[Pete L]

I think that it's basically a national reluctance amongst British aviation professionals to shrug our shoulders and say "let's not worry too much about the evidence, it looks about right. ".

Then we should make it our business to tell much of the rest of the world just how wrong they are*

Ian
*Yes, I know there will be some examples of less than great aircraft flying elsewhere

The issue is not so much of probable safety, as rigorous proof of it.

I recall the horror of an American kitplane designer once exclaiming "do you ask that level of evidence from everybody" when I asked for evidence to support his CG limits. He turned out to be about right - but couldn't prove it. As a professional engineer, I couldn't work without that proof.

G

All safety is risk based. You can provide a probability but not certainty. (For example, my chances of dying while typing this from an aircraft accident are infintesimally low - we're near but not on the final approach track for Luton - but not zero).

In a similar vein, I question the requirement of the CAA to have moved the maximum aft CG of my aircraft by about a millimeter - scaling to less than the thickness of the line on the weight and balance chart I use.

If that's representative of the pendantry - hung for a comma? - then something is not right.

[Peter Gristwood]

The remaining "tension" is often around the "cheque books owners" who do not want to get involved in the maintenance of their aircraft. This is a relatively new group (at volume) and it is a different view to the enthusiasts, like myself, who not only look after there own aircraft but help with several others. There are an increasing number of inspectors who are running small business around this approach. You drop your aircraft off, the inspector and his people do all the work and then you hand over the cheque and fly your aircraft away. This works and I assume it is still a bit cheaper than the c of a approach. Socially, however, there is a big gap. Traditional LAA owners tend to talk tec quite a bit - it is part of the hobby for us. I suspect this is sometimes misinterpreted as an impenetrable clique - but it is by no means deliberate in my experience.

My hope is that both groups can coexist within the organization, but I worry that we could end up recreating the C of A system in an attempt to control standards when the owner is not actively involved in the airworthiness of his aircraft, despite being legally responsible. On the strip I am based on we tend to help out and do the work FOC, but that only works when there are a majority of enthusiasts and this may not be true in another 10 years.

Rod1

Rod

It is a valid choice to concentrate on your flying as much as someone at my airfield, spending 15 years building an aircraft of his own. If I choose to minimise my time on maintenance or, rather, don't trust my life to something I've worked on, then that should not be looked down upon by those who do.

If the LAA starts to take on more types, especially factory builts or ex-CofA types then the numbers of "cheque books owners", like myself will increase. And you are right, that will create a tension between those who maintain the flame of the PFA and the newcomers.

[davey]

I own a C of A aircraft, but love getting involved in maintenance. I did,probably, 90% of the work at my last annual, with the supervision of the engineer.

I now know my aircraft inside out, both good and not so good and it gives me a huge amount of confidence that I have a very sound aircraft.

I used to have a permit aircraft but, although, the cost is higher I prefer this aircraft, however it would like to see permit type prices as it is a very simple aircraft to operate and maintain...

[Arnold Rimmer]

I've been enjoying this thread.
As an owner of a CofA Robin, I want to know what can be done to move to Permit and what the impact of that will be, both for and against. As G-BUTH is a great toy, I will continue to own and operate her, whether on a Permit or CofA, as long as possible.

It would be great if simple C of A could be transferred to Permit but...

I own a C of A aircraft, but love getting involved in maintenance. I did,probably, 90% of the work at my last annual, with the supervision of the engineer.
I now know my aircraft inside out, both good and not so good and it gives me a huge amount of confidence that I have a very sound aircraft...

...why not allow what Davey is doing but with more "pilot owner" maintenance and then an licensed engineer / Part M Subpart F / Part 145 to sign off once a year?

[hatzflyer]

I can't believe you wrote that personal attack. What has this forum come to??! Did you not think about his feelings?

No not really .

[Brian Davies]

Brian

While we have you online, what are your and Phil's top three focus points for members in the next 12 months?

Too late I had already left!

1. To do what we do now but in a better way e.g sort the Mods system
2. To obtain BCAR A8-26 approval from the CAA so that we can continue to "trade"
3. To shift the focus back towards our members and recognise that they are customers and shareholders.

[Brian Davies]

Our regulations require us to check that the incoming aircraft meets the required design codes and the onus is on the importer/owner/builder to demonstrate this.

Thanks Brian, is it the CAA that sets these design codes?

Ian

CS-VLA and CS-23 are EASA design codes but as Annex II aircraft are outside the EASA Basic Regulation and therefore nationally regulated, our masters are the UK CAA.

[Waveflyer]

Ladies and Gents
When I started this post I hoped it would rattle a few cages but I never imagined it would cover as much as it has.
The whole thread has been conducted in a good humoured and respectful way and as the result we have had really positive responses from our Chairman and CEO.
it would appear that they acknowledge change is needed and we have given them plenty of food for thought.
I most respectfully suggest it might be best to leave things as they are because we now run the risk of going around in circles. The LAA can consider our thoughts and hopefully they will give us feed back as they make decisions.
Anybody second that?

Waveflyer, LAA member.

[hatzflyer]

I'll second that.

[ChampChump]

I'll vote for it.

[Flintstone]

I'll second it (hatz can't count to two).

[hatzflyer]

Yes I can . I'm holding two fingers up to you now !

[Flintstone]

Bet you can guess how many I'm holding up right now.

[hatzflyer]

I can see ! That's not two !

[Keef]

Motion carried! Want me to lock the thread?