The Design, Development and Production of Light Aircraft in the UK

A specialist paper by the Royal Aeronautical Society

The Design, Developmentand Production of Light

Aircraft in the UK— A case for regeneration through

regulatory change

JUNE 2006

R OYA L A E R O N AU T I C A L S O C I E T Y

The Design, Development and Production of Light Aircraft in the UK2

This paper represents the views of the General Aviation Group (formerly the Light Aviation Group) of the RoyalAeronautical Society. It has been approved by the President and Chairman of the Learned Society Board and it does

not necessarily represents the views of the Society as a whole.

Founded in 1866 to further the science of aeronautics, the Royal Aeronautical Society has been at the forefront of developmentsin aerospace ever since. Today the Society performs three primary roles:

■ to support and maintain the highest standards for professionalism in all aerospace disciplines;■ to provide a unique source of specialist information and a central forum for the exchange of ideas;■ to exert influence in the interests of aerospace in both the public and industrial arenas.

Benefits■ Membership grades for professionals and enthusiasts alike■ Over 19,000 members in more than 100 countries■ Over 70 Branches across the world■ Dedicated Careers Centre■ Publisher of three monthly magazines■ Comprehensive lecture and conference programme■ One of the most extensive aerospace libraries in the world

The Society is the home for all aerospace professionals, whether they are engineers, doctors, air crew, air traffic controllers, lawyers,to name but a few. There is a grade of membership for everyone — from enthusiasts to captains of industry.

To join the Society please contact the Chief Executive, Royal Aeronautical Society, 4 Hamilton Place, London W1J 7BQ, UK.Tel: +44 (0)20 7670 4300. Fax: +44 (0)20 7670 4309. e-mail: [email protected]. Website: www.aerosociety.com

Royal Aeronautical SocietyAAtt tthhee ffoorreeffrroonntt ooff cchhaannggee

The Royal Aeronautical Society has 20 Specialist Interest Group Committees, each of which has been set up to represent theSociety in all aspects of the aerospace world. These committees vary in size and activity but all their members contribute an

active knowledge and enthusiasm. The Groups meet four or five times a year and their main activities centre around the productionof conferences and lectures, with which the Society fulfils a large part of its objectives in education and the dissemination oftechnical information.

This work is valuable not only in terms of the Society’s charter objectives but also financially, as the conference programmecontributes to the Society’s annual income.

In addition to planning these conferences and lectures, the Groups also act as focal points for the information enquiries andrequests received by the Society. The Groups therefore form a vital interface between the Society and the world at large, reflectingevery aspect of the Society’s diverse and unique membership.

By using the mechanism of the Groups, the Society covers the interests of operators and manufacturers, military and civil aviators,commercial and research organisations, regulatory and administrative bodies, engineers and doctors, designers and distributors,company directors and students, and every other group of professionals who work within aerospace. No other institutionrepresents such a wide and varied range of professions.

The Society membership must ensure that these Groups continue to reflect the constant innovation and development of aviation.This can only be achieved by regular input from members. The Group Committees would welcome new members and thoseinterested should write to the chairman of the relevant committee c/o the Conference and Events Department.

The Specialist Groups are: Aerodynamics, Air Finance, Air Law, Air Power, Air Transport, Airworthiness & Maintenance, AviationMedicine, Avionics & Systems, Environment (called Air Travel Greener by Design), Flight Operations, Flight Simulation, Flight Test,General Aviation, Historical, Human Factors, Human Powered Aircraft, Management Studies, Propulsion, Rotorcraft, Space,Structures & Materials and Weapon Systems & Technology. If you feel you can provide an input, or expand the interests covered bya particular group, please act today and get in touch. Remember, the RAeS is only as influential as the members make it.



regulatory change

A Specialist Paper prepared by

John Edgley, CEng, MRAeSRAeS General Aviation Group

JUNE 2006 3

The Committee of the General Aviation Group (formerly Light Aviation Group) of the Royal Aeronautical Society

Prof Lee Balthazor (Chairman), John Bradley, Dr Bill Brooks, AVM John Brownlow, Eddie Clapham, Bill Dobie, Francis Donaldson,John Edgley, Ludo Forrer (YMB), Dr Tony Gee, Dr Guy Gratton (Vice Chairman), John O’Hara, John Robertson, John Scutt, Dick

Stratton, Chris Taylor, Barry Tempest and Bob Wilson.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Committee of the General Aviation (formerly Light Aviation) Group of the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) has becomeincreasingly concerned at the lack of design and manufacture of light aircraft to UK original designs. New recreational aircraft designsare being created and produced in Australia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, New Zealand, Poland and the USA, with even thosedesigned in the UK usually transferred elsewhere for development and production. This paper aims to review the current situation andrecommend how the situation may be addressed.

The Group believes that UK designers and aircraft builders, both amateur and professional, are as capable and skilful as thoseanywhere in the world, and that the UK is therefore currently failing to achieve its full potential. This paper investigates the situation,compares the UK to a number of overseas countries, and concludes that, although not necessarily the only reason, the main reason forthis decline is the over prescriptive method of approval for test flight of prototype aircraft.

The General Aviation Group recommends that to have a regenerated and vibrant light aircraft industry in the UK it is necessary toencourage the prototyping of a number of amateur designed experimental aircraft under rules that are appropriate to the risk toindividuals involved and to third parties. From this will follow the subsequent development of a small proportion of these experimentaltypes into aircraft that can progress either into series production aircraft with a full Certificate of Airworthiness (CofA), or can be soldto a wider range of amateur constructors, both in the UK and overseas, either as plans or as kits under the existing rules that apply tothe Popular Flying Association (PFA) and British Microlight Aircraft Association (BMAA).




regulatory change

CONTENTS

1.0 Preamble ......................................................................... 5

2.0 Introduction .................................................................... 5

3.0 Light Aircraft Certification in the UK ............................ 7

3.1 Approval of New Aircraft Designs .......................... 7

3.2 Light Aviation — a Missed Opportunity ................. 8

3.3 Approval of Gliders in the UK ................................. 9

4.0 Light Aviation Regulation Overseas ..............................10

4.1 Australia ....................................................................10

4.2 New Zealand and South Africa ...............................11

4.3 Mainland Europe ......................................................12

4.4 North America ..........................................................13

5.0 The UK Popular Flying Association Approach ............. 13

6.0 Analysis of the UK Register ...........................................14

7.0 Public Investment, the Universities and the WiderAircraft Industry .............................................................16

8.0 How Safe is Light Aviation? ...........................................17

9.0 A Proposal for the UK ....................................................17

10.0 Conclusions ...................................................................18

Appendix A — An interpretation of Annex 11, and otherEASA exemptions ...........................................................18

Appendix B — Overview of the Experimental Rules inAustralia ..........................................................................19

Appendix C — Overview of the French Light AircraftRegulatory Scene ........................................................... 21

Appendix D — Summary of US Regulations and theirOutcomes ....................................................................... 24

Appendix E — Third Party Risk from UK General AviationAeroplanes ..................................................................... 26

Appendix F — Rationale and Acknowledgement ............. 26

JUNE 2006 5

1RAeS Light Aviation Group ‘The Future’ Position Paper, May 1999.

1.0 PREAMBLE

1. Since time began mankind has looked to the skies and dreamtof flight. The birds and insects, and even bats, fly and we are toldthat some dinosaurs were able to fly, but mankind remainedfirmly rooted to the ground. In mythology Daedalus wassupposed to have flown from the Greek mainland to the island ofSantorini. Only in the past two hundred years or so has manachieved this goal, and by mechanical means. The Montgolfierbrothers first flew a balloon in France on 4 June 1783, Sir GeorgeCayley’s glider flew 900ft at Brompton Dale in 1853 and 17December 1903 saw the first powered flight by the Wrightbrothers in the USA. The many developments throughout the20th century led to Neil Armstrong landing on the moon in 1969,to transatlantic supersonic flight by Concorde becoming aneveryday occurrence and, in 1988, to a human-powered aircraft,designed and developed in the USA at MIT, flying the 70 mileflight of Daedalus.

2. Throughout the pioneering days many small aircraft, gliders,kites, gyrocopters and the like were designed and built byindividuals and small groups, working often in almost totalisolation, throughout the world. This effort and human interestled cumulatively to the whole aeronautics experience that todaywe take for granted and which has led to a whole vibrant andexciting aviation culture and industry. The UK has a proud recordin contributing to these developments through innovativetechnology and the bravery of aviation pioneers.

3. But where are we now? We are no longer able to flytransatlantic in a supersonic aircraft, and only from the USA dowe see any adventure in space travel and aircraft for recordbreaking attempts. To the British public at large, flight hasbecome a utility in today’s world, and an aircraft an aluminiumtube with a couple of wings that will get the businessman to hisnext meeting, or the package holiday maker to the latest ‘hit’holiday destination. In the UK, aviation seems to have lost muchof its glamour and excitement.

4. So what happened? Do we want to try and re-engage theyouth of today in aeronautics and flying as an excitingexperience? The Royal Aeronautical Society is certainly, amongmany other aims, committed to such a goal, as it was committedto the goal of advancing the science of aeronautics in all its formsat the time of its formation in 1866 by the Duke of Argyll.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

5. The Committee of the General Aviation Group (formerly theLight Aviation Group) has for some time been concerned at thedecline of light aircraft design and manufacturing in the UK. Thishas coincided with the Society’s general concern about the futureof the UK aerospace industry reflected in several recent publicstatements on competitiveness of the UK aerospace industry.While the light aviation sector has not been singled out forattention, the Group argues that, as Britain’s more successfulinternational competitors all nurture their light aircraft designand building activity, there is a critical link between developmentsin light aviation and the overall competitiveness of a country’saerospace industry.

6. The critical link is the inspirational effect of light aviation onthose contemplating a career in aerospace and other aviation-related industries. Young people may perhaps feel more identitywith the sporting element of aviation, which could lead to careerchoices as aircraft designers, technicians, technologists, engineers,air traffic controllers and pilots, as well as careers in all forms ofresearch and education in aeronautics. At a later stage in careerdevelopment, light aviation may also lead to a continuing ‘airmindedness’, where, for example, commercial pilots after activeretirement, may continue to fly and to take an interest in theyounger generation through flying both powered aircraft andgliding; or the case of engineers who continue to research anddesign, and in some instances build, light aircraft as a recreationalactivity. In general, as a nation, the UK appears to have lost someof its historic interest in engineering and manufacturing, as wellas flying. Light aviation could perhaps re-ignite a wider awarenessand interest among the general public who might perhapsidentify more closely with aircraft and flight where thecommercial and military aspects of aviation sometimes appearincreasingly remote from the individual. Even those who flyregularly in commercial aircraft tend to see this more as a meansof transport than as an aviation experience. Finally, the manythousands of people who regularly watch airshows attest to areservoir of interest in aviation that needs to be encouraged andstimulated into taking a more active part in the sector. Lightaviation represents the cheapest and most direct route into a‘hands on’ aviation experience.

7. The Society last addressed this subject in May 1999: since thenlittle has occurred to have substantively improved matters1. Yet

The Daedalus Project’s Light Eagle Human-powered aircraft. In 1988this aircraft flew by pedal power the 70 miles from the Greekmainland to the island of Santorini. This was an MIT project; the RAeShas sponsored several human-powered aircraft competitions.

Sir George Cayley’s ‘governable parachute’.


concern over the future of aviation and aerospace in the UK hascontinued to grow as evidenced by the DTI’s AerospaceInnovation and Growth Team report which, while again omittinglight aviation, did reflect upon the need to inspire anothergeneration of skilled people to build a competitive aviationindustry.

8. In the 1930s and in the two decades following WW2, the UKproduced many successful designs, but there has been a markeddecline and a dearth of products since then. On the other hand,many of our competitors in Europe, Australia, and some of theformer Soviet block countries have managed to establish a marketin the UK for imaginative and capable light aircraft (many ofthem supplied as kits for home building) and which have beencommercially successful both in terms of manufacturing andinternational distribution. Not only has the UK design,development and production of light powered aircraft virtuallydisappeared, but the design and manufacture of highperformance gliders and motor gliders are now almost exclusivelycommercial activities undertaken by our competitors incontinental Europe. As one observer recently noted:

“While walking through the halls at this year’s AERO show atFriedrichshafen and marvelling at all the wonderful new designs

emanating from the Czech Republic, France, Germany andPoland it suddenly occurred to me that there wasn’t a single

aircraft from Britain, not even a kit or a set of plans!”2

9. In the UK, while home building to plans, or now more generallykits, is a popular activity by individuals under the auspices of thePopular Flying Association (PFA) and the British MicrolightAircraft Association (BMAA), these plans and kits are generally ofoverseas design. The PFA web site states that currently they haveapproximately 1,500 such amateur build projects, but the majorityare aircraft of foreign design and development3. During 2004 theUK imported 22 new gliders, but there were none manufacturedin the UK. There were approximately 240 new microlights addedto the UK register, of which only one third were produced in theUK and of these, only about half were of original UK design.Approximately 200 new light aircraft, both as kits and finishedaircraft, were added to the register (including 62 lighthelicopters) but only 19 of these, all of which were home builtkits, were produced in the UK, and even then the majority ofthese kits were of non UK design4.

10. It is difficult to explain the reasons for the decline, to the pointof its total demise, of light aircraft design and development in theUK. It is unlikely that this situation stems from a shortage of therequired skills in aeronautics since education of young people inaeronautical engineering does not appear to be lacking in eithernumbers or quality. Nor can it be a lack of market potential sinceaircraft from Europe and elsewhere are selling well in the UK,both in kit and completed form. Our culture, it is sometimesclaimed, no longer welcomes light aviation activity in our skies,but it is difficult to understand how this, if true, would translateinto a lack of determination to undertake a potentially profitablecommercial activity. However, regulation of aircraft design,construction, development, and support is sometimes regarded astoo severe and expensive in the UK, and that safety regulation isless costly in other countries making the achievement ofprofitable light aviation activity much easier.

11. Compared with some other major aerospace manufacturingcountries (Australia, the US and France are especially relevant inthis respect), who have nurtured their light aircraft design andbuilding activity, the UK faces a number of obstacles. In theUnited States the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) activelysupports light aircraft design and manufacture and has anexperimental category under which research aircraft can be flownwith a minimum of certification complexity. This has evenencouraged employees of the larger aircraft industry to do theirown research, and in many cases to build experimental aircraft asa home pursuit. In France, many light aircraft, both home andfactory built, are designed and manufactured under a favourableregulatory regime. In Germany there is a very strong tradition ofdesigning and building experimental gliders as a part of anengineering course at university. Likewise in the former SovietUnion student design bureaux existed in many of the majoraerospace universities. New Zealand and South Africa both reportactive encouragement by the authorities and Australia hasrelatively recently introduced an Experimental Category based onthe FAA model which has had a regenerating effect on theindustry in Australia, an example that the Light Aircraft Group ofthe RAeS would like to see emulated in the UK.

12. While the Society has considered the general requirements fora more competitive UK aerospace industry; the General AviationGroup contends that light aircraft design and manufacturing hasan important part to play in this future. In recent years significantprivate investor funds have been made available for light aircraftprojects, and over the past 15 years or so there has been someeffective public encouragement from the Department of Tradeand Industry (DTI), and more recently from the RegionalDevelopment Agencies (RDA), which have made grant fundingavailable to a number of new and innovative projects. Theseinitiatives should be encouraged and expanded to make it easierfor similar projects to develop into successful competitiveenterprises. In addition this paper looks briefly at the role ofuniversities and the wider aircraft industry in historical terms, andhow, albeit to a limited extent, some university departments arebeginning now to revive their interests in light aircraft design andmanufacture.

13. But without a significant improvement in the regulatoryclimate in the UK, this interest is likely to prove nugatory. This isdue primarily to the certification framework laid down by the UKGovernment through the Department for Transport (DfT),expressed in the Air Navigation Order (ANO), and administered by

2David Unwin, the Editor of Today’s Pilot writing an article on thissubject, Today’s Pilot, November 2005 with subsequent replies from PFA,BMAA, BGA, Angus Fleming (AMF), Chip Erwin (Czech Aircraft Works)and others, Today’s Pilot, December 2005 3PFA website at http://www.pfa.org.uk.4UK register can be found on the CAA website at http://www.caa.co.uk.

The AERO 2005 show at Friedrichshafen. “Not a single aircraft from Britain.”

JUNE 2006 7

the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)5. A key part of the problem isthat the UK Government requires aviation to be financially self-supporting in terms of safety regulation. In this respect the UKappears to be the only country in the world to place such financialdemands on its aviation industry. This gives our competitors asignificant edge in world markets. However, further to this, andpossibly more important, has been the over-prescriptive methodof approval for test flight of prototype and other experimentalaircraft. This in itself has a significant cost implication, but moreparticularly causes unnecessary, anti-competitive and timeconsuming delays in what at an early stage is purely experimentalresearch and development. There is no evidence that aviationsafety is compromised in those countries that have a more relaxedview towards experimental light aircraft. In fact, quite thecontrary, since more experimental research is bound to lead to agreater engineering understanding and therefore ultimately,greater safety for series produced aircraft. Added to this is thefact that the majority of aviation accidents are caused by someform of pilot-induced error or incorrect assessment of theweather, and only a minority of accidents are caused by failure ofthe aircraft, as will be shown.

14. This paper contends that UK designers and aircraft builders,both amateur and professional, are as capable and skilful as thoseanywhere in the world. However, the UK is currently failing toachieve its full potential. The recommendations made in thispaper, especially the specific reference to the need to introducesome form of experimental certification, would help to stimulatea revival of the UK light aircraft industry. Moreover, with theformation of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), andwith the prospect that many of the rules affecting aviationgenerally are likely to be changed, it is a particularly good time toaddress the issue of certification since it appears thatexperimental flying of the type envisaged will remain a nationalresponsibility, and it gives our national authority the chance tolook more closely at what is done by our overseas competitors inorder that the UK may regain its former position of excellence inaeronautical research and development.

3.0 LIGHT AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION IN THE UK

3.1 Approval of New Designs

15. The certification of aircraft in Europe is undergoing a radicalchange as the majority of aircraft will in future be regulated bythe recently established European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).The standards for any factory-manufactured aircraft beingawarded a Certificate of Airworthiness (CofA) will be dictated byEASA. Some aircraft will still, however, come under thejurisdiction of the National Authorities (in Britain the CAA). Thesewill be designs covered by the so called Annex II of the EC BasicRegulation 1592/20026. Annex II includes all amateur (home) builtaircraft and all microlight aircraft, two categories which in the UKhave traditionally been overseen by the Popular FlyingAssociation (PFA) and the British Microlight Aircraft Association(BMAA) — the usual alternative to direct regulation by the CAA7.

16. In addition to the above, the new EASA rules in Annex II (b)exempts “aircraft specifically designed or modified for research,experimental or scientific purposes, and likely to be produced invery limited numbers.” Thus the national authorities will continueto regulate all experimental and research aircraft, whether this be

the design of completely new airframes and engines, or themodification of existing aircraft, in cases where these aircraft arenot intended for commercial production8. In the past this class ofaircraft was regulated through the design (and possiblymanufacturing) company or organisation having a ‘B’ conditionsapproval9. This type of approval covered companies ororganisations ranging from those designing large transportaircraft down to those designing the smallest one seat microlight.In practice such approval has proved difficult and expensive,although not impossible, for the smaller companies andorganisations, including one-man organisations, both to obtainand later to administer.

17. An alternative for the designer of a one-off new light aircraftdesign has been to apply for a Permit to Fly (Permit) with the PFAor the BMAA, so long as such aircraft comes within specifiedallowable limits such as maximum take off weight, seatingcapacity, stall speed, engine horsepower to name but a fewlimitations. The problem even with a PFA or BMAA permit hasbeen that the level of proof of compliance required to achieve aPermit is, in the judgement of the General Aviation Group, wellabove that which is necessary for an experimental test flight of aprototype aircraft. As in any experimental test flying, the designerand manufacturer of the aircraft will be directly involved in thetest flying; as a result the pilot will be well qualified and speciallybriefed to the nature of the flying required. Additionally, therewill be restrictions imposed on where, and possibly when, suchflights may take place.

18. An additional problem is that the current regulationseffectively prevent transfer of the certification status of anaircraft with CofA to a Permit. There is a large global market forUK based developers of light aircraft technology to improveeither CofA aircraft, or to test new types of engines, propellers orexhaust systems, for both CofA and Permit aircraft. The currentcost and regulatory complexity, unaffordable to small companies

5CAA website at http://www.caa.co.uk.6The EU basic regulation is to be found athttp://www.easa.eu.int/home/regul_en.html or the direct addresshttp://www.easa.eu.int/doc/Regulation/BR1592_2002.pdf.7For an interpretation by the CAA of these and other EASA exemptions,see Appendix A.

Scrap Heap Mega Challenge. A three-day design and build event thathad to take place in the US because of UK restrictions on flight. Thewinning team was headed by Dr Bill Brooks from the UK

8It is certainly reasonable to say that a traditional hand-built prototypeis, by definition, not intended for commercial production, even if theintention is to later put the design into production. 9See British Civil Airworthiness Requirements (BCAR) Section A. In a letterto the General Aviation Group of the RAeS, the Safety Regulation Groupof the CAA has confirmed that ‘B’ conditions will remain the UK nationalprocess for experimental test flying.


and organisations, effectively eliminates the possibility of lowcost experimental test flying on generally-available and simple-to-fly CofA light aircraft. Such small companies and organisations,however well qualified, are therefore inhibited from developingideas and proving them in the air.

19. A factor often missed in discussion is that new design andinnovation will often be initiated by the kind of engineer ordesigner who, while fully conversant with the rules that governsafe flight of an aircraft, is perhaps more skilful at the imaginativeprocess of design and innovation than at the more formal processof proving compliance with the regulations. In the early stages ofthe design, including initial flight testing and assessment, it is notnecessary to complete the full process of demonstratingcompliance with all applicable airworthiness regulations toenable flight testing to be carried out safely. The ability toundertake the more formal proof of compliance process is a skillin itself. A parallel would be the separation of marketing andsales functions in a commercial organisation. All these skills,including that needed to prove compliance, will be applicable atsome stage if a project is to become a commercial success.However, the first stage of safe design, safe build and safe flightof a prototype could be carried out under the sole responsibilityof the innovator, without the need initially for these other skills.This approach would not only save time and money by reducingthe burden on the designer or manufacturer, but could alsoreduce the considerable costs incurred by Airworthiness Authoritycharges.

20. In order to regenerate the previously successful design anddevelopment of new light aircraft in Britain, change is needed tothe regulatory requirements for prototype flight testing. Inparticular this requires removing the requirements for externaloversight beyond the absolute minima to ensure third partysafety, and to shift the burden of responsibility from theregulatory authorities to those individuals, small firms or otherorganisations responsible for the test flying. Such a shift ofresponsibility has been shown to work in other countries. Such achange could also lead to greater encouragement for air-vehicleand aircraft design, and regulatory compliance related training,in the universities and other institutions training aeronauticalengineers.

3.2 Light Aviation — a Missed Opportunity for the UK?

21. It might be assumed that substantial capital investment isneeded to finance the construction, development, test flying,certification and production of a new light aircraft. Butexperience over the past twenty or so years has shown that thereare sources of both public funding through the Department ofTrade and Industry (DTI), or more recently the RegionalDevelopment Agencies (RDAs), and private funding, in the UKand overseas, for the design and production of new light aircrafttypes. Indeed many such projects have been launched in the UKduring this period10. There may have been valid business ortechnical reasons why the majority of these projects foundered,or in some cases transferred overseas; however a significantnumber were severely hampered not only by the bureaucraticburden of regulation in the UK, both in general terms of proof ofcompliance and in terms of obtaining initial clearance for flight ofan experimental or prototype aircraft, but also by theairworthiness charges that have been out of line with thosecharged to foreign competitors.

The FFarnborough AAir TTaxi aand oother EExamples

22. The Farnborough six seat air taxi is one example. In the 1990sseveral years were spent working on this project where the designteam had to demonstrate production standard quality controlprocedures involving statistical analysis of hundreds of compositematerial samples before they could start on a prototype. Theresult was that the aircraft was not made in the UK. Under newmanagement, the same company teamed up with Epic AviationInc in the US and flew the Farnborough wing on a developmentfuselage under the US Experimental Category within 18 months11.Another example is the Centaur flying boat which won a DTISMART exceptional award in 2001, one of ten such awards in theUK, (awarded to projects with significant economic implications),but this project has now been transferred to the USA fordevelopment under the US Experimental Category12.

23. While it is possible to fly a prototype in the UK, for examplethe Lambert Mission, it is much harder than it should be13. TheMission was the winning entry for the 1994 RAeS Light AircraftDesign Competition and, although built in Belgium, it was subjectto UK oversight by the PFA. Filip Lambert, and his brother Steven,showed amazing tenacity to bring this new design to the point offirst flight of a prototype in 2004, ten years after the originalaward; but under an Experimental Category, without the need forformal proof of compliance under the regulations, a first flightcould have been accomplished much quicker. In any new design

The fuselage for the Centaur flying boat, a UK-based project but underconstruction in the USA under the Experimental Category.

The author presenting Filip Lambert with the first prize in the RAeSDesign Competition on completion of the Mission prototype in 2004,ten years after winning the competition.

10Records from the DTI list a total of 30 such awards to small companiesbetween 1988 and 2002, and, assuming an average £60,000, theseamount to £1.8m. This list is believed to be incomplete, and the truefigure for use of public funds may be higher.

11Farnborough F1 Website at http://www.Farnbourough-aircraft.com.12This project also won a RAeS Handley Page Award. The Warrior (Aero-Marine) Ltd website will be found at http://www.centaurseaplane.com. Ina letter Warrior confirms that they are still hoping to transfer back toUK-based certification if circumstances allow.13Lambert Aircraft website is at http://www.lambert-aircraft.com.

JUNE 2006 9

there will be a degree of innovation. After the first flight it isinevitable that further development will be needed to bring theprototype aircraft to the standard needed to obtain either a fullCofA or a Permit, necessitating a repetition of much of the proofof compliance procedure. A consequence of this sort of delay isthat too much time, energy and resource is used up achieving afirst flight, and much of the premature effort expended on thefirst prototype is made redundant.

24. Likewise the PFA is overseeing the approval programme forthe highly innovative Wilksch Airmotive diesel engine14. Fromsmall beginnings as a start-up venture in 1994, Wilksch havedemonstrated a modular range of 2-stroke Diesel cycle enginesthat have the potential to match the power/weight ratio ofestablished avgas burning engines. There have been manyinevitable hold ups inherent in this type of project, but the needfor PFA approval of modifications to an amateur-built aircraft inorder that it could be used to gain flight experience with theengine has led to additional and largely unnecessary delay. This isa clear case of where it should have been possible for thecompany to use a CofA production aircraft, carrying outmodifications to the engine under a relatively simple selfapproval system, rather than needing PFA approval for eachmodification as it took place.

25. In the field of microlights the joint UK/US Escapade aircraftproject relied primarily upon British engineering and test flyingexpertise15. Yet, despite this co-operative effort, the companiesinvolved chose to do their development test flying in the USAbecause the regulatory regime permitted this initial test flyingwith a much lighter regulatory burden than would have been thecase in the UK

26. In the late 1970s, in the case of the design and developmentof the Optica slow flying observation aircraft, the initial permit totest was granted by the CAA at an early stage of developmentwhen, although a large number of aerodynamic and stresscalculations had been made, there was no formal paperwork inthe accepted sense16. The prototype was initially grossly underpowered, but not unsafe for test flying, and in the hands of anexperienced test pilot this allowed safe rapid development of the

ducted fan and power plant installation with little or no CAAinvolvement. It was only later, when all the technical problemshad been ironed out, that more formal documentation wassubmitted leading to full UK, and later USA, certification. Quiteapart from the cost saving, this allowed the research anddevelopment that led to the design being developed more fullythan would now be possible. Indeed, with the way that the ruleshave changed in the subsequent 25 years, it is very unlikely thatthis project could now be undertaken in the UK.

3.3 Approval of Gliders in the UK

27. Until EASA’s creation, the British Gliding Association (BGA)enjoyed considerable latitude in its ability to modify gliders withthe minimum of bureaucracy in the approval process becausegliding has not been regulated by the CAA. The BGA TechnicalCommittee has in the past been able to set modification approvalat a minimum sensible level, taking into account the potentialeffect of the modification on the aerodynamics, structuralintegrity, weight and balance and crashworthiness of the glider.The track record of the BGA bears out the fact that very few ofthe modifications made have ever led directly to an accident ormade injury in an accident more likely.

28. However, for those gliders imported after September 2003,the modification process currently run by the BGA will no longerbe valid. This is just one of the consequences of coming under thejurisdiction of EASA. Gliders imported since then are required tohave a Certificate of Airworthiness issued by the NationalAirworthiness Authority (presently the CAA). Because of this, anymodifications made (and this includes any instruments addedafter delivery) have to be endorsed by an approved DesignOrganisation. The BGA is presently engaged in an expensiveexercise to determine how best such an organisation can be setup, at a tolerable cost to the membership. There are likely to beno easy answers. For example, the BGA has already been placedin the position whereby a simple modification to the rear seat ofthe DG 500 glider (to prevent injury in the event of a heavylanding) cannot be ‘read across’ to the DG 1000 under theauthority of its Technical Committee. This is because the DG 1000is post September 2003, and therefore falls under the new rules.Consequently owners wishing to incorporate this simple safetyimprovement have been obliged to pay a commercialorganisation that holds a Design Approval, a significant feeformally to incorporate what is essentially the same modification17.

First production Wilksch WAM120 in the Europa, built by a Wilkschcustomer specifically for this engine. Progress was delayed by UKapproval limitations.

The Reality Escapade, a UK project but developed jointly with a UScompany for initial test flying.

14Wilksch Airmotive website is at http://www.wilksch.com15Reality Aircraft website is at http://www.realityaircraft.com/16The Optica was designed by the author of this paper. See FlightInternational, 12 May 1979.

17This example is particularly notable since much glider safety researchover the past 15 or so years has been undertaken in the UK under thedirection of Dr Tony Segal, in co-operation with QinetiQ and itspredecessors. See also Tony Segal ‘Nosewheel or Skid’, Sailplane &Gliding, August-September 2005.


29. Similarly, a research project during the 1990s led to a proof ofconcept glider, the EA918. This project received substantial publicfunding through the DTI. Test flying of the prototype, at an earlystage of development, was possible because gliders had up tothat point been unregulated in the UK; with the BGA issuing aform of Permit to Fly for operations from BGA controlled airfields.Under the new EASA rules it will be almost impossible, unless anExperimental Category is introduced or the status quo is retained,to develop a glider in this way in the UK in the future.

30. Both for modification and operation of imported gliders, andfor design and development of new gliders, there is a clear needto reconsider the method of certification now being proposed forthe UK in the light of the new EASA rules, retention of the statusquo being the preferred option of the BGA. If this is not done theUK is going to be severely disadvantaged in the future.

4.0 LIGHT AVIATION REGULATION OVERSEAS

31. The General Aviation Group have researched in some detailthe comparative situation overseas and most particularly in theUSA where the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has had anExperimental Category for some years; France which hasdeveloped a system in parallel with the UK, but which, despiteearlier moves to the contrary, subsequently developed rules thatgive a very much lighter touch to regulation of amateur builtaircraft of all types; and Australia which has relatively recentlyintroduced a new system derived from the FAA example.

4.1 Australia

32. The system in Australia used to be similar to that in the UK. Asin the UK, it was realised that original and innovative design, andindeed any sort of light aircraft production, had almost ground toa halt. Australians involved in light aviation are strongly of theopinion that there is benefit to the aviation community as awhole from encouraging domestic light aircraft design andinnovation:

“Most of the aircraft component companies would go under if itwas not for the experimental market. In Australia the GA

market has dropped 54% in the past ten years whereas theExperimental category has increased by 165%. I think this is also

the case in US.”19

In 1998, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia (CASA)introduced an Experimental Category based on US regulations.These are detailed in two Advisory Circulars (AC), namely AC21.10(0) ‘Experimental Certificates’ October 1998 and AC 21.4(2)‘Amateur-Built Experimental Aircraft — Certification’ September200020.

33. The Australian system, as with that in the USA, encompassesthe full range from commercial and military experimental aircraftto amateur designed and built aircraft, the latter being split intodifferent categories for original designs and kits. CASA acceptsthat the majority of experimental aircraft will fall into theamateur category, and hence has written an AC directedspecifically to amateur built aircraft. The introduction of thissystem was largely the responsibility of the then National

Technical Director of the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia(SAAA.), and he recalls the background to the change:

“I was on the writing team that put the Part 21 experimentalrules in place in 1998. The Sport Aircraft Association of Australiaput me up to that task when I stepped unexpectedly up to theposition of National Technical Director. I knew nothing about

the experimental rules, but coming from a purely conventionalaviation background — airline and GA maintenance, CPL fixed

and rotary, Flying Instructor etc. — I was decidedlyuncomfortable with the idea that a person might be permittedto build and fly an aircraft without the mandatory oversight of‘approved persons’. Fortunately, I was able to spend a week atEAA headquarters, where they graciously explained the whole

thing to me; and converted me.

“Nowadays I am a true believer. I have seen the results with myown eyes: a dramatic increase in amateur build activity, qualityand diversity. So despite some lingering controversy among themore entrenched reactionaries at CASA, the experimental ruleshave served us well here in Oz. Since late 1998 for example, I

think that I have inspected and issued certificates to about threeor four hundred amateur built aircraft; not to mention some

magnificent historical and ex-military machines.”21

34. The new Australian rules have led to notable commercial successstories. The Jabiru is a two seat home built kit, and approved by thePFA as a Permit aircraft. Since 1996 113 of these have been added tothe UK register, with a further 12 under construction. This aircraftdesign also spawned the new Jabiru engine which is now availablein various sizes from four up to eight cylinders and 85hp to 180hp.A total of 490 Jabiru engines have been sold in the UK. Morerecently a four-seat kit has been added, the first four-seater kit tohave been approved for amateur construction by the PFA, of which13 are flying in the UK and a further 22 under construction. Thefactory has recently gained approval for the UL-D microlight and theJ160 VLA, having gone through the normal certification process. TheUL-D has now received UK CAA approval and the J160 has just beensubmitted to EASA. The new Australian rules also contributed to theinternational commercial success of the Gippsland Airvan22 as wellas the Victa Airtourer which ended up as the Australian AirforceCT-4.

18The EA9 was designed by the author of this paper. See Flyer Magazine,January 1998.19Garry Spicer, President of the Sport Aircraft Association Australia(SAAA) in a letter to the General Aviation Group of the RAeS. SAAAwebsite is at http://www.saaa.com/.20These and other relevant AC will be found on the CASA website athttp://www.casa.gov.au/.

21Letter from Stephen Dines, former National Technical Director of theSAAA, to the General Aviation Group of the RAeS. A summary of thenew Australian system, written for this Paper by Stephen Dines, can befound in Appendix B.22Gippsland Aeronautics website is at http://www.gippsland.com/.

The Spitfire Mk26 with an 8-cylinder Jabiru engine, a recent Australiankit design that is becoming popular in the UK.

JUNE 2006 11

4.2 New Zealand and South Africa

New ZZealand

35. The certification procedures for Light Aviation in both NewZealand and South Africa encourage innovation andexperimental light aircraft23. The New Zealand CAA (NZ CAA) dohave an Experimental Category, and although this is notencouraged, they allow the fitting of experimental engines inCofA aircraft24. Information from the NZ CAA and other reportssuggests that there is no evidence that the Experimental Categoryhas led to any increased risk to third parties25. The rules have, forinstance, led to a major development of the Fletcher top dressingaircraft by Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd (PAC) who, duringthe development phase to produce the Fletcher 750XL, operatedthe aircraft under the Experimental category26. In addition a newseaplane called 'Shearwater'27 is in the test flight phase ofdevelopment for the custom built (homebuilt) kit plane market.

36. The Waikato region of New Zealand has emerged as a primeaircraft design and production area, bringing with it a personneland support infrastructure. A major factor in this developmentand subsequent expansion has been recruiting adequatelyqualified staff and housing them. PAC, based at Hamilton airport,produce the 750XL and the CT4 military trainer aircraft, and anew company, Alpha Aviation, is starting licensed production ofthe French Robin R2160 and R212028. Approximately 20km westof Hamilton, Micro Aviation NZ Ltd. are producing the BantamB22 Microlight aircraft which they designed and developed29. Todate 287 of these microlights have been sold throughout theworld and as well as becoming a private microlight of choice theyare sought after as a substitute for more expensive helicopterswhich are utilised in patrol type work. As a result, production isbeing expanded to keep up with demand.

37. In short:

“New Zealand has been an aviation minded country from theoutset of aviation and due to its initial isolation has developed acan-do attitude to aircraft design and repair. This has resulted ina large number of aircraft being designed and built under theumbrella of SAANZ. Most are not suitable, or designed for, acommercial market but keep alive the tradition of innovation

and the quest for the perfect design of airframe and engine.”30

It should be emphasised that the NZ CAA personnel are seen asbeing particularly helpful and encouraging during thedevelopment and certification process for light aircraft.

South AAfrica

38. South Africa does not have an Experimental Category as such;however the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SA CAA)encourages the development of new types under the

classification ‘Non Type Certified Aircraft (NTCA), Parts 24, 94, 96and 66 Subpart 10’31. This system has been in operation for some30 years; the accident rates have basically been constant for someyears; and the statistics on rate of registration of NTCA and therate of accidents reveal that there is a higher rate of aircraft beingregistered than there are accidents. This data suggests that thestructure of the approach towards NTCA is working, however, theprocesses are considerably different to those of the USA. Theprocess does not allow for changing from CofA aircraft to NTCAand then back again; once an aircraft has been moved into NTCA,such as in the case of a Veteran aircraft, then it cannot bereturned to CofA status. By comparison it should be rememberedthat in the UK even this flexibility is not possible, since BritishCofA aircraft can no longer be transferred to Permit status.

39. NTCA is the grass roots of the South African aviation industry.Some of the younger people who have been involved in the NTCAsport have moved on to become aircraft designers, technicians,technologists, engineers, air traffic controllers and pilots andexperimental prototype aircraft have led to commercially viableenterprises:

“In South Africa, NTCA aircraft with SA design authority canobtain NTCA Approval. These aircraft are made available in SAand are also exported. The Windlass, Aquilla and Thunderbird

are some examples of SA aircraft that are supplied as productionNTCA and are considered as Microlights. The SB2 is an aircraft

that can be considered as a high speed composite toureraircraft. This aircraft is available as a ‘scratch built’ aircraft andlimited kits. The Bushbaby is a low speed aircraft that is offeredin both kit form and in completed form. There is the Ravin 500

which is a high speed composite four-seater aircraft, alsodesigned in SA. The above are but a few examples of the rangeof complexity of NTCA aircraft that contribute to the aviation

industry in South Africa. One must bear in mind that thedevelopments of these aircraft have NOT seen any substantial

support from Government during its development program.”32

40. It is felt that in South Africa there is a gap between theaviation industry and the academic institutions however, as oneSouth African academic aero-engineer observes:

“The University of the Witwatersrand — the only University inSouth Africa with a true aerospace engineering programme withfull time aeronautical engineers on staff — has done some work

on microlights from design to wind tunnel testing which iscurrently under way as part of a MSc (Eng) project.”33

South African students have also been developing an 18msailplane, the JS1, with some novel ideas both on aerodynamicsand wing construction34.

23Details of the position in New Zealand came from Capt Neville Hay,FRAeS, President of the NZL Division RAeS and himself the builder of CriCriZK LBW, a very small French designed twin-engined single-seater aircraft. 24Detailed information from the regulators perspective is available byreference to Part 21 on the NZ CAA website at http://www.caa.govt.nz/.25The New Zealand equivalent of the US Experimental AircraftAssociation (EAA) is the Sport Aircraft Association of New Zealand(SAANZ) whose website is at http://www.saa.org.nz/.26Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd. website is athttp://www.aerospace.co.nz/.27Shearwater website is at http://www. seaflight.co.nz/.28Alpha Aviation website is at http://www.alphaaviation.co.nz/.29Hamilton Micro Aviation NZ Ltd website is at http://www.microaviation.co.nz/.30Letter from Capt Neville Hay to the General Aviation Group of the RAeS.

31The comments from South Africa were obtained through Dr Craig Law,RAeS Divisional Secretary in South Africa, and came from Mr SteveBoschoff, a prominent member of the South African ExperimentalAircraft Association. South Africa Civil Aviation Authority website is athttp:// www.caa.co.za/ (Airworthiness — Amateur Built Aircraft). TheSouth African Experimental Aircraft Association website is athttp://www.eaa.org.za/technical/home.php/.32Stephen Boschoff writing in his report to the General Aviation Group.33Dr Craig Law, in his professional capacity a lecturer at the School ofMechanical, Aeronautical and Industrial Engineering, University of theWitwatersrand . The Flow Research Unit at the University of theWitwatersrand website is at http://www.flow.wits.ac.za/.34As reported at the OSTIV seminar at Mafikeng, South Africa, in 2001BOSMAN, J.J. and JONKER, A.S. Technical Soaring, (A Journal of the SoaringSociety of America Inc and Organisation Scientifique et TechniqueInternationale du Vol a Voile (OSTIV)), 27, Nos 1 and 2. January and April2003 (Printed 2005).


4.3 Mainland Europe

41. It has proved difficult to ascertain how the system forapproval of amateur built experimental aircraft operates in otherEuropean countries. This is partly due to language difficulties ofpublished information, but probably more that there appear tobe various un-documented systems that operate in practice,sometime on a case by case basis, and sometimes on the basis ofwhat has developed as common practice35.

France

42. The French have a long history of success in light aircraftdesign and manufacture. Several French types have been popularin the UK since the 1950s both as finished aircraft and as plansapproved by the PFA. The first single seat Jodel appeared in the1950s, designed by Jean Delemontez. Other designers includeRoger Druine, Marcel Jurca and Claude Piel. Some of these gaveothers the opportunity to start small scale production. The Jodelfamily gradually became the DR series of Delemontez Robin. TheTurbulent and Turbi aircraft of Roger Druine were built in the UKas were the Emeraudes of Claude Piel. The trend has continuedever since. In addition France has a healthy light aircraftmanufacturing sector, notably SOCATA, which is now part ofEADS, previously Aérospatiale, so demonstrating that large andsmall aircraft can co-exist on a commercial basis, and ApexAircraft which has incorporated Centrair, Avions Pierre Robin,Avions Mudry and CAP families.

43. The Réseau du Sport de l’Air (RSA) was set up in 1946, six yearsbefore our own PFA, but like the EAA and unlike the PFA it is anorganisation specifically remitted to advise and encourageamateur aircraft design and building. Certification comes directfrom the Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC)36, withprototypes given a certificate, the ‘Certificat de NavigabilitéRestreint d’Aeronef’ (CNRA), similar to the Experimental Categoryin the USA37. This covers amateur prototype and plans-builtaircraft up to four seats and 200hp. In 1998 the French added the‘Certificat de Navigabilité Spéciale pour Kit’ (CNSK) to cover kitbuilt aircraft. In the case of both these categories the DGACapplies a very light regulatory touch. There are typically only twoinspections; the DGAC applies limitations during the flight testperiod; the builder is expected to keep a record of the build; andto show that structural and aerodynamic calculations have been

done. On the other hand, there is no in depth inspection norchecking of these records and calculations38.

Germany aand AAustria

44. In the past Germany is perhaps best known for its long historyof high performance glider design, not only through theuniversity based Akafliegs, but also through such well-knownmanufacturers as Schleicher, Glasflugel, Grob, DG Flugzeugbau,Schneider, Scheibe and Schempp-Hirth. The climate in Germany issuch that new design ideas are able to be effectively progressed,evidenced by Lange-Flugzeugbau who have developed a selflaunching electric powered single seat high performance glider,the Antares, with a total of 26 recently delivered with full CofA,including one to a UK customer39.

45. Originating in Germany, the Grob 115 Tutor is a full CofAaircraft used by the RAF for training; and the recent success ofGermany and Austria with powered light aircraft should beemphasized. Ikarus have delivered over 400 C42s and 80 areproduced annually40. In the UK the C42 can be flown in either themicrolight category or Very Light Aircraft category according tothe individual machine’s maximum all up weight (up to 450kg —microlight and VLA above this weight). Diamond AircraftIndustries Gmbh is a major aircraft company located in Europe,Asia, Australasia, Canada, South America and Africa41. Productioncovers motor gliders to twin-engine machines. The conclusionthat can be drawn from the success of Ikarus and Diamond is thatthe German and Austrian regulatory regimes must have beengenerally supportive of the design, development and productionof the various types now being marketed; otherwise theiradmirable worldwide sales record would not have been possible.

46. The German regulations do not use the term ‘experimentalcategory’, nevertheless they have established a procedure inGermany for certification of individual aircraft, including homebuilt aircraft and kits. All aircraft which do not or cannotdemonstrate full compliance with the applicable airworthinesscodes in Germany (i.e. the JARs plus CS-VLR) can achieve a CofA inthe ‘restricted’ category42. The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), the

35Information from France, Germany, Austria and Switzerland has beenobtained by the CAA on behalf of the General Aviation Group of theRAeS.36The DGAC website is at http://www.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/.37A fuller summary of the French system can be found in Appendix C.

The Antares, a battery-powered motorglider from Lange-Flugzenbau, anew German manufacturer.

38In a letter to the General Aviation Group, Filip Lambert, winner of the1994 RAeS light aircraft design competition, describes the simplicity ofthe process. See Appendix C.39Lange-Flugzeugbau website is www.lange-flugzeugbau.com. See ProfLoek Boermans ‘Designing the Antares’, Sailplane & Gliding, February-March 2001 and Jochen Ewald ‘Electric Charger’, Sailplane & Gliding,February-March 2004.40Ikarus website is at http://www.comco-ikarus.de/.41Diamond website is at http://www.diamondair.com/ (also .co.uk).42LBA Document No 240.1 English Edition 6/November 2000.

The Turbulent, a 1950s French design, one of several to be built underlicense in the UK at about that time.

JUNE 2006 13

German certification authority, issues a data sheet for everyindividual aircraft, and for these types of project work in closecollaboration with the amateur builder‘s organisation, the Oskar-Ursinus-Vereiniggung (OUV). In some ways the German systemappears similar to the UK, but how this works in practice is notclear. There is a small, but diverse fleet operated under the aegisof the OUV with over 100 aircraft fully cleared, some 200 in flightproving and nearly 300 under construction43. It is noteworthy thatthe new German aircraft designs generally come from the manyestablished manufacturers of gliders and light aircraft.

47. The Austrian authorities44 have a regulation for homebuiltaircraft called LTH2245, which is currently being revised46. This isonly available in German, but appears to refer to FAAdocumentation, for example the 51% rule to define a homebuilt,ref FAA 21.191. They also publish a very detailed flight testprogramme (79 pages) for this category47. This specifically refersto the FAA AC 90-89 ‘Amateur Built Flight Test Handbook’. TheDiamond has already been mentioned as popular on the UKregister. In addition the very popular Rotax engines that powermany of today’s light aircraft and microlights were developed inAustria.

48. In Switzerland there is an amateur builder association, theExperimental Aviation of Switzerland (EAS)48. The Swisscertification authority (BAZL), also known as the FOCA, workswith this association which handles homebuilt aircraft issues on itsbehalf49. The EAS website provides clear guidance on theprocedures which need to be followed. For new designs, the BAZLapproaches these on a case by case basis and it is the applicant’sresponsibility to propose a deviation or exemption, based forexample on experimental limitations. The only mention of Swissdesigns approved in the UK by the PFA date from 30 years ago.The well known Swiss light aircraft and glider manufacturer isPilatus50, and they at one time owned Britten-Norman aircraft inthe Isle of Wight.

4.4 North America

49. The FAA has a wide range of regulatory and oversightfunctions, including the core task of regulating civil aviation topromote safety. But it also has the responsibility to encourage anddevelop civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology, inparticular to help “develop better aircraft, engines andequipment.” The FAA directs would-be experimental designersand constructors towards the Experimental Aircraft Association(EAA) and the United States Ultra Light Association (USUA). In thisrespect these organisations reflect our own PFA and BMAA, butthere, in terms of aircraft approval, the comparison ends.Whereas the UK organisations have an authorisation from theCAA to regulate, the US organisations are there primarily toencourage and advise their members on best aviation andaeronautical engineering practice. The granting of anExperimental Category certificate remains with the FAA,operating through a system of local inspectors. The FAA inspectsthe aircraft to verify to the extent feasible the use of acceptableworkmanship methods, techniques and practices, and then issuesa certificate with appropriate operating limitations. The FAA do

not investigate, nor do they verify, the airworthiness of theaircraft, the responsibility for which rests entirely with thoseinvolved with designing, building and flying the aircraft. The FAAhas no duty of care to those directly involved in the building orthe flying of the aircraft51.

50. The FAA is active in encouraging responsible and informeddesign and construction of experimental amateur designed andbuilt aircraft, and to this end the FAA publishes helpfulinformation, particularly the ‘Amateur Built Aircraft ReferenceMaterial’ which is a compendium of the principal FAA AdvisoryCirculars that are relevant to the amateur52. There is noequivalent in the UK.

51. The culture in the USA, backed up by the regulatoryenvironment, has lead to many innovative designs over the past50 years. Burt Rutan’s work on innovative composite designs isperhaps the most notable53. After a history of innovative canardlight aircraft designs, and many bespoke experimental aircraft forindividual customers, the company has been the first privateenterprise to venture into space, winning the X-prize withSpaceShipOne54. This was followed in 2006 with the 26,000 milerecord breaking one and a half times around the world flight byAmerican pilot Steve Fossett in the specially developed VirginGlobal Flyer. This is a clear case of the US Experimental Rulesallowing the type of development that simply would not bepossible in the UK, and it is notable that the latter project wasfinanced by Virgin, that is UK finance, showing that there is nolack of will in the UK for this type of project.

5.0 THE UK POPULAR FLYING ASSOCIATIONAPPROACH

52. The PFA web site details a list of types approved for amateurbuild projects in the UK. This includes such types as the RollasonBeta and the Isaacs Fury, both of which were designed anddeveloped in the UK, but date from the 1960s. Further analysis ofthe published list, with the country of origin, shows that over thepast 25 years the number of new types being designed anddeveloped in the UK has dwindled, while the number of imports,

The Quickie, one of several Rutan canards that led on to many other USadvanced technology projects.

43This is mid 2004 data, to be found on OUV website at http://www.ouv.de.44Department AC, Airworthiness & Certification website to be found athttp://www.austrocontrol.at/.45Lufttuchtigkeitshinweis Nr.22 — FL207-1/06-98 — August 1998.46Austrocontrol document TH 22b Draft3 — May 2005.47Erprobungsprogramm für Eigenbau-Flugzeuge in Österreich, erstelltvon Abteilung Flugtechnik — Revision 3 April 2004.48Experimental Aviation of Switzerland website is athttp://www.experimental.ch/.49BAZL / FOCA website is at http://www.aviation.admin.ch/.50Pilatus Aircraft website is at http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/.

51A full summary of the FAA system operating in the USA and, it isunderstood, in Canada is given in Appendix D. 52Excerpt from FAA Order 8130.2D, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraftand Related Products. See website at http://www.av-info.faa.gov/dst/amateur.53Scaled Composites website is at http://www.scaledcomposites.com.54X prize website is at http://xprizefoundation.com/.


other than US, has risen. (See Fig. 1.) The number of imports fromFrance has remained fairly steady for the past 50 years.

53. Figure 2 details by country of design origin the 259 fixed wingtypes on the PFA list; the 15 gyrocopters on the list coming mainlyfrom the US and UK have not been included.

This table shows the figures that make up the graph above, andalso well illustrates the increasing number of aircraft designsbeing approved from overseas, particularly Australia, but alsoGermany and Italy. Belgium and the Czech Republic continue toproduce the occasional design that is approved by the PFA; thereis new interest of at least one design each coming from Russia,Poland and Malta.

54. The details by country of design origin for the 15 years since1990 are shown in Figure 3. The British examples include all typesthat have been designed in the UK, whether or not they remainedas a one off prototype or went into series production selling to awider market. On the other hand the overseas types listed areonly aircraft that have been sufficiently developed to be seriesproduced and sold on a commercial basis to an internationalmarket. In reality, therefore, the UK comparative ratio may be aslow as ten to one, and the position is far worse than suggested bythe data.

There is no doubt that the designs come from countries wherethere are favourable rules for experimental flying, with Australiathe most notable having had a rule change in 1998 as has beendescribed, but also the USA and France which traditionally haveboth had easier rules for experimental flying.

55. In addition the PFA publish a list of what they regard as themost popular types of kits at the present time as follows.

Rans S.6 Microlight or light aircraft55 USAEuropa Light aircraft UKKitfox Light aircraft USAMinimax Light aircraft USAWhittaker MW-6 Microlight UKVans RV series Light aircraft USAStreak Shadow Microlight UK

This includes three UK types, but all three types can no longer beregarded as new, having been available for 20 years or more. TheEuropa is probably the most recent type, but even this project hasnow been transferred to the USA for further development, and sohas been lost to the UK.

56. In addition to the above list there are many other foreigndesigns coming into the UK which, collectively, would amount toa very considerable number of actual machines, many ofinnovative design and construction. Particularly of note are theBanbi series (France) the Rutan Canards, VariEze etc. (US) and alarge number of other types, including the Jabiru (Australia), theSky Ranger (France), the EV-97 Eurostar, the Ikarus C42 (Germany)and the Zenair 601(Canada), that all feature in the list of the mostcommonly newly registered aircraft in the UK as discussed in thenext section. All of these overseas types have been flownextensively in the UK and there are no doubts about their basicairworthiness, general safety, popularity and reasonable cost,although they were all designed, test flown, and first acceptedfor use under very different regulatory regimes than thatprevailing in the UK. Moreover, they have, of course, all gonethrough the CAA/PFA oversight filter before acceptance in theUK. This fact alone indicates that other regulatory regimes can beeffective in the encouragement of innovation, withoutcompromising safety.

6.0 ANALYSIS OF THE UK REGISTER

57. An analysis has been undertaken for all new aircraftregistrations in the UK for the five years 2000-2004. To thepublished list has been added, so far as is known, the country ofmanufacture for the UK market, and for those aircraft

55Light aircraft is a common terminology (to differentiate from amicrolight), they were formerly termed ‘Group A Aircraft’ and are nowtermed ‘Fixed wing landplanes’ on the UK Register.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Decade

Num

ber o

f Des

igns

App

rove

d in

Dec

ade

UKN.AmericaFranceOther

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

USA UK Australia France Italy Canada Germany CzechRepublic

Malta Belgium Russia Poland

Num

ber o

f New

Airc

raft

Des

igns

Figure 1. Number of new types approved by the PFA per decade ofdesign origin, by country of design origin.

Figure 3. Country of origin of the 72 new aircraft designs approved bythe PFA since 1990.

Figure 2. Number of new fixed wing aircraft designs approved by thePFA per decade, by country of design origin.

Decade UK USA FranceCanadaAustraliaGermany Italy Other Total

1910 3 1 1 5

1920 1 1

1930 7 5 1 13

1940 0 2 1 3

1950 1 1 4 6

1960 6 18 11 3 1 2 41

1970 4 36 3 3 2 48

1980 15 42 5 8 70

1990 11 19 3 3 1 1 1 39

2000 7 6 3 1 6 1 4 5 33

Total 55 129 31 18 7 4 5 10 259

JUNE 2006 15

manufactured in the UK, the country of design origin. Fixed WingLandplanes (formerly Group A aircraft) have been subdivided intoheavy commercial aircraft and light aircraft56. Aircraft of a similartype are grouped together, but balloons are regarded as notconforming to a type. Gliders are not included since there hasbeen no requirement for registration in the UK.

58. Figure 4 tabulates the top twenty most common types on theregister. The figures are year average over the five year period,and the annual average of 338 compares with 630 in all, thus thislist accounts for 54% of new registrations. Heavy aircraft havebeen included in the table for comparison, and amount to justfewer than 10% of the total.

It can be seen that a large number of aircraft, particularlymicrolights, are built in the UK but from designs originatingoverseas. The total number of aircraft built in the UK is 146 out ofthe 338 total, that is 43%, but the number designed in the UK isonly 87, that is 26%. It will be seen that the majority of these aremicrolights, and this latter low figure should be of particularconcern since for many years the UK were the leaders in thistechnology.

59. Figure 5 tabulates the year average by country ofmanufacture, not design origin, of all aircraft; the majority ofthese will have been new aircraft.

Some microlights are registered as light aircraft, and in the UKthese amount to about 14% of the given light aircraft average. Inaddition to the main manufacturing countries listed, Switzerland,Belgium and Sweden have produced at least one light aircraft inthe five-year period, and Belgium produced two helicopters. Itwill be noted that the majority of balloons registered in the UK

56The cut off point is taken as the JAR-23 limit, that is single enginedaircraft up to nine seats or 5,670kg and twin-engined aircraft up to 19seats or 8,618kg, regardless of which code the aircraft is certificated to.Some 5% only of the thus defined ‘light’ aircraft are above 1,500kg, anda further 17% fall into the 1,000kg to 1,500kg range.

Figure 4. Top 20 most common types registered in the UK in the five years 2000-2004.

Figure 5. Country of manufacture of aircraft newly registered in the UKin the five years 2000-2004.

Name by which aircraft Type of aircraft — No of Country Country Manufacturer/Notestype commonly known Fixed-wing aircraft, a/c, of design where built

helicopter or microlight yr av origin for the UK

Robinson R44 four-seat helicopter 29 USA USA factoryRaj Hamsa X’Air two-seat microlight 29 India India kit in UKPegasus Quantum two-seat microlight 28 UK UK factory Mainair-Pegasus, LancashireAirbus A319/320/321 heavy commercial aircraft 25 Europe Europe factoryMainair Blade two-seat microlight 25 USA UK factory Mainair-Pegasus, LancashireEuropa two-seat light aircraft 22 UK UK kitPegasus Quik two-seat microlight 22 UK UK factory Mainair-Pegasus, LancashireSky Ranger two-seat microlight 22 France France kitJabiru two-seat light a/c or microlight 18 Australia Australia kitGrob G115 two-seat light aircraft 15 Germany Germany factory Aerobatic trainerEV-97 Eurostar two-seat light a/c or microlight 15 Czech UK factory or kit Built under license in the UKThruster T600 two-seat microlight 15 UK UK factory Thruster Air Services, OxonIkarus C42 two-seat microlight 13 Germany UK factory or kit Built under license in

WolverhamptonRans S6 two-seat light a/c or microlight 13 USA USA kitRobinson R22 two-seat helicopter 10 USA USA factoryBoeing 737 heavy commercial aircraft 8 USA USA factoryZenair CH601 two-seat light a/c or microlight 8 France/ USA/Czech kit USA and Czech aircraft works

CanadaDiamond DA40 four-seat light aircraft 7 Germany/ Germany/ factory

Austria AustriaPiper PA28, all models four-seat light aircraft 7 USA USA factoryPegasus/Flightdesign CT2K two-seat microlight 6 Ukraine UK etc. factory Collaboration UK/Germany/

Ukraine

Total of top 20 — just over half overall total 338

Country of Heavy Light Micro Other Heli Gyro Ball Totalmanufacture f-w f-w light f-w and

a/c a/c a/c airshipsUK 2 32 106 0 0 3 63 191USA 12 74 19 1 47 1 0 168France 1 19 29 0 2 0 0 51Europe/Mixed 28 0 0 0 10 0 0 37Germany 0 19 12 3 <1 0 <1 35India 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 29Czech 0 7 19 0 0 0 1 27Australia 0 8 13 0 0 0 0 21Canada 13 1 1 0 0 4 0 19Italy 0 6 6 0 2 1 0 15Austria 0 9 0 1 0 0 0 10Ukraine 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 9Brazil 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 6Spain 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6Poland 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Unknown/Other 0 3 0 0 <1 0 0 4Total by type 61 179 242 6 62 9 70 630


are of UK design and manufacture. The table shows that only 32out of 179, or 18%, of light aircraft registered in the UK werebuilt in the UK. However, out of these 32 aircraft, 22 wereEuropas. This is a kit aircraft that was very popular, and sold verywell, during this period, but sales have since fallen dramatically,and there is no UK designed or built aircraft that has taken itsplace. It is understood that the remaining interest in this aircrafthas been transferred to the USA where development of thecertified version continues. The UK position is therefore nowdeteriorating further.

60. The situation for microlights looks a little better unless thecurrent trends are considered. During the period 106 out of 242,or 44%, microlights registered in the UK were built in the UK, butfrom comparison with the previous table it is likely that about24% of these were designed in the UK. Of the 106 microlightsbuilt in the UK, 77 of these, that is 73%, were built by onecompany, Mainair-Pegasus. Reality and Thruster account for afurther 5 and 13 aircraft average respectively. These figuresindicate that effective UK microlight design is being polarisedinto one or two companies that can afford to have full designapproval with the CAA, with little room for experimentation bysmall groups of individuals. It is of note that Reality Aircraft is thenewest entry and is achieving increasing success in sales, but theirtechnical development has only been possible by undertaking ajoint programme in the USA for initial test flying.

61. There were no UK built helicopters entering the register, butfrom the previous table it will be seen that there are moreRobinson R44 four seat helicopters newly registered in the UKthan any other type of aircraft. The Robinson R44 is a successor tothe very popular Robinson R22 two seat helicopter which wasdeveloped over a long period of time in the USA under theExperimental Category rules. It is something that simply wouldnot have been possible in the UK.

7.0 PUBLIC INVESTMENT, THE UNIVERSITIES ANDTHE WIDER AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

62. Many aerospace companies certainly have the financialresources required to support the launch of promising lightaircraft designs. The demand for innovative light aircraft atreasonable prices is clearly strong in the UK as evidenced by thelarge number of imported types, so there is every reason tobelieve that sound and innovative designs originated in the UKwould lead to profitable products. Similarly, universityaeronautical engineering departments should be in a position towork on, and possibly gain industrial sponsorship for, innovativedesigns of light aircraft as happened in the past, but they needfinancial encouragement to do so.

63. In the early1960s human powered aircraft were investigatedat the College of Aeronautics at Cranfield, at SouthamptonUniversity and at de Havilland, Hatfield. Two flying aircraftresulted, the SUMPAC which first flew in November 1961 and thePuffin which flew shortly after. In the 1960s the thenLoughborough University of Technology (now LoughboroughUniversity) was responsible for the design of the Sprite two-seaterlight aircraft, and along with that project produced two practicalpublications which were well ahead of any other UK guidancedocuments available at that time57. Regrettably this excellentwork, which should have supported the continued health ofBritain’s light aircraft industry, did not do so.

64. In 1964 Rollason Aircraft and Engines sponsored a competitionfor a small single-seat racing aircraft, the winner was the Betawhich went on to limited series production by Rollasons58. Activeair races took place at that time. One of the runners-up wasdesigned and built by students at the Hatfield College ofAeronautics (now University of Hertfordshire) in association withde Havilland apprentices, although the prototype was nevercompleted. Although a follow up competition was sponsored bythe Royal Aero Club in 1969 which generated interest fromBeagle employees, there is no subsequent record of light aircraftinterest by any of the UK‘s major aircraft companies59.

65. A handful of universities are currently making moves to againbecome involved in light aircraft development. Queen Mary,University of London, currently has an experimental project tomount small electric motors to the wing of the EA9 Optimistglider, but in the absence of any form of experimental categorythe chance for test flight in the UK is presently an unknown, therebeing no clear route within the CAA or the BGA. The universityheld ‘B’ Conditions design approval for work done in the wideraircraft industry, but this is of little practical help in the type ofexperimental light aircraft work now envisaged.

66. Glasgow University entered the most recent RAeS light aircraftdesign competition and in 2001 their project, the Tempus, wasselected as the first of the three chosen finalists. The other twoselected were both private individual design projects. To datenone of the aircraft chosen from this competition have come anywhere near to prototype status and, from contact with all three,it is clear that the difficulties of certification approval havebecome a very major issue. The Glasgow University project wasbeing undertaken in co-operation with Interplane Ltd in theCzech Republic. This project has not been finished for lack offunding and the fact that Interplane pulled out, but there is nodoubt that, in terms of certification, the link up with the CzechRepublic was important for a first flight there and not in the UK.

67. Brunel University has recently decided to involve itself in lightaircraft design as part of its various courses. This has included a newcourse including flying training as part of the programme foraward of BEng and MEng degrees, use of a reconfigurable flightsimulator as a tool in teaching aeroplane design, and there arereported to be plans that may culminate in the design and build ofnew experimental aeroplanes. This is a welcome (but isolated)example of concentration upon light aeroplane, and whole flight-vehicle design at an engineering university. Such activities wouldcertainly benefit from the availability of an Experimental Category.

The Europa, a successful UK project from the 1980s but with furtherdevelopment now transferred to the USA.

57MACCABEE, F.G. Light Aircraft Desin Handbook, TT6801 Third EditionSept 1971 and JENKINSON, L.R. Light Aircraft Design Example, TT6804 ThirdEdition July 1978. Both published by Department of TransportTechnology, Loughborough University of Technology.58A/AIRCDRE PAUL, G.J.C. Rollason’s Luton Beta Air Test. Popular Flying,May/June 1978.59WADDINGTON, J.C. The SAA — 200 Racer Project. Popular Flying,January/February 1970.

JUNE 2006 17

68. By comparing practices overseas, to give just two examples, inthe former Soviet Union Student Design Bureaux were set upalongside the major aerospace universities such as Moscow, Kiev,Samara and Karkhov (Zhukovsky), where talented engineeringstudents were given the chance to work on the entire cycle ofaircraft and spacecraft projects. Many of the former SovietUnion's light aircraft designers (as well as prominent engineers inmany other fields) of the last 50 years are products of theseinstitutions. In Germany there is a long and very strong traditionof the Akafliegs, universities that design and build highlyexperimental gliders. This is a tradition that was begun in 1919.No equivalent organisations exist in the UK.

69. These are but a few examples of university and the wideraircraft industry involvement in the past and at the present time.There can be no doubt that student involvement in practicalexperimental aircraft that leads to test flying of prototypes wouldbe of enormous benefit to the future of the UK aerospaceindustry. There are probably a number of reasons why in the UKthere have been no prototype aircraft flown in recent years fromstudent projects, but there is no doubt that one contributoryreason has been the problems over certification and approval forflight of an experimental aircraft.

8.0 HOW SAFE IS LIGHT AVIATION?

70. The fundamental regulatory issue affecting experimentalflight must be safety especially for the general public. TheGeneral Aviation Safety Council (GASCo) was asked to commenton the general aviation accident statistics. These of course includelarger aircraft than those commonly included in the LightAviation category. First they looked at the risk to third partiesfrom UK General Aviation (GA) aircraft and found that in the 45years since 1960 there have been only two such accidents. Onewas in 1966 involving a Cessna 172 when two spectators at anairshow were killed, the other was in 1970 when a DH104 Dovehit a house in bad weather, one third party was killed and twowere seriously injured. These were both CofA, not Permit, aircraft.

71. GASCo then analysed CofA and Permit aircraft by type of fatalaccident, and found that of the 278 fatal accidents in the period1980 to 1999 less than 10% of the accidents could be primarilyattributed to the aircraft itself. The complete position is shown inFigure 6.

Finally GASCo looked in greater detail at the 23 fatal accidentswhere a main contributory factor was the aircraft that is airframefailure and structural break up (including pilot induced break up

due to exceeding the operating limitations either intentionally ornot). They found that approximately one third involved Permitaircraft, but none of these involved death or injury to a thirdparty60.

72. The report concludes that, while the risk to third parties froma GA accident is minimal there is a slightly higher percentage riskfrom Permit aircraft. This is much as one would expect, but as thenumber of flying hours by CofA aircraft is some ten times that ofPermit aircraft, the actual rate of accidents involving Permitaircraft was lower. For Permit type aircraft experience fromoverseas countries shows that it is unlikely that an ExperimentalCategory would pose any greater risk to third parties, especiallybearing in mind that experimental flying will be undertaken inlimited designated airspace and under the direct control of thedesigner or builder of the experimental aircraft.

9.0 A PROPOSAL FOR THE UK

73. This paper does not propose major changes to the systemgoverning the issue of a full CofA, nor is it necessarily suggestingthat the system operated by the PFA and BMAA for approving kitsfor home building needs to be modified, although it has beenshown that some overseas countries are in fact introducing agreater degree of deregulation over amateur construction and kitbuilt aircraft.

74. However, it does suggest that:

■ If the UK is to see a regenerated and vibrant light aircraftindustry it is necessary to encourage the prototyping of a largenumber of amateur designed experimental aircraft. Some ofthese in turn would progress either into series productionaircraft with a full CofA, or could be sold to a wider range ofamateur constructors, both in the UK and overseas, either asplans or as kits under the existing PFA and BMAA rules. Tomake this change would at least put new UK designs on a parwith aircraft built in the UK from plans and kits originatingfrom overseas countries that currently operate under an easierregime for amateur designed and built aircraft.

■ Given Australian success in introducing a new experimentalsystem, a way forward could be for the UK to adopt a version

60Further details of these fatal accidents are given in the full report to befound in Appendix E.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Loss

of C

ontro

l VFR

Low A

eroba

tics/F

lying

CFIT

Forced

land

ing

Loss

of C

ontro

l IMC

Mid-Air C

ollisi

on

Airfram

e fail

ure

Coll G

round

Obje

ct

Low A

pproa

ch

Medica

l/Suic

ide

Collisi

on Prop

Undete

rmine

d

Perc

ent i

n Ea

ch C

ateg

ory

C of A AircraftPermit Aircraft

Figure 6. Causes of accidents 1980 to 1999 (percent) from UKpublished accident reports.

Steve Fosset flies Virgin Global Flyer one and a half times around theworld ending the flight in the UK. An experimental Category Aircraftfrom the USA.


of the Australian model which is based on the long standingand very successful US model61.

■ More generally the UK could encourage all EU countries toadopt such a model under EASA rules, thus ensuring a levelplaying field across all of the European countries.

■ Amateur builders who build from scratch based oncommercially available plans should either be treated in thesame way as kit builds as at present, with the benefits of aPermit, or be regulated within a new UK ExperimentalCategory62.

■ In legislating for an Experimental Category, the burden ofresponsibility should be with the individual constructor, as isthe case in other countries already operating such a system.Flying and kit building organisations such as the PFA, BMAAand BGA could still be used in an advisory or independentcheck capacity, but without the burden of responsibility63.

■ While CAA charges are higher than most of the UK'scompetitors, with a lighter regulatory touch under anExperimental Category the overall cost of certification wouldbe reduced.

■ In general, the introduction of an Experimental Categorydirected by the CAA is necessary to regenerate UK light aircraftdesign and construction as a commercial activity. This wouldbring the UK in line with, France, Australia and the USA.

10.0 CONCLUSIONS

75. If it is felt important that the UK should regain a position as aworld leader in light aircraft design and innovation then it isessential that some form of Experimental Category be introduced.The position of the CAA is that even very small or one manorganisations can obtain ‘B’ approval. But in practice, however, asystem that is designed for approving the output of major largeaircraft companies is far from ideal for meeting the needs ofsmaller manufacturers of light aircraft and associated equipment.

76. Statistics clearly show that the risk to third parties resultingfrom light aircraft accidents is negligible. There appears to be noevidence to suggest that this negligible risk to third parties isrelated to the national or international procedures used forairworthiness assessment. By far the major cause of light aircraftaccidents remains failure of pilot skill and proficiency, and only asmall proportion of these accidents are caused by technicalfailure. Several overseas countries have during the past ten yearsintroduced some form of experimental authorisation withconsiderable commercial success. While there is no evidence ofincreased risk of accident to third parties, there is every evidencethat commercial light aircraft production has been regenerated inthose countries and has acted to inspire a new generation ofaviation enthusiasts and potential aerospace engineers.

77. The General Aviation Group believes that greater involvementby universities in designing light aircraft and developingexperimental prototypes would benefit UK aerospace as a whole.Finance is bound to be a part of the problem, but projects withinthese organisations, particularly universities, would clearlybenefit from the introduction of an Experimental Category.

78. The certification rules are currently being much changed asEASA takes over from national aviation authorities. This shouldprovide a level playing field for the aerospace industrythroughout Europe. However, many of the light aviationcategories are excluded from the new EASA rules and specificallythe category within which all experimental flight is undertakenwill continue to come under national authorities, the CAA willcontinue to apply its own set of national rules. But with so muchchange in the process of certification this is an ideal time to see achange in the rules which would encourage innovation in Britishlight aviation.

APPENDIX A

An Interpretation of Annex 11, and other EASAExemptions, of the EC Basic Regulation 1592/2002. Suppliedby the Safety Regulation Group (SRG) of the CAA. February 2006

AIRCRAFT OUTSIDE EASA

1.0 EC Regulation 1592/2002 Article 1 exclusions:

Article 1(2) of the regulation excludes aircraft and associatedparts and equipment that are ‘engaged in military, customs,police, or similar services’. This is explained in AirworthinessNotice 13 as follows:

STATE AIRCRAFT

2.1 An effect of the EU legislation is that UK civil-registeredaircraft that are engaged in military, customs, police or similarservices have been considered to be State aircraft since the 28September 2004. The UK interpretation of Article 1(2) ofRegulation EC No. 1592/2002 is that a State aircraft is:(a) Any aircraft engaged in the service of the UK Ministry of

Defence; or(b) Any aircraft engaged in the service of a Chief Officer of Police;

or

61It has been suggested by CAA sources that Experimental Category (orExperimental Certificate in the case of Australia) is unsatisfactoryterminology. The terminology is, however, increasingly being adopted onan international basis. The meaning is generally understood, albeitdifferent countries define it in a different way, and it would be confusingto adopt an alternative terminology.62If the Australian model is adopted it should be noted that theoperating limitations of an Experimental Certificate remain quiteonerous, and thus there would still be an incentive for the kit or planbuilder to take the PFA or BMAA route and to have the plans or kitapproved for issue of a Permit.63Letter January 2006. NOUJAIM, S. Is it time for a complete change?Popular Flying, March 2006, p 38.

SpaceShipOne lands after a successful spaceflight, completing the firstleg of the X-Prize competition. The FAA hassled over the aircraft andwanted to license it as a rocket-powered spacecraft, but beingpragmatic, settled for a glider license. Photo by Mike Massee.

JUNE 2006 19

(c) Any aircraft engaged in the service of UK Customs and Excise; or(d) Any aircraft engaged in the service of the UK Government to

safeguard national security.

2.2 UK civil-registered aircraft that are excluded from the scopeof EASA by Article 1(2) will be issued with UK national Certificatesof Airworthiness or UK national Permits to Fly as appropriate.

2.3 When applied to UK aircraft, the UK interpretation meansthat aircraft engaged in the following activities are excluded fromEASA and are regulated nationally: Police, Customs and Excise,Military (including training, target towing/simulation for theMilitary), plus any other activity necessary for national security.

2.4 Conversely, this UK interpretation also means that aircraftengaged in the following activities, amongst others, are notexcluded from regulation by EASA under Article 1(2) ofRegulation (EC) No. 1592/2002: Coastguard (a rescue service),fisheries patrol, air-sea rescue, Helicopter Emergency MedicalService (HEMS), environmental protection, calibration of aids tonavigation/landing and recreational gliding or recreationalparachuting with participants who are military personnel.

NOTE: Council Regulation (EC) No. 1592/2002 Article 4(2), AnnexII additionally identifies categories of aircraft, to which the EASAregulation does not apply and therefore remain subject tonational regulation regardless of the purposes they are used for.

2.0 EC Regulation 1592/2002 Article 4 exclusions:

This Article excludes aircraft within Annex II of the Regulation.Annex II aircraft are:Historic aircraft and those designed for the military that havecivil TCs Research/one-off experimental aircraft Amateur-built aircraft (51%)Aircraft designed for the military (Ex-military aircraft)MicrolightsGliders under 80kg empty -single seat or 100kg empty — two-seatUnmanned aircraft under 150kgAny aircraft under 70kg without pilot

3.0 Temporary exclusions under the Certification Regulation:

The certification regulation allows aircraft that are operatingnationally under sub-ICAO approval, exemption, or deregulationprior to 28/9/03, that should be within EASA, (because they arenot excluded above), to continue to operate under existingprovisions until 28/3/07.

This allows already existing UK non-public transport gliders andballoons to continue to operate. It also covers commercially-manufactured aircraft that we have allowed to operate under UKpermits with the PFA. However, no additional aircraft can beadded to these provisions and they will all have to obtain someform of EASA approval before 28/03/07.

APPENDIX B

A Brief Overview of Experimental Rules in Australia

by Stephen Dines — December 2005

This report is intended to provide a brief overview of theintroduction of Experimental legislation into Australian aviation,in particular with respect to how those rules enable theconstruction and operation of Amateur Built Aircraft.

All views and opinions expressed in this report are my own, and Ido not claim to represent the views of any of the organisationsthat I mention herein.

Stephen Dines

The Regulator

The National Aviation Authority (NAA) of Australia is the CivilAviation Safety Authority (CASA, http://www.casa.gov.au/).

Regulatory Review Program

CASA is undertaking a Regulatory Review Program(http://rrp.casa.gov.au/) to amend and update the entire rule setof Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) and Civil Aviation Orders(CAOs). The new structure does away with CARs and CAOs andreplaces them with Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs) plusAdvisory Circulars (ACs) that contain Acceptable Means ofCompliance and Guidance Material. The Review has beenongoing since the mid 1990s.

Parts 21-35 were the first of the new rules to be introduced, inOctober 1998. The so-called ‘Experimental Category’ was acomponent of the new CASR Part 21.

History — Amateur Building Prior to Experimental

Prior to the introduction of CASR Part 21, the administration ofamateur building was a complicated process. Procedures werelaid down in CAO 100.18 and a design standard was published inCAO 101.28.

The procedures involved:■ type approval process■ publication of a type data sheet■ builder’s workshop inspection and approval■ issue of approval to manufacture each aircraft■ appointment of an Approved Inspector■ mandated stage/pre-closure inspections by Approved

Inspector■ modifications only via CASA Approval or CAR35 Engineering

Order■ final inspection by Approved Inspector■ maintenance release inspection by an Approved Maintenance

Organisation■ issue of Permit to Fly for testing■ approval of test pilot/s■ mandatory CASA flight test schedule■ flight testing of first-of-type by CASA Test Pilot■ review/acceptance of flight test report■ approval of individual flight manual■ approval of individual maintenance manual■ further maintenance release inspection by an Approved

Maintenance Organisation■ issue of Special Certificate of Airworthiness■ on-going airworthiness by Approved Maintenance

Organisation

The design standard in CAO 101.28 was a quite sensible cut-downcomposite of US, UK and Canadian design rules, with much-reduced compliance requirements compared to say FAR23.

Oversight of amateur building was by the NAA until, in the mid1980s, it became apparent that the growth of amateur buildingwas drawing excessively on the Authority’s resources. As a result,the Authority directed that plans be put in place for the handoverof the administration of amateur building to the Sport AircraftAssociation of Australia (SAAA). By 1990, the handover wascomplete with the sole exception of the ‘type approval process’


that the Authority retained. (Unfortunately, this decision led toon-going delays and unforeseen costs, and added fuel to the pushfor Experimental rules.) The SAAA was required to employ anadministrator who was acceptable to the Authority and who heldthe various delegations required to issue the necessary approvalsand certificates on behalf of the SAAA.

Aircraft manufactured under this system were loosely referred toas ‘101.28’ aircraft and could eventually be operated on theAustralian Register (with VH-xxx markings) or, if they fell withinapplicable limits, on the Register of the Australian UltralightFederation (AUF), in which case they were assigned a numericalmark (28-xxxx) by the AUF.

(Over the years since the formation of the AUF, the definition ofan ‘ultralight’ grew somewhat from an initial single-seater of115kg AUW, to today’s 544kg two-seaters. So there are manyhundreds of amateur built aircraft in Australia that reside on the‘Ultralight’ register and are thus less easy to identify statistically.The AUF has recently re-identified itself as Recreational AviationAustralia (RA-Aus, http://www.auf.asn.au/).)

The major drawbacks to the ‘101.28’ system were:■ cost of administration (in the order of A$2,500 per aircraft)■ difficulty and cost of incorporating any change that was not

specified in the originally accepted type design■ unnecessarily complicated (and sometimes perilous) flight test

requirements■ difficulty of approving indigenous designs v easy acceptance

of overseas designsThis last point was an annoying feature of the old ‘101.28’ systemthat eventually provided a powerful argument for theintroduction of an Australian ‘Experimental Category’. Theproblem was that the Authority would only accept a new type ifthat type:■ had undergone an initial certification process that was

virtually the same as for a Standard aircraft; or■ could demonstrate ‘equivalent safety’ by providing evidence

of say, six examples having accumulated 100 hours each ofsafe flying.

Thus, a new Australian type was obliged to undertake anenormously expensive initial certification process, whereas sixexamples of a type could get into the air quickly and cheaply inthe US under their Experimental system. The result was that, ofabout 150 types that had been through the formal acceptanceprocess with the Australian Authority, indigenous examples couldbe counted on the fingers of one hand — with enough fingersleft over to gesticulate at the lack of a ‘fair go’ for Australiandesigners.

Introduction of Experimental rules for Amateur Building

For decades, the SAAA (and its predecessors) had lobbied theNAA and the Australian Government to allow aircraft to be builtunder US-style ‘Experimental rules’. Over the years, otheralphabet organisations joined the push, in particular the AUF andAOPA, until such rules were finally introduced into Australia on 1October 1998. Today, amateur builders may construct aircraftusing the experimental rules, whether they choose to operatetheir machines on the Australian register (VH-xxx) or on the RA-Aus register (with 19-xxx marks).

The procedures for building an aircraft under the ‘Experimental’rules are straightforward:■ build your aircraft;■ maintain a builder’s log that provides evidence to show that

the aircraft genuinely meets the definition of ‘amateur-built’,and that provides a quality assurance mechanism;

■ organise your own inspections for quality assurance;

■ arrange for an Authorised Person (AP) to perform a ‘FinalInspection’;

■ the AP who inspects the aircraft issues an ExperimentalCertificate along with operating limitations for Phase Oneand Phase two;

■ within a defined test area, test the aircraft under the PhaseOne operating limitations and establish a safe operatinghistory;

■ on satisfactory completion of the testing and accumulation ofthe prescribed hours, certify that the aircraft is safe,

■ then operate normally under Phase two operating limitations.

The Australian rules deliberately mimic the US rules for amateurbuilding, so that Phase One safe history is usually 25 hours for anaircraft using a certified engine/prop combination, or 40 hoursotherwise. Also like the US model, the AP (or the Authority) isentitled to impose any operating limitations considered necessaryin the interests of the safety of third parties (specified as “otherairspace users and persons and property on the surface”). Pilotsand passengers may fly in the aircraft at their own risk, providedthat they are sufficiently informed of the situation to be able tomake their own choice. The rules demand fitment of warningsigns to ensure that passengers get a chance to become informedeven in the event that an operator fails to inform them prior toboarding, as required by the rules.

Support for Amateur Builders

As the US discovered, the Experimental rules for AmateurBuilding cannot alone provide safe enough outcomes to satisfypublic perceptions. In the US, builders are well supported by theEAA, which provides technical training and counselling tobuilders and assistance with flight-testing.

In Australia, the SAAA provides similar programs to the EAA, asdoes the RA-Aus (for their members). There are also EAA Chaptersin Australia who collaborate to assist fellow builders using the USprogrammes.

Without training and counselling programs provided by experts(i.e. experienced builders), Experimental Amateur Building couldbecome dangerous enough to attract the unwanted attention oflegislators, so any NAA should encourage and support theparticipation of self-help groups.

Advantages of Experimental Amateur Building

The Experimental rules have increased Amateur building activityin Australia significantly. For example, in 1996, there were aboutforty-five aircraft completed (including VH- and 28- registeredaircraft), bringing the Australian total amateur built populationto around four hundred aircraft at that time. As of October 2005,there were a little over one thousand amateur built aircraft onthe Australian (VH-xxx) Register alone, and over two hundred ofthose were added in the preceding twelve months. It isreasonable to assume that a similar number have joined the RA-Aus Register in the last twelve months (as 19- registered aircraft),for a total population today of around two thousand.

Numerous indigenous designs have appeared since theintroduction of the Experimental rules, and companies like Jabiruhave been able to rapidly develop new models within theAmateur Built community.

Problems

The introduction of Experimental amateur building rules toAustralia was not (indeed is not) without some problems.Although foreseen by the authors of Part 21 as potential problem

JUNE 2006 21

areas, the main culprits were not managed well enough andremain:■ incompatibility between the not yet updated old (CAR and

CAO) rules and the new (CASR) rules, in areas like flight crewlicensing, maintenance and additional airworthinessrequirements (especially ADs); and

■ a lack of knowledge of, and reluctance to embrace the newrules, on the part of the staff of the Authority.

Obviously, adequate planning and training would forestall suchproblems.

Other Experimental Purposes

In addition to amateur building, the Australian Experimentalrules serve other important functions, for example:■ development projects can now be conducted with far more

ease and at dramatically less expense than was possible pre-Part 21, thus enhancing industry competitiveness;

■ aircraft intended primarily for ‘Exhibition’ — e.g. historic,replica, customised, warbirds, display, technologydemonstrators, etc. — can operate easily on the assumptionthat, while there may be inherent risk involved forknowledgeable participants, the public at large will beprotected from undue exposure to that risk;

■ a prototype may be permitted to continue operating as aprivate aircraft, instead of being consigned to the scrap bin,after completion of its development flying — another costsaver for what is really quite a small manufacturing base.

Limited Category

Quite separate from the Experimental rules, but worthy ofmention here, is the Limited Category that was introduced withPart 21. This rule set provides for an aircraft to be issued with aSpecial CofA, for the purpose (mainly but not exclusively) ofoperating warbirds. While some other countries might have asimilar sounding category, the Australian version is unique, in thatit has been purposely designed to allow informed passengers topurchase a flight in what would normally be considered a high-risk operation. As a result, ‘Adventure-style’ flights haveproliferated since 1998, and the Warbird industry is now boomingin Australia. The Limited Category requires a higher level of initialand on-going airworthiness than Experimental for Exhibition, andalso requires self-administration by the Australian WarbirdsAssociation (AWAL) or similar approved body.

The Principle of Informed Risk

Importantly for both the Experimental and Limited rules, the keyenabling principle is that the Australian Government hasaccepted that persons may partake in a risky adventure as long as:■ the risk is identified, and ■ the risk is accepted by the participants, and ■ third parties are adequately protected from the high-risk

activity, and ■ the level of safety is manageable and managed, so that■ an undue accident rate does not develop; and■ no liability attaches to the Government or to the Authority.The last point is highlighted in a discrete Regulation — CASR201.003 — that clearly states: “Neither the Commonwealth norCASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damageincurred by .... the ... operation of a limited category aircraft or anexperimental aircraft ...”

By defining degrees of risk, allowing risk-takers to manage theirown safety, and protecting innocent people from the risk-takingactivities of others, Experimental and Limited Categoryoperations in Australia have allowed the industry to flourish,without any perceivable deterioration in safety.

This overview has been prepared by Stephen Dines, who iscurrently:■ an Aviation Consultant & Authorised Person for the issue of

Special Certificates of Airworthiness & ExperimentalCertificates

■ a member of the CASA Standards Consultative Committee(SCC)

■ a committee member of the Australian Flying InstructorsAssociation (AAFI);

■ a contributor to the Regulatory Review Programand who was formerly:■ a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer, Airline & GA■ a commercial pilot, fixed- and rotary-wing■ a Grade One flying instructor■ National Technical Director, SAAA ■ a member of the authoring team of CASR Part 21

e-mail: [email protected]

APPENDIX C

Overview of the French Light Aircraft Regulatory Scene

Regulators

The rule maker is the Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile(DGAC). It issues Certificats de Navigabilités (CdN), i.e.Airworthiness certificates.

Prescribed inspections are carried out by the agency Groupementpour la Sécurité de l’Aviation Civile (GSAC) which in 1994 tookover and continues the role of Bureau Veritas. BV was givencontrol of civil airworthiness by the state in 1937 and grew withthe French air transport industry over nearly 60 years.

Other Organisations

Organisations exist for each of the areas of activity in lightaviation. Notable here are:Réseau du Sport de l’Air (RSA), equivalent to EAA (USA), coveringamateur-built aircraft, ‘warbirds’ etc.Fédération Française de Planeur Ultra Léger Motorisé (FFPLUM),equivalent to BMAA (UK), covering microlightsFédération Française de Vol à Voile (FFVV), equivalent to BGA(UK).

The RSA recounts a long and proud history.

In the early years of the 20th century, all the pioneers (such as thebrothers Voisin, Henri Farman and Henri Fabre) were, in the bestsense, amateurs doubling as inventors and experimenters. This allchanged with the First World War. The small enterprises hadbecome industrialised and at the end of the war a large numberof surplus aeroplanes remained. In the public mind the machineof dreams had become a tool of war and the sky had become amilitary zone. However, aviation had been given a kick start andattention turned to flying schools and tourism, and theindustrialists, trying to maintain momentum, turned to lightaviation.

In 1928 plans appeared in the French magazine les ailes (Wings)for the HM8 an aeroplane that could be made at home andenable the builder to fly. This was the brainchild of amateurgenius Henri Mignet. In less than a year, HM8s appeared in theskies. Then in 1934, appeared the HM14, pou du ciel or FlyingFlea. Mignet published his book Sport de l’Air, containing notonly a builder’s guide, but also construction techniques, a politicalmanifesto, philosophical ideas and a flight training manual. A


huge movement was formed. Having first flown in 1934, byOctober 1935, the 100th pou du ciel was homologised. Also some200 HM8s were flying or under construction. In 1936, passionatebuilders formed the Réseau des Amateurs de l’Air. The home-building movement in France is thus some 70 years old.

The phenomenon took everyone by surprise. The law was notready for these numerous machines. Homologation andcertification were not adapted to cover them. Thus in 1938 theCertificat de Navigabilité Restreint d’Aeronefs was created.Home-building an aeroplane and then flying it was at lastofficially recognised. This opening gave many builders of Mignet’smachines the idea of designing their own light aircraft. But thencame the Second World War.

During the war years, everything was frozen. In spite of this,many builders continued to cut and paste in cellars or granaries.So after the liberation, a range of new small aeroplanes took tothe skies in France. Ideas sparked in 1934 had had time to mature.In the late 1940s, many designers flew their first creations at thesame time as Mignet’s later developments, the pou bébé and theHM 280-290 series. Unfortunately all these machines were limitedby the engines available, typically giving only 35-45hp.

All this created an administrative problem. These developmentswere not without breakages and accidents. For this reason, in theautumn of 1946, the CNRA was withdrawn. Builders were nowobliged to provide a full set of calculations and have the aircraftflight tested at a flight test centre.

This toughening was not to the taste of amateur builders and theRéseau des Sportifs de l’Air was born in November 1946. The wordRéseau means Network and was used deliberately. The purpose ofthe RSA is to defend the principles of freedom to build and fly,which were dear to Mignet. The RSA negotiated with the civilaviation administration and in 1952 agreed a much more supplenew text, the CNRA, once more permitting builders’ freedom. Inspite of everything, through this period of negotiation, newdesigns continued to appear.

Many well-known types date from this period. The first single seatJodel appeared, designed by Jean Delemontez. Other designersincluded Roger Druine, Marcel Jurca and Claude Piel. Some ofthese gave others the opportunity to start small scale production.The Jodel family gradually became the DR series of DelemontezRobin. The Turbulent and Turbi aircraft of Roger Druine werebuilt in the UK as were the Emeraudes of Claude Piel.

At the same time as the RSA was reaching agreement on theCNRA in 1952, the PFA was created in the UK, and in 1953 the EAAwas created in the USA.

The 1960s saw the advent of René Fournier’s motor gliders, HenriNicolier’s Menestrel and the CP20 Pinocchio. Also light autogyrosfirst appeared. In the 1970s, new materials were introduced suchas Chris Heintz’s metal Zénith, and the composite Impala. In 1973Michel Colomban introduced his single seat CriCri (Cricket). Theappearance of Jean Grinvalds’ Orion prompted the creation ofregulations to manage kit building.

Things also developed in the engine field. Greater power wasauthorised, 200hp, then 260hp. As microlight developmentflourished in the 1980s, numerous two stroke engines were mademore reliable.

Projects of all kinds were pursued. Marcel Jurca continued hisdevelopment of fighter aircraft and proposed, across the Atlantic,machines with up to 1,300hp. At the other extreme, ClaudeChudzik flew his canard CC01 at nearly 200 km/hr on only 18hp.

Certification process for amateur-built aircraft

Currently, there are three categories; microlight, light aircraftbuilt from a kit or light aircraft built from plans.

A microlight (ULM) is defined as: maximum two places; maximumtake-off weight (MTOW) 300kg single place, 450kg two-place;maximum continuous power 61hp single-place, 82hp two-place;maximum landing speed 65kph. The regulations for a microlightare the same, regardless of whether it is built from a kit or not.The process is based on the principle of declaration. Whenbuilding is complete, the builder submits technical detailsidentifying clearly that it is a microlight. This is all that is requiredfor a single place machine. For a two place microlight, one mustsubmit a calculations file justifying the materials andconstruction, and a flight test plan to show compliance with flightsafety. Where a kit or a proven design is used, the designer willhave provided the calculations file. There is no scrutiny to verifythe calculations or the build quality. These are the builder’sresponsibility and he can be blamed if, after an accident, anyinformation he submitted is incorrect. Submission of thesedocuments leads to the issue of a registration document whichmust be renewed every two years on the same basis of declaration.

A kit plane is distinguished from an aircraft built from plans anda set of stock materials on the basis that a kit contains structuralsub-assemblies already made. For a light aircraft built from a kit,the DGAC must be contacted at the outset. Given the green light,the builder then proceeds without any build control or qualityinspection. When building is complete, a build file must besubmitted. This leads to the issue of clearance documents whichhave to be renewed periodically. These documents take the formof a Certificat de Navigabilité Spéciale pour Kit (CNSK) whichdefines the respective responsibilities and flight limitations.

An aircraft built without a kit, with no more than four seats andmaximum power of 200hp, falls in the category covered by theCertificat de Navigabilité Restreint d’Aeronef (CNRA). (There isexceptional provision for higher powers.) The CNRA requirescertain inspection visits (made by GSAC) during construction andfor a series of flight tests to prove the aircraft’s characteristics.Typically, after plans have been acquired or completed, building isstarted. The first inspection is made before the structure iscovered or closed up. The timing of this inspection depends to anextent on the type of construction used. For an aerobatic aircrafta supplementary inspection is required on completion of the mainwing spar. Then an inspection is made when the aircraft iscomplete and ready for flight testing. Passing this inspectionreleases flight test clearance (registration F-Wxxx) for 15 hours offlight testing and 50 landings to prove the aircraft’s performance.Having completed these tests the CNRA is awarded (and aregistration of the form F-Pxxx) renewable every three yearssubject to an inspection to confirm the maintenance standard.

French fleet

The current fleet of factory-built, French registered, single-engineaircraft with current certificates of airworthiness up to a MTOW of5,700kg is some 6,000, not counting amateur-built aircraft. Ofthese, nearly 4,000 are less than 1,250kg MTOW. The fleet is ratherold and additions during the past ten years account for only 16%.

More than 80% of the fleet is of French manufacture. Nearly 90%is shared by four manufacturers which are, in order, Apex Aircraft(France), SOCATA (France), Cessna Reims (France) and Piper (US).

Light aircraft industry

There is a healthy light aircraft manufacturing sector in France.

JUNE 2006 23

Considerable integration has swallowed many of the smallercompanies into Apex and SOCATA.

Apex Aircraft took over Centrair and Avions Pierre Robin in 1988,and Avions Mudry in 1997. The current range includes the Robin,Alpha and CAP families.

The aim, for Robin, was to build recreational aircraft of wood (thenatural composite of high strength/weight ratio) by hand and toa high quality. This reputation for quality remains and the DR400is by far the most popular type in the French fleet with some 850aircraft. The two-seat Alpha series originated in the 1970s to meeta flying school need for a trainer. It was an all-metal aircraftproduced by Robin and Chris Heintz. Auguste Mudry built his firstCAP10 in 1970 for aerobatic training. It is based on Claude Piel’sEmeraude. Steady development of the design led to a very lightwooden fuselage and carbon fibre wing. The CAP232 singleseater aerobatic aircraft, built of wood and carbon fibre,appeared in 1994 and was world champion 12 times.

SOCATA is part of EADS (European Aeronautic, Defence & Space),previously Aérospatiale. It now includes the families of Rallye andMorane Saulnier. Its current range of light aircraft ranges fromthe TB9 Tampico GT, classed as an entry-level trainer, up to theTBM700C2 single turboprop aircraft with the ability to fly atairliner altitudes.

Engine development

Lycoming and Continental have monopolised the French lightaircraft market from the 1950s to the present. Lycoming has a70% market share; (RR)/Continental 20% share of the currentFrench (factory-built) aircraft fleet.

In 1997, SMA (Sociéte de Motorisation Aéronautique) announcedits new diesel aero engine programme. SMA is a wholly Frenchpartnership between Renault Sport, Aérospatiale (now EADS) andSNECMA.

Around this time, concerns about continuing availability ofaviation gasoline prompted others to explore this field andseveral amateur builders got involved. In July 2000, Serge Pennecflew his Dieselis, a light aircraft powered by a 68hp diesel enginefrom the Opel Corsa, around a 287 km circuit at an average speedof 153km/h on 9 litres of fuel (3.13 litres/100km). The German firmThielert set out to develop an aircraft version of the MercedesClass A automobile engine. It aimed, with this engine, theTAE125, to power aircraft like the C172, the PA-28 and, in duecourse, the DR400 and TB9.

The SMA partnership was set up to address the TB Socata rangeof light aircraft, needing powers of between 180 and 300hp. SMAhas developed its SR305 engine, producing 230hp, which wascertified by the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) in 2001and by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 2002.Strategically, the SMA was also aiming at the potential to re-engine a world fleet of light aircraft, estimated at nearly 200,000aircraft with power in the range 200-300hp. 70% of this market isin the USA, 10% in Europe and 20% in the rest of the world.

The SR305 uses Jet 1 fuel (kerosene) and SMA claims it will cutoperating costs by 30 to 40%, compared with existing enginesusing aviation gasoline. The fuel burn should be lower by 40%and maintenance should be made easier by a 70% lower partscount.

The development programme was very ambitious. It is generallyrecognised that it is more difficult to create a new aeroplaneengine than a new airframe. SMA wanted to make a true aircraft

engine, not just modify a car engine for aircraft use, and thedevelopment took longer than expected. The SR305 incorporatesa Garrett GT35 turbocharger which allows power to bemaintained to higher altitudes.

SMA set up various partnerships to achieve Supplemental TypeCertificate (STC) approval for the engine's installation in differentairframes. SMA set up joint ventures with Aeronexx in Brazil, theUSA and in France. A JV with the Britten-Norman Group certifiedthe SR305 in the Socata TB20 with the CAA. Other certifiedinstallations include the Maule M-7, Cirrus SR21tdi, Piper PA-34Seneca and the Cessna 182, all US aircraft. SMA has invested in anew purpose-built manufacturing facility with a capacity toproduce 2000 engines per year.

Future

1,800 aircraft have been amateur-built in France since the 1930s.More than 1,000 are under construction.

The would-be builder has a huge choice, starting from the type ofvehicle, then from many different designs and constructionalmaterials. For those who cannot find what they want, there is theopportunity to start from scratch and to design, build and fly theirown prototypes. The RSA claims that amateur construction ismore vibrant than ever, served by more liberal regulations, andcomments: “Perhaps it is no coincidence that France has as manyaircraft built in this way as all the other European countriescombined.”

A Footnote to Appendix C

[The following is the body of a letter from Filip Lambert.]

“We have no experience with CNSK so far.

“For CNRA (prototypes and plans built aircraft), my friends say itis a rather simple procedure. You go to the regional DGAC officeand tell the civil servant what you want to build. The man willgive you a few forms and the phone number of GSAC at BureauVéritas (they will inspect the aircraft) and you can start to build.During that period you have time to make the stress analysis anddrawings to the extent deemed necessary. When the aircraft isready to fly and inspected by GSAC, then you go back to theDGAC office. Two or three days later you will find the ‘Permit toTest’ in the post. Then you can test the aircraft (similar to the FAA-experimental way) under F-Wxxx registration. When you stopflight testing, then you go back to the DGAC and apply for theCNRA. You get a new registration (F-Pxxx) and will be allowed tofly anywhere and with passengers.

“To illustrate what is possible, I would like to refer to the VerheesDelta which appeared at Kemble in July. Bart Verhees also lives inBelgium and found no problems getting approval in France forhis delta.

“For Microlight aircraft the procedure is similar, but slightlydifferent:

1. A microlight is not registered as an aircraft is, but ‘identified’.The cost is zero. The identification number is e.g. F-59COP, where59 is the number of the department (county). The identificationnumber is only to be shown on the lower wing surface, not on thefuselage. The ‘F-’ part of it is not required, but we do to avoidconfusion when flying in Belgium.

2. There are two microlight categories: the A-cat which is forhomebuilt, prototypes, etc… The B-cat is for factory built


machines. For factory built machines, the SFACT (DGAC branch) inParis deals with the certification. Simpler than in UK, since acompany approval is not required. They are only interested in theaircraft. They want to see stress analysis and/or tests to ultimateload, etc… Responsibility is to the manufacturer who has to makesure every aeroplane is similar to the one used for certification.The manufacturer is responsible for inspecting the aircraft priorto first flight and delivery. (Mfr is responsible for everything).

3. For A-category microlights, the procedure is even simpler.Everything is ‘declaratif’ which implies you take responsibility foreverything. The regional DGAC will give you some 4 pages ofquestionnaire: page 1 and 2 are similar to what Jane’sInformation asks, including GA drawing. Page 3 is weight andbalance form. Page 4 is the declaration that you have undertakenall necessary design and tests, the aircraft meets the requirementsand that all information you provided is correct. The next day youcan collect your ‘Permit to Test’ valid for one year. After havingdemonstrated it meets the requirements in flight, you go back tothe DGAC and give a copy of your flight test report. Two dayslater you can collect the ‘Permit to Fly’, valid for two years.(Nobody will inspect the aircraft. You do not even have to provideany sort of evidence that the aircraft physically exists — I wasmost surprised about this.)

“I found the RSA and FFPLUM not very helpful to find clarityabout legislation. The best thing is to go to the DGAC office andthey are very helpful.

“I read through your overview of French regulations, and feel it isa correct summary of the situation.

“Something I find strange in France is that it appears to be quitecomplicated and difficult to do EASA Part 23 certification. I don’tknow the reasons. Recently, Robin went to Germany to certificatethe DR400 with Thielert engine…”

APPENDIX D

Summary of US Regulations and their Outcomes

Regulator is the FAA

In the USA, regulation is the responsibility of the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA). The FAA’s several roles include regulatingcivil aviation to promote safety, also encouraging and developingcivil aeronautics, including new aviation technology, in particularhelping “develop better aircraft, engines and equipment.”

Other organisations

Various other organisations have become closely involved in thecertification process. Notable among these are the EAA and theUSUA.

The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) was founded in 1953by a group interested in building their own aeroplanes. It nowhas over 170,000 members. The organisation derives its namefrom the ‘Experimental Aircraft’ category which is assigned toaeroplanes used for recreational and educational purposes. TheEAA was established for the purpose of promoting aviationsafety, construction of amateur-built aircraft and providingtechnical advice and assistance to its members.

The United States Ultralight Association (USUA) was formed in1985 for the representation of ultralight pilots and enthusiasts.

The FAA recognises both of these organisations as being, along

with itself, committed to improving the safety record of amateur-built and ultralight aircraft.

Development of legislation

Over the past 50 years the US regulatory legislation has evolvedsteadily, alongside technical developments, each one influencingthe other. The EAA in particular has been highly interactive withthe FAA, pushing for a range of new freedoms and simplificationsof the requirements. Some of the chronology of theseinteractions is reflected in this Paper as an aid to understandingthe present position.

Much of the oversight of amateur building of light aircraft andoperation is delegated by the FAA to Designated AirworthinessRepresentatives (DARs), individuals authorised to conductconformity inspections and issue airworthiness approvals. TheFAA directs individuals towards the EAA for advice onaeronautical practices, workmanship or design. The EAA hasimplemented the Technical Counsellors Programme to assist inensuring the safety and dependability of amateur-built aircraft.However, the EAA has advised the FAA that it will not provideassistance to the builder in designing an aircraft.

Experimental Category

The FAA provides a range of certification categories. Of particularinterest here is the ‘Experimental’ amateur-built category.

“The amateur-built programme is designed to permit persons tobuild an aircraft solely for educational or recreational purposesutilising acceptable aeronautical construction standards andpractices. Amateur builders are free to develop their own designsor build from existing designs. The FAA does not approve thosedesigns nor would it be practical to develop design standards forthe multitude of unique design configurations generated bydesigners, kit manufacturers and amateur builders. Uponcompletion of the building process, the FAA inspects the aircraft toverify to the extent feasible the use of acceptable workmanshipmethods, techniques and practices, and then issues anairworthiness certificate with appropriate operating limitations.”The builder is not required to have the detailed design data, qualitysystems, procedures etc that are required for production aircraft.

FAA inspectors do not become involved in the building processand do not perform any inspections during the building process.The FAA says these should be conducted by a knowledgeableperson such as an EAA Technical Counsellor. They should bedocumented in the aircraft logbook.

EAA sponsors Workshops to introduce people to the skills andactivities required for home-building. Also there is a Build-To-Flyprogramme, which is a builder’s assistance programme with stateof the art facilities and experienced professionals that will helpbuilders build and finish their aircraft.

The FAA inspection prior to certification is limited to a generalairworthiness inspection. This includes a review of the aircraftbuilder’s documentation, and an examination of the completedaircraft to verify to the extent feasible that acceptable workmanshiphas been used in the construction process. The FAA also prescribesoperating limitations at that time. Typically those limitations willprovide for operation in an assigned flight test area for a certainnumber of hours (Phase I) before the second part (Phase II) becomeseffective, releasing the aircraft from the test area.

Flight test programme

To show compliance with the regulations the applicant is required

JUNE 2006 25

to develop a written flight test programme. Detailed publicationsare available to help with this as well as the EAA flight advisorprogramme. The flight test programme accomplishes twopurposes. Firstly it ensures that the aircraft will be adequatelytested and determined to be safe to fly within its flight envelope.Second, the flight test data is used to develop an accurate andcomplete aircraft flight manual and to establish emergencyprocedures.

All initial flight operations of experimental aircraft must belimited to the assigned flight test area until the aircraft is shownto be controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and allmanoeuvres to be executed, and has not displayed any hazardousoperating characteristics or design features. The assigned flighttest area is typically over water or sparsely populated areashaving light air traffic. Phase I is for a minimum of 25 or 40 hoursdepending on whether or not a type certificated engine is used.Upon completion of the assigned flight test period, the pilot willendorse the aircraft logbook with a statement certifyingcompliance with requirements. The aircraft may then be operatedin accordance with Phase II limitations.

Considerable care is exercised in selecting the flight test area. Inthe case of flight testing an aircraft from an airport surroundedby a densely populated area, but with at least one acceptableapproach/departure route of flight, the FAA must ensure that aroute of flight is selected that subjects the fewest persons andleast property to possible hazards. In addition, upon leaving suchan airport, the aircraft is required to operate from an outlyingairport until its controllability and safety are established, afterwhich the aircraft may return to its base and use the establishedcorridor for subsequent operations. The description of the areaselected by the applicant and agreed by the FAA must be made apart of the operating limitations. In the case of an aircraft locatedat any airport surrounded by a densely populated area andlacking any acceptable approach/ departure route of flight, theapplicant must be advised to relocate the aircraft by other meansto an airport suitable for flight testing. An acceptable approach/departure route is one where the route of flight provides areasonable opportunity to execute an off-airport emergencylanding that will not jeopardise other persons or property. Thecarrying of passengers is not permitted during Phase I.

Having built and certificated his aircraft, there is provision for thebuilder to maintain it. The FAA provides that “the aircraft buildermay be certificated as a repairman if that person is the primarybuilder of the aircraft and can satisfactorily prove requisite skill indetermining whether the aircraft is in condition for safeoperation.”

Kits and the 50% rule

An aircraft built from a kit may be eligible for certification as anamateur-built aircraft provided there is evidence to show that the‘major portion’ (i.e. more than 50%) was fabricated andassembled by the applicant. The FAA does not expect the builderto personally fabricate every part of the aircraft; somecomponents may be purchased. Any choice of engines, propellers,wheels, or other components, and any choice of materials may beused (subject to satisfactory quality assurance). However, aircraftthat are assembled from kits composed of completely finished,prefabricated components and parts are not eligible.

Ultralights

Ultralight aircraft appeared in the 1970s in the form of thepowered hang glider.

A new FAA regulation for ultralights became effective in 1982.

This required that “ultralight vehicle operations may only beconducted as sport or recreational activity. The operators of thesevehicles are responsible for assessing the risks involved andassuring their own personal safety. The rules … are intended toassure the safety of those not involved in the sport, includingpersons and property on the surface and other users of theairspace. The ultralight community is encouraged to adopt goodoperating practices and programmes in order to avoid moreextensive regulation by the FAA.” The regulation furtherstipulated a limitation to single-occupant operations.

In 1983, the EAA successfully petitioned for an exemption to thisregulation, permitting flight training in two place ultralights.Then, in 1984, the EAA recommended mandatory registration ofultralights and an FAA-administered written exam for ultralightpilots. This would verify that ultralight operators have sufficientknowledge to operate their vehicles in a safe manner withouthazard to the public or to other users of airspace.

Some other regulatory developments

After several years of petitioning by the EAA, the FAA in 1989created a new ‘recreational pilot certificate’ as a lower costalternative to private pilot certification. The EAA has alsopetitioned for a reduction in the medical requirements, askingthat pilots holding at least a recreational pilot’s licence beallowed to exercise recreational privileges without a third-classmedical certificate. Subsequently, the EAA asked thatRecreational Pilots be able to use a state driver’s licence asmedical certification, offering a joint research project to trackmedical issues for general aviation pilots

In 2002, the FAA approved a new programme designed by theEAA, which addressed the shortage of Airworthiness Inspectorsfor homebuilt aircraft. The programme includes EAA designedcurricula in FAA training courses. The EAA has established awebsite offering maintenance, safety and regulatory informationon hundreds of homebuilt and ultralight aircraft.

In 1971, the EAA embarked on an R&D programme to prove theuse of unleaded automobile fuel in certain types of aircraft. By1985 the FAA had fully approved the use of unleaded automobilegasoline for more than 300 different aircraft model and enginecombinations. After 22 years of fuel research the EAA AviationFoundation’s goal is the approval of unleaded fuel for all generalaviation aircraft.

In 1993, EAA representatives joined with FAA staff, the SmallAircraft Manufacturers Association and engine and propellermanufacturers to begin work on simplified certificationprocedures for aircraft engines and propellers.

New Light-Sport Aircraft rule

Effective 1 September 2004, the FAA introduced the Light-SportAircraft Rule which covers certification of Light-Sport Aircrafthaving no more than two seats, a corresponding simplified PilotCertification, and Repairman Certificates for maintenance orinspection. The rule makes becoming a pilot and owning anaircraft more affordable and less time consuming for manypeople, while still ensuring that the safety of aviators and thepublic is maintained.

The rule establishes two new airworthiness certificationcategories for aircraft:■ A special light-sport aircraft (S-LSA); that is, aircraft sold ready-

to-fly that may be used for flight training, rental or personalflight.

■ An experimental light-sport aircraft (E-LSA); that is, aircraft


sold in a kit form that may be used for personal recreationalflight or personal flight training. This is not subject to the 50%rule.

Concurrent US light aircraft industry difficulties

Some 20 years ago, the US light aircraft manufacturing industrycollapsed under pressures from product liability suits. Inparticular, the production of small two seat aircraft virtuallystopped, cutting off the supply of the principal types used fortraining.

A conference was held in 1993 in Kansas City regarding therevitalisation of general aviation. Industry and governmentrepresentatives established issues to be covered, and agreed thatthe Small Aircraft Certification Compliance Programme should beused as a model for co-operation between all aviation entities.This Programme, announced by the FAA in 1992, followed fromcalls for a new certification process for single-engine, two-seataircraft used primarily for training and recreational flying.

The demise of the industry was eased in 1994 with the GeneralAviation Revitalization Act which provided that, for a period ofeighteen years, no civil action for damages for death or injurymay be brought against the manufacturer of a light aircraft. Thesigning of this Act ended a six-year battle for liability reform forthe general aviation industry.

Following the introduction of the LSA Rule, the outlook for newproduction (two-seat) aircraft (S-LSA) has been reported asoutstanding. The industry introduced more than a dozen newproduction aircraft types in less than seven months from theruling, with more to follow.

APPENDIX E

Third Party Risk from UK General Aviation Aeroplanes

1.0 Actual Fatalities

In the 45 years since 1960, there have only been two accidentswhere people on the ground were killed by a UK registeredgeneral aviation aeroplane. Both were aircraft with a CofA.

26 June 1966 — Cessna 172Old Warden, Beds. Pilot killed, three pax serious injury, two thirdparty killed, one serious, one minor.While taking off for a local flight at the close of a flying display,the aircraft was seen to climb steeply to about 250ft beforestalling and crashing in an area occupied by spectators and cars.There was no pre-crash failure or malfunction of the aircraft orengine. The pilot’s blood alcohol level was 161mg per 100ml. Itwas concluded that the accident was result of pilot’s mishandlingwith consequent loss of control when significantly impaired byalcohol. HMSO CAP277.

9 April 1970 DH104 DoveWolverhampton, Staffs. Both pilots killed, one third party killed,two serious injury.The aircraft was positioning to pick up passengers, it crashedduring the approach in conditions of low cloud and reducedvisibility. Third attempt, viz 1/2 mile cloud base 6- to 700ft. Hithouse and burnt. Pilot had CPL, 8,000hrs, 40 on type, Co-pilot CPL230hrs trainee. Operator McAlpine. Accident Report 10/1971.

2.0 Potential Risk, Fatal Accidents 1980 to 1999

Factor Airframe Failure and Structural Break Up, 23 Accidents

These can be for many reasons including loss of control in IMC,unauthorised manoeuvres and poor maintenance.

■ Aircraft with CofA — 14 accidents in 12.6 million flying hoursgiving a rate per million of 1.1 accidents per million hours.

■ Aircraft with Permit to Fly — eight accidents in 1.2 millionflying hours resulting in a rate of 6.7 per million.

These were to:1981 Luton LA5 Major Both wings failed in overload near

Barton after the rear control columndetached in flight. (Bulletin 14/81)

1987 S5 Replica The rebuilt aircraft crashed nearFalmouth after the fin and rudder brokeoff as the result of flutter. (Bulletin 9/87)

1988 Jodel D120 Wing failure in overload leading tofabric detachment during deliberateheavy manoeuvring. (Bulletin 9/88)(Private Note: This one is almostcertainly suicide but AAIB only state thiswhen the deceased leaves a letter)]

1989 Brugger Colibri Wing failed in overload near Kingsclere,pilot flew aircraft in spirited mannerincluding spins, which were allowed onthis particular aircraft’s Permit but noton the other 6 in the UK. (Bulletin 10/89)

1989 Falco F8 Crashed in Strangford Lough after thetail detached almost certainly as a resultof the canopy coming off. (Bulletin12/89)

1993 Stolp Starduster The imported aircraft spun in nearAskerswell, Dorset after flying wiresdetached from the upper wing. This wasthe result of improperly fittedattachment bolt migrating allowingwing to twist and change dihedral.(Bulletin 2/94)

1994 Fokker Replica Crashed vertically near Stourhead, Wiltsafter failure of unapprovedmodification to top rudder hinge.(Bulletin 3/96)

1999 Cuby 2 Right wing outer panel failed in heavyturbulence near Giants Causeway.(Bulletin 3/2000)

1999 Tri-Kis Structural break up near Calais forundetermined reasons. (French Report)

3.0 Conclusion

The risk of anyone on the ground being killed by a generalaviation aircraft is minimal.

Assuming that the risk of fatality for those on the ground is inproportion to those in the aircraft, the risk resulting fromairframe failure is greater from Permit aircraft than from aircraftwith a CofA. It should be noted that a number of the Permitaircraft structural failures were the result of human factors.

John Thorpe — 12 November 2005

JUNE 2006 27

APPENDIX F

Rationale and Acknowledgement

This paper is the culmination of over ten years of concern bymembers of the General Aviation Group (formerly the LightAviation Group) of the Royal Aeronautical Society. The authorwishes to acknowledge the help and support that has been givenby the current chairman, Lee Balthazor, and all members of theGroup Committee over the eighteen months that has beenneeded to gather information from both the UK, andcomparative information from overseas. Particular thanks go tothose on the Sub-Committee, listed below, who gave invaluablehelp in the research and in drafting the paper; to those overseasdivisions of the Society who responded in much detail to aquestionnaire; to Jon Johanson of Flymore, South Australia, whoalerted the Working Group to the new system in Australia andwho made key introductions to members of the Sport AircraftAssociation of Australia, including Stephen Dynes who wrote theAustralian appendix; to John Thorpe, Chief Executive of theGeneral Aviation Safety Council (GASCo) for analysing accidentstatistics; to the Safety Regulation Group of the UK Civil AviationAuthority for supplying information about the UK and otherEuropean certification procedures; to the chairmen and membersof the Learned Society Board and the Specialist Group Committeewho gave support and guidance from an early stage of drafting;to staff at Society Headquarters who guided the author throughthe final stages of drafting, leading to publication of this paper;and finally to the Society itself for funding the publication andprinting of this report, as an indication its belief in theimportance of its contents to the UK.

1.0 General Aviation Group of the RAeS — SpecialistPaper Sub Committee

John Bradley, CEng, MRAeSFlight Test Engineer and Director of Active Aviation LtdFormer Chairman, British Gliding Association TechnicalCommittee

Dr Bill Brooks, CEng, FRAeSChief Designer and Test Pilot Mainair-Pegasus

AVM John Brownlow, FRAeSEmpire Test Pilot’s School GraduatePFA Approved Test Pilot

Eddie ClaphamRetired Rolls-Royce Development EngineerPFA Approved Engineering Inspector

Bill Dobie, MRAeSAeronautical ConsultantRetired British Aerospace Aerodynamicist

Francis Donaldson, CEng, FRAeSChief Engineer, Popular Flying AssociationFormerly Development Engineer, Optica Industries Ltd.

Dr Guy Gratton, CEng, FRAeSLecturer in aeronautics, Brunel University. Formerly Chief Technical Officer, British Microlight AircraftAssociation.

John Robertson, CEng, MRAeSCareer at Rolls-Royce in design, marketing and projectmanagement; postings to USA and France. Private Pilot

Dick Stratton, CEng, FRAeSRetired Chief Technical Officer, British Gliding AssociationCareer with Saunders-Roe and CSE Oxford

2.0 Overseas Divisions of the RAeS

New Zealand — Capt Neville Hay, FRAeS, President of the NZLDivision RAeS

South Africa — Dr Craig Law, RAeS Divisional Secretary in SouthAfrica.

3.0 Authors of the Appendices

Appendix A was supplied by the Safety Regulation Group of theUK Civil Aviation Authority.

Appendix B was written by Stephen Dines, former NationalTechnical Director of the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia(SAAA).

Appendices C and D were researched and written by JohnRobertson of the Group.

Appendix E was supplied by John Thorpe, Chief Executive of theGeneral Aviation Safety Council (GASCo).

In Conclusion

The author of this paper has spent a lifetime attempting to re-kindle an interest in light aircraft manufacture in the UK. Twomain projects, both mentioned in this report, were, he feels, atechnical success but a commercial failure. In that time othershave been more fortunate, or perhaps they had more commercialcompetence. Whatever, the worrying fact is that the number ofpeople attempting what in the UK seems to be the impossible isdiminishing, while at the same time the UK imports an everincreasing number of aircraft manufactured overseas, in manycases by newly formed companies.

To end on a positive note, one of the most satisfying aspects in acareer in aviation has been employing new graduates. In both ofthe prototype design and build projects the author had a policyof employing new graduates, and they were expected to take onany task within their capability within the organisation; everyengineering graduate would be expected to have competence inaerodynamics, stress analysis, design and management; inaddition to using these skills he or she would be expected also tomanufacture and assemble both test and aircraft components.Many of the graduates employed on these two project have goneon to successful careers with the large aerospace companies in theUK, as managers, designers, engineers and technicians, where theexperience from a small company appeared to be considered avery positive benefit. Other former employees went into otherindustries in the UK, particularly information technology; intocareers in the Civil Aviation Authority and into careers in thevarious organisations and associations that support aviation.

The author truly believes that the UK needs to encourage lightaircraft design, research, manufacture and practicalexperimentation as part of a successful UK aerospace sector.

John Edgley, CEng, MRAeSImmediate Past Chairman, RAeS Light Aviation GroupAeronautical EngineerAuthor of this paper

Royal Aeronautical Society4 Hamilton Place, London W1J 7BQ, UK

Tel +44 (0)20 7670 4300 Fax +44 (0)20 7670 4309 e-mail [email protected] Web http://www.aerosociety.com £5

Documents

The Design, Development and Production of Light Aircraft in the UK