Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By hatzflyer
#1308097
There is one heck of a lot of misunderstanding on this thread.
I don't think the average Easa drivers realise the degree of involvement that LAA permit drivers have to undertake. As stated elswhere on this thread they are used to handing over the aircraft and a wad of cash and picking it up when its finished.

In my 30 odd years experience as an inspector it is often the owners' misunderstanding/wrong paperwork /incomplete paperwork that hold things up. I have an extremely good relationship with LAA Engineering and have relatively few problems.
That said I've been doing it quite a long time. Mods seem to be the worst things time/paperwork wise and there is room for improvement in that area. My advice is don't mod and less you have to.

Paul, if you need help PM me. :D
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1308111
Rod1 wrote:Are the LAA stopping you doing this Paul?


Everything has to be original at the moment. They may get round to looking at mods for the Bulldog in a couple of years perhaps.

Thanks Hatz, I might well do. But the end should be nigh now. I just need time when an inspector has time to fill in all the paperwork.
User avatar
By garethep
#1308119
This does seem a bit chicken and egg!
From a regulators point of view it is easier to take existing control measures and retain them for a "fast turnaround".
The LAA is too busy to fast track mods to "new" aircraft because it is a small organisation....Without knowing the specifics of the Bulldog I suspect that one man's unnecessary adherence to a higher standard than required is another man's making life as easy as possible by reducing the oversight time required to assess the impact of a lower standard. One possible answer is that if more aircraft types came under the LAA then there would be more memberships to pay for more staff etc.....
The challenge is to increase the size and capacity of the organisation without it becoming the CAA by another name.
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1308159
It doesn't work like that. For pretty much all the issues I've asked about, the answer has been, "Only Francis can make that decision".

So however many people they have, it all has to go up to Francis. And he's just one man.
User avatar
By Rod1
#1308168
The mod is a std Lyk mod not an airframe specific mod though?

Rod1
User avatar
By Flying_john
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1308177
Peter Said

Just to clarify a couple of points John made.
The DR200/300 series are not quite in the same position as the Gardans.

This is very true the case for the DR200 is an argument concerning when the initial design was established and ,if prior to 1955 and production ceased by 1975 , then the aircraft are entitled to be on Annex II.
BUT EASA dont agree that the DR200 falls into this category.

The type is French so the CAA has no part to play in this unless and until the type becomes unsupported. Though, again, there are differing views on this

Same as the GY80 - French type, but the GY80 IS unsupported and one could argue that Yves Gardan's design work leading to the GY80 started with the Minicab (GY20) in the early fifties.
My guess is that when and if types are chosen to move to PtF, the first will be those like the Gardans as they are unsupported currently and are obvious candidates.


I live in hope. Although I am thoroughly satisfied at the arrangement I have now with the maintenance of the GY80, it is only due to the good nature and understanding of my CAMO. If it were not for him, I would not be able to afford to continue. I have to look to the future though and if he retires or gives up being an LAE, then I will be stuck to find another so accomodating.

The legality of effectively removing a TC from a willing provider might make EASA hesitate a bit.

I think it is deeper than just being "willing". The existing TC holder, be that EASA or whoever, should be able to demonstrate Design capability, Effective engineering support and spare parts. EASA clearly do not have any design or manufacturing experience whatsoever and are therefore unfit to hold type certificates.

As you say the campaign goes on and each pilot/owner who is able to manage to keep their elderly aircraft airworthy despite all these hurdles, deserves some simplification. Its not as if there are different flavours of airworthy. It is either an airworthy aircraft or it is not , whether it be LAA permit type or a CofA type.

I see other post saying that the CAA "red tape dept" is a smokescreen. Whilst I agree that for EASA types the CAA may not make any decisions relating to their airworthiness. What I hope - even expect - from the CAA is that they will make the case to EASA for certain changes to be made on a pan European basis. After all EASA wont listen to the man in the street - should that be the man in the air. We just dont have a big enough voice, but through CAA, LAA and AOPA initiatives I hope that will bring the issue more closely into focus for EASA to consider modifications to the basic regulations to allow for older GA light aircraft to remain airworthy.
User avatar
By Adrian
#1308179
hatzflyer wrote:There is one heck of a lot of misunderstanding on this thread.
I don't think the average Easa drivers realise the degree of involvement that LAA permit drivers have to undertake. As stated elswhere on this thread they are used to handing over the aircraft and a wad of cash and picking it up when its finished.


In the 4 years that I owned a permit aircraft, I handed over a wad of cash to my inspector who did a permit renewal inspection that was pretty much identical to the annual inspections he used to do when the same aircraft was operated on a C of A. I would then pick it up when he'd finished. In between inspections, my local aircraft mechanic did the odd oil change and fixed any minor problems that arose.

An owner can do all that himself, but he doesn't have to do it if he has the right inspector. I would much rather pay for maintenance work than do it myself.

I had thought that my C of A to permit transfer was painful until reading Paul's Bulldog story. Hope you get it flying soon!
By Silvaire
#1308183
Flying_john wrote:I think it is deeper than just being "willing". The existing TC holder, be that EASA or whoever, should be able to demonstrate Design capability, Effective engineering support and spare parts. EASA clearly do not have any design or manufacturing experience whatsoever and are therefore unfit to hold type certificates.


The solution to that is numerous, independent designee engineers (by which I mean engineers not mechanics) plus PMA parts and used parts that are judged to be airworthy by the installing mechanic. That's how it works under FAA rules, with no "support" organization officially recognized for any certified type and therefore no concept of an "orphan" certified aircraft.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1308197
Now if there was LAA2 as well as the existing LAA and we had a choice to go to to administer our aircraft, you could be sure things would hot up a bit.


Probably why, whether you are with BMAA or LAA, you get a particularly good service if you operate a 3-axis microlight or wish to bring a new microlight design into the UK. The two organisations have only been able to compete on standards of service - in that category, at-least, you have a choice of two organisations.

BMAA has been exploring moving into light aeroplanes, and LAA into type-approved microlights. It's all happened very slowly, but given the financial model of both organisations, and that despite some criticisms both are very competent, the winners in such a competition can only be we, the aircraft owners.

G
User avatar
By ThePipster
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1308370
Hello all,

I have been watching this thread with some interest and thought that it may be useful to add some of my own views.

Yes, the LAA has been actively pushing the regulator here at home and in the one in the tower in Cologne (through the EFLEVA organisation and Europe Air Sports) to allow the transfer of aircraft from CofA to PtF where there is clearly little or no support from the type certificate holder. As Flying_John can confirm this is not a politics free process especially where Europe is concerned!

Deregulation brings both benefits and disadvantages, not all of which are apparent on first sight. The earlier suggestion by PB that the insurers should decide on how the aircraft is maintained is simply a different sort of regulation by a different group of organisations, it is likely that the same or similar conclusions will be reached.

There are I think a few misconceptions about the LAA (and the BMAA for that matter), some of which Hatz has touched on and others that have gone unanswered. Our goal at the LAA is to promote safe, affordable and fun flying for our members, and indeed the wider GA community. Affordable and cheap are not the same thing and safety really is our first priority.

In general terms, as mentioned above, we aim to ensure that all the aircraft operating on the PtF system under our care are airworthy, we simply have a slightly different method of achieving a similar level of airworthiness to the CofA world, it is called shared responsibility. The key principle of shared responsibility is that all parties involved in the airworthiness of an aircraft work together to ensure that the aircraft is well maintained and airworthy. That does mean that in practice the owner takes a bigger share of the maintenance activities than perhaps when using a M3 or JAR 145 organisation, this may be getting their hands dirty or writing a tailored maintenance plan for a competent person to work to. There is often confusion over the role of a LAA inspector, they are primarily there to oversee and certify the building and maintenance of a PtF aircraft, and although many are also LAEs and are able to perform maintenance tasks, that is not their role when acting as an inspector on our behalf.

I am not up to speed on all of the details of Paul's transfer to a PtF (please PM Paul if you want to discuss in detail), but in general we will seek to have the aircraft maintained to the same standard as before, after all the air hasn't changed, the pilot is still going to be doing the same things and whatever need to attended to before transfer still needs attention afterwards. This was an issue particularly on the Chipmunk fleet where it was discovered that ADs going back decades had not been complied with and needed to be addressed before a PtF could be issued. Another complication with transfers is that often the owner is new to the LAA and needs to learn how the system works, which leads me nicely to my next point......

Quite simply, the LAA is not a business and does not operate for the purposes of generating profit for it's shareholders, it exists to serve its members who collectively own the Association. Now coming from the very commercially orientated world of global financial services this has taken me a bit of time to get my head around. It is all about striking a balance between keeping fees at a reasonable level and providing a good level of service for the membership. Now we could argue all day as to what the correct balance of fees to staff to service level should be, but the point I am trying to make is that if you change any one of the three it has an effect on the other two.

There is also a another reality that is often missed when people talk of monopolies and competition, yes it could be argued that by introducing more players into the market that prices will drop and that service levels will rise and the world will be a rosier place, however in truth that only works where there is a commercially viable market for players to operate in. I disagree with Genghis when he says that more players would ensure that everyone was better off, the base cost of running an operation (many of the costs having nothing to do with the regulator, insurance, salaries, business rates to name just a few) would remain the same but would have to be levied across a smaller number of aircraft meaning each owner would pay more. It is also worth remembering that the small team of employed staff are supported by a large number of volunteers who help to keep costs to a minimum, that doesn't happen in the commercial world and as I am fond of reminding people, nobody volunteers to stack shelves at Tescos!

The LAA is not perfect, no organisation is. I won't try to claim that we don't face challenges in adapting to a growing fleet and an even broader church, but there is one big difference, unlike the CAA anyone can become a member, get involved and help shape the future.

Pipster
By hatzflyer
#1308382
Excellent post couldn't have put it better myself. Well worth repeating :D
User avatar
By peter272
#1308435
If there is to be a general movement from CofA to PtF that is going to lead to a lot of questions

For example, could the LAA remain in its present form, as a members association reliant on the work of unpaid volunteers? or will it have to split the regulatory side and membership side?

Certainly it will come as a shock to many current CofA owners, who, let's face it, have chosen a different path to those keen types like Rod1. It will also come as a shock to many existing LAA members to find that much-derided spamcans become part of the Permit fleet and their needs will also have to be catered for.

Can you imagine an article in the Light Aviation magazine extolling the joys and pleasures of the PA28! :lol:

Hmm - could be interesting