regulations then go on to spell out the qualifications required of approved persons; suffice to say that these are entirely adequate to satisfy the most stringent requirements.

Carriage of Passengers

The regulations as published very specific on the question of carrying passengers in H&EM aircraft. They state that “Passengers carried in aircraft operated on historical and ex military Permits to Fly shall be limited to additional flight crew, essential maintenance personnel, and persons directly involved with the restoration or maintenance of the aircraft. Under no circumstances will approval be granted to carry non essential personnel during display flights”. However, it appears that this regulation is about to be varied according to the CAA. A Civil Aviation Order is proposed which will permit the carriage of fare paying passengers in H&EM aircraft. The CAA proposes that intending passengers be given a verbal briefing to the effect that these aircraft do not meet modern fare paying passenger airworthiness requirements and that they would be flying at their own risk.

In summary, there is little doubt that the warbird restoration and importation scenario is one of ever expanding growth However, of concern must be the “bending” of the rules as pressure is applied on the regulators by those who wish to operate outside the present regulations.

As outlined above, three specific areas of operations are now affected by concessions, aerobatics, instrument flight, and the carriage of passengers. When rules are allowed to be varied to meet specific demands, the remaining rules tend to be treated lightly. There can be no quibble with aircraft being allowed to operate within their safe flight parameters, but the rules need to be clear and firm.

With the importation of ever faster ex foreign military aircraft comes the increasing risk of accidents. It needs to be borne in mind that aircraft such as the Sabre and Mirage suffered quite high attrition rates in service and whilst the military operational environment is much more demanding than the airshow display circuit, when something goes wrong with these aircraft, the end result is usually fairly dramatic. It also needs to be borne in mind that military aircrew operating in the military environment have the discipline of that system imposed upon them. Discipline in this context means self discipline, accepting and conforming with the SOP’S (Standard Operating Procedures) for the aircraft type as laid down by the operating unit. SOP’s have been developed over time and are designed to ensure that all crews fly the aircraft to its operational limits in a safe and disciplined manner.

Ex military fighter aircraft operating on the show circuit do not have the same controlling infrastructure hence the need for a tight set of rules and regulations that everyone understands. Finally, whilst in no way wishing to see draconian restrictions placed on the importation of ex military aircraft, the question needs to be asked; after the MiG-17, will it be the MiG-21, Mirage or an equivilant Mach 2 type.

One can’t help feeling that it is perhaps time once again to officially review the warbird scene to make certain that it is set on a safe course, and can stand the shock of a possible accident.