Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Aircraft battery (Gill versus Concorde)

Peter wrote:

It means no owner maintenance is possible on any aircraft which is used for IFR

The smiley is misplaced – this has been (is?) the view of the German CAA, who say that the engine is essential for IFR flight and hence running “on condition” is not allowed for aircraft operated under IFR, although the corresponding regs clearly intend to cover those items that are essential and specific to IFR flight, such as the vacuum system.

Biggin Hill

Peter wrote:

Not even the sun visor.

That’s me buggered then. Changed them already

EDL*, Germany

Peter wrote:

I like the words “is effecting systems essential for the IFR operations”….

It means no owner maintenance is possible on any aircraft which is used for IFR

No, it doesn’t… E.g. lights are not essential for IFR operations. Nor are e.g. wheel fairings and a lot of other things.
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

In any properly functioning criminal justice system any ambiguity in drafting must be in favour of the defendant, in which case what do we have left? It is only IFR ONLY instruments. It can’t be a radio, GPS, autopilot, ADF, VOR, DME, etc because all of these are potentially used in VFR, for navigation. Unless one takes the nutty position that VFR is done with a map+compass+stopwatch only, because that is how most PPL training is done. An ILS receiver might qualify. I can’t think of anything else.

It’s a stupid piece of drafting, done down the pub – like a large % of stuff from the EASA/EU lawmakers which is written by somebody who doesn’t properly understand the real world scene in question, and is not examined and debated before it becomes law. For example in this case the author could well have been a retired FTO ground school (KNS80 is state of the art, I was told in 2011) lecturer.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I have to imagine the intent of the regs isn’t to disallow an owner to change the battery on a plane they use for IFR. I’d have to imagine if the UK CAA took that gold-plated position in the UK and took someone to court over it, they would probably lose.

Andreas IOM

World’s oldest G.A. Battery?

I’ve just completed my Annual and my Concorde RG35-A finally failed it’s load test and was replaced. It was still cranking the engine over fine!

Can you beat that?

United Kingdom

The story goes years ago there was a battery on the airfield labeled “Good Battery. To be used for flight tests only”

Buying, Selling, Flying
EISG, Ireland

Archer-181 wrote:

Concorde RG35-A

Try THAT with a Gill !

FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

12 years is seriously impressive. I wonder what the usage pattern was? That must be the key to it.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Used at least every 10 days since I owned it. The previous owner was a club where it was regularly used, not for training, but by PPL’s for trips (so weekly use).

It has replacement copper starting cables and a lightweight starter. The Aircraft always started on the first turn of the key until a month or so ago so not much starting stress/discharge. I’ll start a separate thread about the slight deterioration in staring performance which was clearly not battery related!

United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top