Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By skydriller
G-BLEW wrote:
skydriller wrote:I seem to remember the word "blacklisted" used the other night... :pale:

That seems to be in relation to the DfT, not the CAA, although communicating with people there is more difficult than it used to be.


I cant "like" that, but thanks for the clarification. However, if the CAA isnt talking & listening to the LAA about this, when the whole airworthiness thing is the "raison d'etre" of the LAA, then why would they listen to Ian?

Regards, SD..
G-BLEW liked this
User avatar
I cant "like" that, but thanks for the clarification. However, if the CAA isnt talking & listening to the LAA about this, when the whole airworthiness thing is the "raison d'etre" of the LAA, then why would they listen to Ian?

I can hope to shine a light

skydriller liked this
User avatar
By Trent772
Took a while to extract from the pdf.....

In the past all major changes to regulations have been achieved through a collaborative process that has almost always produced a result that is supported and respected by those who have to implement those regulations. The A8-26 approval was created via a working group consisting of the CAA, the LAA and the BMAA involving nearly three years of collaborative effort to achieve the agreed regulation. This time, despite our asking to be involved, there has been no such attempt at collaboration.
At the end of 2019, we discovered that CAA General Aviation Unit (GAU) had been working on a revision to A8-26, using resources from outside of the GAU (rather than those familiar with LAA and BMAA procedures) to develop changes, and without the usual collaborative working group process.
Although some minor changes have been made as a result of subsequent representations, it is regretted that the CAA has decided to put these proposed changes out for public consultation without having achieved a consensus, which means that our differences have to be aired in public.
This can only damage a long-term working relationship which is characterised by partnership and mutual respect.
The LAA received its BCAR A8-26 approval in 2016 and has safely and successfully re-validated Permits to Fly more than 13,000 times since that date.
When the GAU Leadership were challenged on the reasons for embarking on these changes we were advised that “there was a pressing safety case”. The LAA requested sight of this and on examination, it was found to be based on incomplete MOR data when Permit aircraft are exempt from the requirement to submit MORs. It was also backed up by a small number of “whistle blower” reports that the LAA fully investigated. We found no evidence of any systemic safety problems.
The LAA submitted AAIB reported incident data which clearly demonstrates a steady reduction in the rate of incidents over the last 10 years, despite a significant increase in the scale and complexity of our activities. Our own voluntary incident reporting system demonstrates the same trends.
In 2019 and 2020 an independent review was commissioned by the DfT entitled “UK approach to Recreational General Aviation Safety”. The findings of this review have been accepted by the CAA Board. The report’s key conclusions and recommendations were:
1. ‘That the current safety level of recreational GA is acceptable in terms of its unavoidably greater risk than commercial aviation, the much higher risk acceptability of voluntary activities and in comparison with other high risk activities.’
2. ‘We not believe that further regulation in this area would be justified given the current level of accidents, nor necessarily effective. We have not found that comparison can easily be made between regulation and good practice in other high risk activities, given the essentially individualistic character of recreational aviation’.
We do not believe that the CAA has produced a valid safety case to justify their proposed changes.
If you require some further detail on some of the particular areas which concern us, please read on. Feel free to use these to inform your comments, but please don’t just cut and paste. Individual letters are much more valid in a consultation of this kind.
Among the proposed changes to the overlying A3-7 is a clause that would create a barrier to future transitions of ‘orphan’ CofA types to the Permit system. We recommend this section is removed.
In addition, the current and proposed regs for future CofV validation are more stringent and less flexible than EASA Part ML for certificated aircraft. This section needs fundamental review.
A section on airworthiness review staff training appears to have been lifted from regulations intended for commercial air transport and is inappropriate in a recreational aviation environment. In fact, EASA Part-ML, ML.A.904 gives more generous minimum qualification requirements.
In summary. Much of A3-7 is inapplicable to recreational aviation when controlled by the sporting organisations and we recommend that A8-26 is decoupled from A3-7, with only agreed and relevant clauses from A3-7 incorporated in A8-26.
Were A8-26 to be decoupled from A3-7 and allowed to operate as a standalone, as it was originally intended, then it can be better ‘fine-tuned’ to represent the unique needs of recreational aviation as managed by the sporting bodies, and at the same time offer the CAA a more effective platform to monitor safety.
We are particularly concerned that two new Sections 8.4 “Risk Management” and 8.5 “Occurrence Reporting” (which run to twelve paragraphs) move A8-26 from a mutually agreed code within terms of ‘just culture’ to a proscriptive process based on mandatory reporting. This appears to be driven by a wish to reintroduce an MOR, mandatory reporting system - despite well-advertised shortcomings which led in 2015 to the CAA abandoning the process for national Permit aircraft as being unworkable. We strongly recommend a separate review of this area of A8-26, and also a wider consultation on the CAA occurrence reporting process for national permit aircraft.
In addition, Sections on Personnel Requirements and Staff Authorisation Systems for Inspecting Personnel and Support Staff, include a series of new clauses which take no account that the majority of Inspectors in particular are part-time volunteers who work in other roles outside the LAA. The requirements appear to have been ‘cut and pasted’ from other regulations designed for larger National CofA rather than Permit aircraft. These sections of the A8-26 revisions are untenable and reflect a lack of appropriate knowledge by the regulator of the voluntary environment in which we work. They are at present unfit for purpose and should be withdrawn and fundamentally reviewed by CAA prior to further consultation.
A Final Reminder
The deadline for comments to the CAA is 27 May 2021. Please respond to the public consultation by e-mail to, asking the CAA to withdraw these proposals and only resubmit them after a collaborative working group has been convened and a proper consensus with both BMAA and LAA achieved
By Boxkite
nallen wrote:@G-BLEW Maybe it's time for another chat with Sophie O'Sullivan, Ian.

I was going to say, did she mention this on her list of 'priorities' during the interview?
User avatar
By ThePipster
Evening all,

I suspect that part of the problem is that there is nobody with a long enough memory at the CAA to understand how we arrived at the status quo.

The LAA and the BMAA know only too well the importance of good airworthiness and the assembled wise heads across these organisations have lived through the realities of things going wrong. They have had to literally pick up the pieces, defend themselves in legal cases, and deal directly with human tragedy, in short, they have 'skin in the game'. They are the ones with most to gain from getting things right and the most to lose when it goes wrong.

Let's hope that someone at the CAA pauses for long enough to reflect on the journey we have all been on for the past 70+ years and picks up the phone for a chat...........

nallen, peter272, patowalker and 23 others liked this
By ak7274
I notice that the CAA drew from other resources outside the GAU for this paper. I wonder which resources. I do hope it wasn't the normal "We can make money from this if we generate lots of paper and changes........ even if it's wrong"
I remember EASA's embarrassing attempts to align some GA regs with commercial ones. They didn't cover themselves in glory on that either and had to change.
The lack of consultation with stakeholders is astounding. Is there any wonder the GA unit is held in such low regard by it's own consumers.
Stampe, johnm, Robin500 and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By MattL
This all seems a bit bizarre, rather reminiscent of the PMD debacle. I wonder if there are some CAA factions trying to back door address some perceived safety risk. The lack of engagement with the industry bodies is a worrying trend, and certainly goes against the entire intent in the GA roadmaps recently produced.

However, I do think the inspector system is the LAA’s strategic weak point. They have a rapidly ageing, volunteer workforce dealing with increasingly complex systems and designs. I suspect getting the next generations of inspectors trained and up skilled will be the critical path on keeping the LAA fleet going in the future.
Stampe, Lockhaven, Spooky liked this
By johnm
I have made comment on the dangers of having people in charge who know only management and administration and don't have any practical knowledge of the environment.

That situation is extremely dangerous unless there is serious engagement with representative bodies who DO understand the environment as the LAA comments above make clear.

The irony is that with Part ML and CS-STAN the certified aircraft regime is actually moving towards the LAA permit model at both EASA and CAA after the dreadful errors made by EASA in having a pure bureaucrat (Goudou) in charge at its inception. The danger is that, 10 years on, the CAA is travelling in the opposite direction.

Although I fly a CofA aircraft I believe this CAA attitude will make life more difficult for all of us in the future and so I have written to the email listed above urging withdrawal of the proposals pending a collaborative discussion between CAA and LAA/BMAA
ak7274, Lockhaven, Stampe liked this
User avatar
By Kemble Pitts
I sent this e-mail to CAA yesterday, it might give some ideas for others to emphasise with their input to CAA.

Good afternoon

I have briefly reviewed your proposed changes to CAP 553 including A8-26.

These are clearly extensive changes with significant implications for the LAA (and BMAA) engineering functions. This raises several serious questions:
• The consultation period for this proposal appears to be insufficient and has been poorly promulgated: is feedback actually wanted?
• Changes of this extensive nature cannot be arbitrarily launched without a clear statement of the perceived problem that you are trying to solve. This does not smack of ‘evidence based regulation’.
• Given the above this proposal should be withdrawn pending a realistic statement of the ‘problem’ and commensurate dialogue with the Organisations and the wider GA community.

Surely, with our exit from EASA, CAA has more than enough pressing issues to deal with without needing to look for problems where there don’t seem to be any. After all, the UK countryside is not littered with the wrecks of Permit to Fly aircraft, and so the timing and content of this proposal do not seem to make much sense.

Does this proposal further the Government’s stated aim of making the UK ‘the best place in the world for GA’?

Boxkite, Stampe, Robin500 and 2 others liked this
By Kirkbymoorside
Has anyone seen a position on this consultation from the BMAA?

The LAA seem very concerned by the approach and proposals so it would be interesting to know how one of the other affected (and very similar) organisations see things.