Polite discussion about EASA, the CAA, the ANO and the delights of aviation regulation.
Forum rules: Please keep it polite!
#1897379
Paul_Sengupta wrote:I'm confused as well. Are you trying to:

1) Design a new aeroplane to one of the standards
2) Change ways of maintaining aeroplanes
3) Changing the design standards so that other people can design aeroplanes
4) Something else?


I believe there is more than one clear threat to GA. The obvious one is the now well entrenched change to the planning regulations that means all airfields are 'Brown Field Sites'. We all know what effect that has had.

But, it is also clear that a massive training gap will open up within the industry very soon. Particularly at the grass roots level.

I'm constantly bemused at just how defensive and closed minded many in GA are to the issue of lack of co-ordination between airfields and operations on these matters. It is small wonder the Property Development trade has been so successful at attacking GA and constantly winning.

I would have thought the idea of discussing the future and how to protect it would have been important to pilots and operators alike. However, it seems many folks simply cannot even contemplate a fresh pair of eyes might have something to offer or indeed even willing to discuss it? I've come onto this forum expecting to find helpful people who clearly know more than me who I would hope could explain issues in detail.

Instead I seen wild speculation of my intentions and surprisingly high levels of aggressive and dismissive comments. Why? Why the aggression?

I'm starting to see the reasons GA isn't getting the support if needs. As a group of people a lot of folks within GA think they are above needing to help each other or work together and thus GA will end up in a very lonely situation I suspect.
#1897381
I think you have simply dismissed my question with a whole lot of other questions that are nothing to do with my enquiry? I very very aware of how complex GA is. It is an industry and a hobby at the same time. I have been what I would call an 'avaition fan' for all of my life. I have 'scratched the itch' of aviation however via RC models due to cost. Thus this was my first experience of being in a working hangar on a day to day basis. I'm quite sure that many many pilots haven't spent even three months in a hangar! Why do I feel I'm having to defend myself for asking a question?
#1897386
Tim Griffiths wrote:But, it is also clear that a massive training gap will open up within the industry very soon. Particularly at the grass roots level.


Can you elaborate?

Tim Griffiths wrote:I'm constantly bemused at just how defensive and closed minded many in GA are to the issue of lack of co-ordination between airfields and operations on these matters.


I think it's a dose of cynicism about new ideas in general. There are always reasons why many ideas don't work, and many have been tried and they have failed, such as new engines and so on. Most fail because there just aren't the funds available to make them work. Catch 22.

Tim Griffiths wrote:It is small wonder the Property Development trade has been so successful at attacking GA and constantly winning.


Quite. We can't compete with that sort of money if given planning permission.

Tim Griffiths wrote:I would have thought the idea of discussing the future and how to protect it would have been important to pilots and operators alike.


Absolutely, but I think the issue here is none of us were sure where you were going with this. I think you're talking about persuading more people to learn to fly, is that correct? As mentioned above, the fundamental issue is disposable income, and that's only going to get worse over the coming couple of years.

Tim Griffiths wrote:However, it seems many folks simply cannot even contemplate a fresh pair of eyes might have something to offer or indeed even willing to discuss it?


We do a lot of discussing on here!

Tim Griffiths wrote:I've come onto this forum expecting to find helpful people who clearly know more than me who I would hope could explain issues in detail.


Sure! Lay out your plans and you'll get 20 people on here telling you why they won't work! ;-)

Tim Griffiths wrote:Instead I seen wild speculation of my intentions and surprisingly high levels of aggressive and dismissive comments. Why? Why the aggression?


Cynicism and lack of clarity about what you're asking about! :D

Tim Griffiths wrote:I'm starting to see the reasons GA isn't getting the support if needs. As a group of people a lot of folks within GA think they are above needing to help each other or work together and thus GA will end up in a very lonely situation I suspect.


So what can we do? And where does CS VLA and other airworthiness standards fit into all this? Who are you looking to talk to...pilots in general? Flying schools? Aircraft manufacturers?
Supercat, kanga liked this
#1897395
Tim Griffiths wrote:... Thus this was my first experience of being in a working hangar on a day to day basis. I'm quite sure that many many pilots haven't spent even three months in a hangar! Why do I feel I'm having to defend myself for asking a question?

It was a long time ago, but I still remember being a young, enthusiastic engineer working for a major aircraft manufacturer. I recall the frustration of trying to persuade the senior, more experienced, budget-holding engineering management that my ideas for improving the way the department worked were worth looking into. I failed. After many years of experience I actually understood the challenge of presenting ideas which are intuitively obvious to the begetter but which appear vague and unformed to the rest of the community.

Your ideas may well be intuitively obvious to you, but they are clearly not intuitively obvious to the very experienced posters on this forum - or at least those who've stuck thus far with this thead. I think you would do well to accept that this dialogue comes from people really wanting to understand what your ideas are and how they can help you to manipulate them into a form that we can understand.

The posts on here that I've read so far are from people who are taking you seriously and are trying their best to understand what you are telling us. Stick with it: you never know, there may be someone on this forum with significant influence in the world you are seeking to enter. You might end up being introduced to people who can help you make the difference you're hoping to achieve.

On the other hand, and this is a tough fact of life, you might not. But if you don't try you'll never know. At the very least you might come to understand why other people hold a different point of view.

Good luck and try to enjoy the tussle. :thumright:
kanga, JAFO, lobstaboy liked this
#1897481
Just to clarify my post was not intended to be aggressive.

There are lots of associations for different aspects of GA (I was surprised how many when I saw a list during the pandemic) but that does not mean they all pull the same way going forwards. That includes association for airfield owners and operators, so they ought to be able to communicate through their association or directly.

There are not a large number of airfields showing on the chart so to some extent there is some competition with neighbouring airfields for trade. There are private strips too.
People want airfields for different things - some want to have everything they need for the day on the airfield, and for others it is a stepping stone into the local area.

Agree that sometimes it takes a fresh pair of eyes or approach to make things happen.
Sandown airfield had a refresh and is very popular.

GA does need to encourage younger people to participate.

Bottom line is the Chancellor says there is no money tree.
#1897744
I was one of the first responders, I've now read through the entire thread and I STILL don't understand what you are asking for, and you have responded several times but without any clarity, covering a broad range of areas within GA. You do appear to have inferred from several posts that our answers are closed minded or even people being negative towards you.

Until you either ask more direct questions, or flesh out some of your ideas then no one can help as no one is a mind reader. The fact you worked in GA for 3 months and now feel you have all the answers to our woes is nice to see, but possibly a little misguided.

I once arrived in a company at the age of 19 and told the boss I could redesign his products, I was wrong as I didn't understand 99% of what I should have done, but it did get me noticed as someone who wanted to push. I trod on toes, but I learnt from my mistakes and learnt to listen and engage. Don't just assume everyone who says no is against you, try to get them to explain their reasoning and adapt your ideas as you go along.

Personally I get the impression you feel that you can create some method where the paperwork is speeded up am I right? Otherwise your question could be seen as the GA to 'understand the new highway code and sell more parking meters'. confused? yes we are.

Wayne
JAFO, Mz Hedy liked this
#1898269
lobstaboy wrote:
Tim Griffiths wrote:Why do I feel I'm having to defend myself for asking a question?


Tim. Please ask a question. If you review your posts so far you will see that you haven't asked one yet. You may then get some helpful answers.
Seriously, we have no idea what you want from us!


Well, I think I'm going to just rig up a very simple set of graphs instead of trying to find something more focused.

However, I thought I had been quite plain, I explained what I had done and that I wanted to find someone to explain the Airworthyness Codes. Clearly it needs to be someone who actually understand the way each aircraft actually has a different code and why it has that specific code. That in turn clearly has an impact on the level of work and the time taken when it is serviced. Be it a 50 hour, 100 hour or annual.

That in turn should be a measure of the servicing market. Each aircraft in the country has to have at least one per year, usually an Annual. Obviously the variable is that some aircraft get used more. This whole industry is completely reliant of legacy airframes and technology and thus legacy training and engineers.

That is very dangerous for the future health of the industry and the managing of any transition to new technology. Basically, it is completely exposed to the electrification of transport issue without any defence as an industry. I believe that we could very quickly see GA actually banned as it will be in the way of corporate takeover of the air space for Drones and AI controlled multirotor 'airtaxies'. I believe that the best way of defending the industry is to get one step ahead.
#1898296
Tim Griffiths wrote:However, I thought I had been quite plain, I explained what I had done and that I wanted to find someone to explain the Airworthyness Codes. Clearly it needs to be someone who actually understand the way each aircraft actually has a different code and why it has that specific code. That in turn clearly has an impact on the level of work and the time taken when it is serviced. Be it a 50 hour, 100 hour or annual.


For a start we need to not mix-up the design phase and the flying phase of the a/c.
For the design phase, for certified a/c, there is Certification Specification (CS).
For some permit a/c it is in BCAR.
I'm sure the LAA and BMAA also have their own.

For maintenance the big split is part 21 or not. In part 21, depending the A/C you depends of Part M or Part ML and Part CAMO or Part CAO.
If non-part 21, you need to follow the rules of whichever organisation issue your Permit to Fly.
#1898305
Then you mention maintenance - there are two parts - the paperwork and what needs done. What needs done is generally specified per aircraft / component (engine type, etc), either by manufacturer or on an individual aircraft basis. In some cases an owner can specify There are templates That can be independent of how the job / paperwork is managed (who can do the work, who needs to supervise / inspect the work, who can sign off on the work complete, which regulator/group/engineer rubber stamps it and issues annual paperwork).
A manufacturer / builder could say all that needs done is an inspection (like what Renault say about my electric car most years). However aircraft aren't built like that, so more detailed work is always going to be required.

As said above - quite different to design work.
#1898489
I'm interested in the maintainence side of things, and yes these answers seem on the right side of things. I actually already knew this much. I know the process in a practical sense as I was working within it. The report I had started writing was about my experiences. However, when I first started asking around for some information I was told no one will take it seriously unless it has proper marketing information. I think thats right. But, you try finding it. One can normally find something that fits the bill with other industies but I have been finding that this industry almost deliberately hides stuff.
#1898573
Tim I think your use of the term 'marketing information' is confusing people, I'm not sure what you mean by that, do you mean the information that manufacturers use to sell aircraft?

If you want to understand airworthiness codes (BCAR S, CS-LSA, VLA etc), you need to find someone who knows initial airworthiness regulation. That is likely to be someone who works in initial airworthiness - ie someone who is involved in the design and manufacture of aircraft.

When it comes to maintaining aircraft, most people just go by what is written in the manufacturer's requirements and the minimum specified by regulation, in my experience people have limited appetite for debating the merits of the requirements, except to avoid high costs.

As for GA and the future, while there is much to worry about, people have always been sounding its death - it was ever thus. Somehow it manages to survive. Reports of demise due to drones/airspace/housing and all the rest of it are (IMHO) largely exaggerated.