Un­help­ful leg­is­la­tion

Pilot - - TECH LOG -

I sim­ply have to write about sev­eral pieces of re­cently-im­posed avi­a­tion leg­is­la­tion.

I own two very sim­ple Bri­tish Per­mit aero­planes, but my Aeronca Champ is on a UK LAA Per­mit while my Fournier RF4D is on an Laa-ad­min­is­tered EASA Per­mit. Both are main­tained by me, and in­spected by the same ex­cel­lent in­spec­tor. But now I shall need to have two li­cences (NPPL & EASA PPL), one to fly each of these sim­ple aero­planes. Fur­ther­more, in the sin­gle­seat Fournier I am obliged to carry a PLB or ELT, whereas I don’t have to in the two-seater.

And now I’m told I must make a sep­a­rate risk as­sess­ment ev­ery time I wish to fly aer­o­bat­ics in my ul­tra-light­weight (370kg MTOM) Volk­swa­gen-pow­ered Fournier — which I of­ten do three times a day! What if I take off in­tend­ing merely to fly from A to B, but when I get there I’m in­vited to per­form a dis­play prac­tice? In fu­ture shall I first have to land to fill out a risk as­sess­ment be­fore do­ing so?

The sooner the US Ex­per­i­men­tal Cat­e­gory is adopted in Bri­tain (as it al­ready has been in ev­ery other ma­jor English­s­peak­ing coun­try) the bet­ter. This al­lows pilot own­ers to do their own main­te­nance and make their own de­ci­sions about all as­pects of their op­er­a­tion — while nat­u­rally accepting full re­spon­si­bil­ity for their ac­tions - with­out hin­drance from once-re­moved, risk-averse bu­reau­crats. Bob Grim­stead

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.