Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1809622
I'd certainly be totally in favour, as I've posted elsewhere, in the UK adopting the FAA's DAR system at the very least.

As I'm an airworthiness engineer, amongst other thing, I went and had a look at the adverts, which are here:-

https://careers.caa.co.uk/job/Gatwick-D ... 630724501/

The adverts are very poorly constructed, don't list salaries, but in general terms the skillset they're after is extremely rare. Could I do it? Yes. Could they afford me? probably - CAA have always paid very well for the skillsets. Do I have any desire to work in the Belgrano? Not on your Nelly. Do I know many people likely to be job hunting who have the skillset? Very very few indeed.

I really hope they're advertising in the USA, it's probably the only place they've a lot of chance of getting significant numbers of people with these skills. Their own systematic and deliberate de-skilling over the last decade has done the UK no favours whatsoever.

G
A le Ron liked this
#1809623
@ak7274 said stuff .
The BMAA and the LAA both do engineering and airworthiness oversight ,delegated by the CAA
In addition, the BMAA also issue/renew (not sure if it's either of, or both) on behalf of the CAA....except it's hours or days to issue, not weeks or months.
The price of membership pales into insignificance compared with the cost of running a CAA C of A Certified aircraft.....and remember, Microlight weight-limit is going up to 600 kg.

I see a future where GA is predominantly the administrative preserve of those 2 organisations , which both serve their membership markedly better than the CAA serves it's captive clientele.
(OK, the 2 members' organisations have the same sort of monopoly, but they aren't complacent and don't abuse their position. :thumleft:
Kemble Pitts liked this
#1809626
Worthy of note that the two organisations don't have an entire monopoly.

LAA can take on 3-axis microlights, BMAA can take on light aircraft up to 750kg.

And there is a degree of good natured competition - but in reality they can only compete on standards of service. That I think is a good thing, and one reason we should be very cautious when yet another merger proposal crops up in a few years from somebody who forgets what happened the last three times.

G
#1809634
The intention of my statement is that the LAA is an association run by it's members for it's members and if the old chestnut of "Let the LAA take over sub 2000kg GA aircraft" becomes a reality, would it then become a company that loses it's mutual status? Would I be shareholder expecting profits? You bet I would.
What would then happen to the association I have been a member of for many years?
What directives would the CAA give the LAA to administer those aircraft?
My association does what it does very well. Leave it alone and allow it to carry on.
LAA, BMAA, BGA do OK without too much interference thank you.
#1809647
Marchettiman wrote:Or why not subcontract the airworthiness of all sub 2 tonnes SEP's to the LAA?

What do you actually mean by that though?

All sub 2 tonne aircraft become LAA permit aircraft, or the certification of these aircraft remains exactly as is and it's the adminstration of the current system that's handed over to the LAA?

Two very different things, each fraught with all sorts of difficulties, implications and consequences.
#1809648
aerofurb wrote:
G-BLEW wrote:
Marchettiman wrote:Or why not subcontract the airworthiness of all sub 2 tonnes SEP's to the LAA?


Because like the CAA, the LAA does not have the expertise or capacity.

Ian


I reckon it has the expertise.... :wink:


I don't :wink:

How would the LAA (or BMAA, or CAA for that matter) approve the latest software release for a Garmin GTN750, or an update to the ESP software in a GFC500, or the Dynon HDX install in a Seneca? Or the FIKI approval for the DA50, or the certification of Pipistrel's next electric engine, or the next iteration of CAP1391, or have the bravery (and capacity) to develop a UK version of CS-STAN etc.

As has been suggested, the most pragmatic solution for the CAA would be to accept both EASA and FAA approvals, with owners choosing the regime.

Ian
IFly172, A le Ron, Rob L liked this
#1809654
G-BLEW wrote:
aerofurb wrote:
G-BLEW wrote:>>>

How would the LAA (or BMAA, or CAA for that matter) approve the latest software release for a Garmin GTN750, or an update to the ESP software in a GFC500, or the Dynon HDX install in a Seneca? Or the FIKI approval for the DA50, or the certification of Pipistrel's next electric engine, or the next iteration of CAP1391, or have the bravery (and capacity) to develop a UK version of CS-STAN etc.

As has been suggested, the most pragmatic solution for the CAA would be to accept both EASA and FAA approvals, with owners choosing the regime.

Ian


Because the LAA would be bright enough to employ/contract the right people for the job from industry.

There are people in the industry (as you know) who could do it - you don't have to have 'big aeroplane' experience...

Anyway, best get on with the day job :)
#1809657
wigglyamp wrote:In days gone by you could also get a job doing some of this airworthiness certification stuff based on many years of actual on-the-job experience, without the need for a University degree etc. Apparently academic qualifications always out-do real-life experience nowadays.


We need both…

Ian
#1809659
I mostly agree with you Ian, but with caveats.

The whole point of the iCAO system is supposed to be that around the world aviation authorities accept the approval work of other competent and approved authorities. It was supposed to get away from the financially crippling position of the early days of aviation where companies had to recertify with every single national authority.

So yes, the CAA should accept both FAA and EASA approvals, and for that matter Australian or Chinese. If those authorities have passed ICAO audits to an acceptable standards, then the approvals should be acceptable. That does mean also accepting the EASA part 21 corporate approvals, and FAA DAR approvals.

BUT, there is no excuse for the authority not ensuring it is in itself competent. So, picking for example a new Pipistrel electric aircraft. Yes, the CAA should accept the EASA approval, but the CAA must also ensure it understands it, and is in a position to second guess it IF there's good reason (for example if there was an independent CAA approval of the 737-8max we'd quite rightly expect CAA to be rapidly and competently looking at that in parallel with the American re-examination). All that Pipistrel and EASA need to do to facilitate that is to maintain an open book policy to the foreign authority - and I'm sure that they would; there's a lot more burden on CAA because they must make sure that they are capable of fully understanding what's going on on their patch.

And that is is expensive, but I don't accept the expense as too great. To maintain acceptable levels of safety, and to be able to support Britain's own aircraft industry, we do need those skills to be there.

G
#1809661
G-BLEW wrote:
wigglyamp wrote:In days gone by you could also get a job doing some of this airworthiness certification stuff based on many years of actual on-the-job experience, without the need for a University degree etc. Apparently academic qualifications always out-do real-life experience nowadays.


We need both…

Ian


We absolutely need both. Backroom boys with academics and no practical experience are dangerous if given too much responsibility over aircraft design, but so are people whose experience is all practical without the underlying theoretical knowledge.

We used to have excellent "sandwich" education systems in this country that created those, that sadly died out under the knife of short termist corporate accountants, but is reappearing in the form of degree level apprenticeships thankfully.

G