Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Noise testing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Noise testing

    With regard to new charges to be imposed by the CAA for noise testing as aired in the forum a while back

    http://forums.bmaa.org/default.aspx?f=15&m=46498&p=1

    Have members of the council yet given thought as to the best way to deal with this, and if a way forwards has not yet be decided upon may I make a suggestion for consideration?

    Do you think that it is a viable way forwards for the BMAA to seek aproval from the CAA to carry these out on behalf of the CAA? The BMAA could then invest in suitable noise measuring equipment and train volunteers in to use of the kit so that suitably trained and accredited people could take care of this within their own areas.

    If we fail to do anything it could cause harm to the fledgeling sub 115 fleet and could even be the fatal straw loaded onto that particular camel.

    Should you wish to look into the viability of such an idea and look into the obtaining of such voluteers please put my name on the list.

    Ginge

  • #2
    Noise testing

    Hi Ginge
    As I understand it there's no practical consequence for the sub-115kg aircraft; currently they are given an exemption for 'development' which is indefinitely extended.
    Paul D will give more detail, I'm sure.
    It's not very easy to do the job ourselves - it's not just a question of switching a meter on while the pilot revs the engine. It involves a combination of VERY expensive noise equipment, which needs to be recalibrated regularly, plus a camera to establish the height of the aircraft as it completes a full-power pass at 400ft. Then you put the numbers into software which adjusts for all the environmental conditions.
    And the time involved in doing a test - finding somewhere quiet enough, being there with a good enough pilot and a serviceable aircraft - would involve the official / volunteer in huge amounts of time. I don't know what the CAA charges are, but I suspect they don't come even close to the real cost to the CAA. Plus, they've got so much experience, there is a very large number of modifications they can clear without actual testing, based on their experience with similar types.
    Do you know whether they charge if they don't need to carry out a test?
    Could be the pointy bit of the wedge, I agree, but I can't think of a better solution at the moment.

    David

    Comment


    • #3
      Noise testing

      Dave.. surely, the SSDR exemption is only temporary, by "expiring" ANO "exemption clause" ?
      The hing that concerns me, (as I mentioned in the other thread) and as someone about to "develop" and use a SSDR, is if the CAA 440 charge is actually for the test, (as worded) or for the test series to obtain a certificate.
      Thus, 440 sorry you faied another 440 please........ ad infinitum.
      I know that Aerochute had to go through the test a number of times with modifications, before it passed.

      Comment


      • #4
        Noise testing

        > As I understand it there's no practical consequence for the
        > sub-115kg aircraft; currently they are given an exemption
        > for 'development' which is indefinitely extended.

        As they say on Wikipedia: {{fact}}. :-)

        On what basis do you 'understand' that?

        Mike

        Comment


        • #5
          Noise testing

          David Bremner wrote:

          Do you know whether they charge if they don't need to carry out a test?
          They don't charge, so in practice any airframe/engine/prop combination on the BMAA or LAA approved list is exempt.

          Donald

          Comment


          • #6
            Noise testing

            David,

            The LAA is considering taking on noise testing (for microlights only, of course). I volunteered to help conduct testing, having been involved in quite a few noise tests over the years. I also copied my note to the BMAA tech office (who didn't bather to acknowledge my offer), in case they might consider that course of action. It would certainly be more appropriate for the BMAA to offer the service than the LAA.

            Dave

            Comment


            • #7
              Noise testing

              I Had hoped it wasnt true, but had it confirmed a week or so back. We have a Council meeting in a couple of weeks so I dare say it will be talked about. Bit pissed off really as only just over a year ago I went to the CAA at Gatwick to talk to them about this. They said there were no plans to charge. I would have at least expected some reasonable notice period instead of being told AFTER the fact. I will be very angry if they have been stalling sub-115 noise tests waiting for this - I suppose we will see if the exemption is renewed or not... Having said that teh two guys in charge are nice chaps - I suspect teh accountants are to blame - the CAA having had a bad financial year last.

              Personally I think it would be nice to work with the LAA and have a joint resource for this - the equipment is quite expensive (circa 10K) so it doesnt make sense a value to members if both associations duplicate. But I suppose that will depend on the politics - it seems a bit akward just now after last years merger breakdown. As for volunteers tehre will have to be quite a bit of training, so I guess its best to have aonly a small group so they cna keep their hand in for this complex task. The group should be big enough and geographically diverse enough to give adequate acess though.

              Paul

              Comment


              • #8
                Noise testing

                Paul Dewhurst wrote:

                Personally I think it would be nice to work with the LAA and have a joint resource for this - the equipment is quite expensive (circa 10K) so it doesnt make sense a value to members if both associations duplicate. But I suppose that will depend on the politics - it seems a bit akward just now after last years merger breakdown. As for volunteers tehre will have to be quite a bit of training, so I guess its best to have aonly a small group so they cna keep their hand in for this complex task. The group should be big enough and geographically diverse enough to give adequate acess though.

                Paul
                That is the kind of response that I had hoped for, thanks Paul. Although I'm not sure the LAA will not use this to make all sub 115 owners join their organisation. Please try to keep us informed as to the progress of ideas as stated here.
                It may be a good idea to ask Dave to help with advice as a volunteer, Who is co-ordinating the drive for vonluntary help these days?
                Ginge

                Comment


                • #9
                  Noise testing

                  I hope that the LAA or BMAA taking on responsibility for noise testing does not result in charges for airframe/engine/prop combinations that have already been accepted and would not have incurred a charge from the CAA. It would be a shame if they sought to recover their investment in noise measuring equipment by being over-zealous. To avoid any complaints or misunderstandings, it would be appropriate to publish a list of all the airframe/engine/prop combinations that will not need noise testing. I presume that there is no need to enter exhausts into the equation, as most engines are fitted with a standard exhaust.

                  Donald

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Noise testing

                    combinations that have already been accepted dont need noise testing again by definition surely - or do you mean something else??

                    Exhausts certainly do enter into the equation. Rotax 912 installations can be fitetd with a variety of exhausts - some made by rotax and lots made by the airframe makers for fitting in their cowlings, some with after mufflers some without. There are three configurations for the Skyraner Rotax 912 series installations for instance and I have just been working with CKT for a new one for the Nynja varient.

                    Intake systems also have to be taken into account for noise cert - anyone who has ever fitted an intake silencer to a rotax 503 can well attest.

                    Paul

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Noise testing

                      Paul,

                      I was being a bit cynical, by suggesting that there might be a temptation for the associations to test where the CAA would not. In order to dispel any doubts, it would seem appropriate to publish an up-to-date list of approved combinations. I know the LAA's list is not complete.

                      What a mess it will be to keep tabs on all those exhaust systems, intake silencers and different prop pitches.

                      I think it was a mistake for the LAA to volunteer to take on this job. They are just playing into the CAA's hands. It would have been better to simply lobby against the charge on environmental grounds and let the CAA allocate scarce resources to a job that will become less necessary as microlight owners seek quieter aircraft. If the associations take on responsibility, noise testing is here to stay.

                      Donald

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X