CAA Conference on Ex Military Aircraft

Clearly the movement itself welcomed the CAA initiative as the conference, which was closed to all but registered delegates, was oversubscribed with 82 people attending.

Discussions were reported as being very valuable, very frank, and wide ranging, covering amongst other things, the present legislative situation, pilot training and endorsement, carriage of passengers, ejection seats, airworthiness, maintenance requirements, including systems, surveillance and permissible unserviceabilities.

The conference Chairman, Col Torkington, CAA Manager Airworthiness, said at a press conference that the biggest issue was airworthiness. With 16 district offices, and the great diversity of aircraft types, inconsistencies had inevitably arisen over decisions affecting operations hence the aim in setting up the conference was to determine how best to provide for clearer regulations in future.

He said that the problems lie not so much with the smaller trainer type aircraft or even western origin jets, but with former eastern bloc aircraft and relate to the question of their documentation and basic airworthiness.

Translation of maintenance documents is costly and even when this has been done, there remains the question of whether there is a clear understanding of the procedures to be carried out. This problem will remain until experience is built up on each type.

An equal problem is the design and manufacturing philosophy underlying aircraft from this source which are generally returned to the factory for rework at something like 2000 hours. The obvious problem is how to determine an ongoing maintenance programme, where no factory rework facility is available.

As reported in our April edition (page 29), maintenance requirements for warbirds are determined from either manufacturer’s data, ex military systems, or an approved maintenance system, whichever is the more stringent. Herein lies the fundamental problem; on the one hand the operator does not wish to be saddled with a costly maintenance system designed for continuous operation of the aircraft in a military environment, but on the other, the CAA must be satisfied that the aircraft is being maintained to an acceptable standard.

To solve this and other problems, the conference agreed to the establishment of a project team to examine the issues involved. Representatives have been nominated from the movement and the CAA, and the first meeting was scheduled to take place last month.

Whilst the establishment of the project team is most welcome as a step in the right direction, there remains the problem of available manpower within the Authority, which if the task is not given sufficient priority could limit progress.

The project team has also to consider operational restrictions now in force as a result of the crash of the MiG last March, following which the carriage of passengers was banned. The way in which this restriction was imposed, which the majority of operators only learnt about through a press release, has caused some disquiet in the movement.

It is understood that the problem does not relate so such to the smaller trainers, eg CT-4, which were purpose designed with two seats, but rather to two seat fast jets, in which the passenger is carried in a separate cockpit with functioning controls. There is the added problem of non functioning ejection seats in aircraft which clearly need them for any chance of survival in major emergency situations.

The problem of ejection seats is not an easy one to resolve. Very stringent rules and regulations and operational procedures apply in the military environment which would be very difficult to maintain on the warbird display circuit. Anyone who has experienced the general public gaining access to an unguarded aircraft knows that not a switch or lever will be left in its correct position! However, in the interests of the safety of pilots and crew members operating aircraft fitted with ejection seats, a way must be found to overcome the problems involved.

On the question of pilot qualifications and general operations, the movement itself is satisfied that the aircraft are being operated in a safe and professional manner. As one operator pointed out, their operations are carried out within the normal aviation rules and in any case, pride of ownership ensures that anyone cleared to fly an aircraft will be thoroughly checked out before hand. However, the increasing complexity and speed of the latest imports is known to be causing the CAA concern, and will no doubt be the subject of much discussion by the project team.

Whilst recognising the CAA’s understandable concern, it is a fact that the movement has had a relatively good safety record to date, with only one major (fatal) accident since ex military aircraft were permitted to fly on the Australian register. This is significantly better than that of third level RPT, and general aviation, over the same period.

In summary, the warbird scenario has reached a watershed, with both the operators and the CAA realising that it is time to review and update the rules and regulations to reflect the massive growth that has taken place in the last few years.

The CAA must now accept that there is no going back, the movement is big and here to stay, and the necessary resources must be made available to properly and equitably regulate its operations.

Finally, its an old truism that aviation is inherently dangerous and accidents will happen. Lets hope the new regulations and their underlying philosophy are mature enough to accept this.