LAA Coaching scheme

[foxmoth]

A couple of years or so ago, when I was an LAA (may have been PFA then) member I wrote to them enquiring about joining the Coaching scheme, with many hours instructing behind me, including many on Tailwheel, experience on a number of LAA types and strip operation I did think I would be a good candidate but got no response. Asking around I was told that those in charge were "a bit up their own b'sides" and I left it.
I had heard that those in charge had changed for the better so decided to try again, it would be one thing to be told that I do not fit their requirements, but to be ignored is both rude and annoying, is this other people's experience or am I just unlucky?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm an LAA member, LAA test pilot, CRI, CPL, low 4-figure hours split between "group A", 3-axis and flexwing microlights and flight test observing in just about anything heavier-than-air ever built; 97 types, 64 of them as PiC, with a reasonable selection of LAA types, 250ish tailwheel, lots of strip flying.

I applied about a year ago, they sent me a stack of forms, which I returned. One significant figure (at that time) is about 850 hrs PiC between SEP and microlights, I'd also only just done my CRI course.

They replied without any discussion...

I have reviewed your application and can advise that at present you do not meet the criteria set out in Coaching Scheme Leaflet 3.1, which states that the Pilot Coaching Scheme requires it's coaches to have approximately 1,000 hours P1 in SEP aircraft.

So I'm afraid that my experience is very similar to yours. I'm cleared by LAA Engineering to test fly these aeroplanes, and authorised by CAA/JAA to charge somebody to then teach them to fly them, but LAA coaching scheme considered me insufficiently experienced and qualified to even interview or fly with me against the possibility of doing it for free as a volunteer.

G

[ifitaintboeing]

I suspect that the immediacy which the e-mail system appears to afford is not necessarily the speed in which people who volunteer their services can reply.

[Dan the weegie]

Yep I got the same response last year. Similar number of hours many of which instructing but not sufficient experience on tailwheel. I now have the experience on tailwheel but have no desire to re-apply on the basis of the rather "you're not good enough for our club response".

There's only one or two LAA coaches left in Scotland and yet in my magazine it tells me how keen they are to increase the number of coaches. I'm far from perfect but at least I'm an instructor willing to give my time in exchange for coffee and chat.

Decided not to bother with it. It's something they could definitely handle much better :)

[foxmoth]

Well at least you got a reply, I have not even had that! The bit that cheeses me off is that I instruct an LAA group for their new members going onto type and also do the hour instructing with them to revalidate, but as an instructor but not a coach I cannot sign their licence and have to send them to an examiner or coach for that.

[Dan the weegie]

I agree there's really nothing more frustrating. I emailed them initially and got no response so I actually phoned them up at the time as I was struggling finding their requirements presuming that was what was going on. I was told them and explained my situation and got a bit of a stonewall response.

I shall be looking for your letter next month in the LAA mag.

[ifitaintboeing]

foxmoth / dan - check your PMs.

[Dan the weegie]

:ok:

Thanks for the response :)

[Snakecharmer]

Parochialism in GA... who'd have thought it?!

[S-Works]

I am an LAA coach and can assure you the scheme is run by dedicated and experienced people in a professional manner. They are however volunteers in an age where people seem insistent on immediacy....

Experience wise, they rightly look at people with a great breadth of experience as a lot of LAA types are outside the complacent spam can envelope.

[foxmoth]

Bose, that is why I thought I might be a good candidate, think I fit that pretty well! I had not expected an immediate response, especially as there was the jubilee weekend in between emailing and posting this, but my previouse experience had left me a bit dissapointed and the delay on my email the other day left me feeling frustrated, I have now had a response though and it looks like my mail had not been received, maybe the LAA needs to look at their comms, or maybe just one of those things, anyway, will let people know what happens, maybe with the requirements and what to do if you fit them.

[foxmoth]

OK, LAA been back to me now, nice positive response, looks like a hotmail email goes in their junk folder which seems a bit strange, also found the stuff on the site that tells you how to apply and what the requirements are.iPad did not seem to want to go to that bit of the site but got there with some persistence.
Let you know how it goes.:ok:

[foxmoth]

Update

Having got a response I have now managed to get approved as a coach. The LAA are actually very helpful but at present their email system does tend to throw stuff in the junk bin and this is not helped by their website not working well on iPads, a lot of stuff I was looking for I found once I used my windows laptop, I understand the website is being updated, but being run largely by volunteers it is not going to happen overnight.
If you meet the requirements and are wanting to join the scheme then I would suggest emailing Jon Cooke direct, his mail is on the LAA site fairly prominently now. For those that complain about not being accepted when they do not meet the minimum I would ask that you remember much of what is done is with the goodwill of the CAA and if the boundaries are pushed then that goodwill can be harmed, the requirements are NOT that onerous, so make sure you can meet them first rather than be rejected and then complain.
Lastly of course, if anyone is looking for a Coach in central Southern UK please get in touch.:ok:

[S-Works]

Thats good news Foxmoth. A little patience and perseverance does pay off in the end! Welcome to LAA Coaching, you will it very rewarding and varied and fly a lot of very interesting types in due course.

Drop me a PM if you need any help or advice or of course Cookie who is a fountain of knowledge.

[foxmoth]

Thanks Bose

[Genghis the Engineer]

For those that complain about not being accepted when they do not meet the minimum I would ask that you remember much of what is done is with the goodwill of the CAA and if the boundaries are pushed then that goodwill can be harmed, the requirements are NOT that onerous, so

That'll be me then. I failed to appreciate that the 1000hrs SEP minimum couldn't include microlight time, and was arrogant enough to think that a CPL had some relevance. Fair enough as the LAA don't do microlights, the flying standards for PPL and CPL are the same, and the CAA quite rightly require unpaid LAA volunteers to meet higher requirements than paid instructors qualified by the CAA.

I'll get over it, and actually have turned out not to be short of interesting instructing across PtF and CofA aeroplanes since getting my CRI anyhow, it just would have been good to combine that role with the bits of LAA test flying I do.

G

[S-Works]

Genghis, with all respect, you as an Instructor should know the difference between SEP and Microlight. Despite being a commercial pilot myself I think it is arrogant of commercial pilots to think that holding a CPL would automatically make them a better candidate than a CPL.

The LAA coaching scheme is about putting the most experienced pilots in the hot seat. That experience comes from having been out and actually done it extensively rather than just on bought ratings. To that end the system works really well. It is well structured and quality checked which is more than can be said for a lot of Instructors!!

I am sure when you meet the requirements, a man of your breadth of experience would make an excellent addition to the coaching team.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I do know the difference - but apparently the LAA is rather inconsistent in that. It requires 1000hrs SEP to become an LAA coach, but they permit those coaches to instruct/coach in a number of microlight types.

I didn't "buy my ratings" of-course, I worked for them like anybody else - in my case a CPL(SEP) which I started around the time I passed 1000hrs TT, and a CRI that I did around 1200 hours. Both doubtless improved my flying standards, I think that this should have some relevance.

But my personal gripe, and I know I perhaps should let it rest for a few years is straightforward - I applied to become an LAA coach, with at the least over 1000hrs on piston engined aeroplanes, a CPL and CRI, but yes a significant number of those hours on microlights. That was rejected out of hand, apparently because of the lack of SEP hours alone. I was never interviewed or even spoken to on the phone, nobody flew with me, nobody took up any references from anybody I'd flown with.

Had they done a few of those things, and *then* told me I wasn't up to it, I would have no issue, although would certainly have asked for a thorough debrief and gone off to improve myself. But essentially refusing to count my microlight hours, for a role that could potentially include instructing on microlights, seems to have been a decider that prevented any other and arguably more effective method of determining whether I was up to the role.

So I got a bit grumpy about it.

G

[foxmoth]

I can see your point G, but would you not rather have been told at the beginning that due to rules laid down the micro light hours could not be counted, rather than go through what you suggest and then, having gone through all the hassle, be told, wasting your time and money? Plus of course the time taken by the LAA (again, mostly giving up their own time). I would agree that maybe a better explanation would help and maybe this is something the powers in the LAA can take away from this, after all, as you say, with your experience I am sure you would be a welcome addition when you finally meet the requirements

[Genghis the Engineer]

Perhaps.

At some point I may try again, but the treatment didn't impress me much and I was a member trying to volunteer to do something for nothing as well.

Perhaps leave the issue now; doubtless there are good people doing good work within the coaching scheme, and well done to them. Similarly, there are doubtless many outside it who should stay out due to a lack of experience of "the right sort" of flying. My disagreement was solely over how it was decided and communicated which camp I appeared to sit in and this ultimately is a matter of opinion and management style - what can't be disputed is that they are erring on the side of safety, nor that the coaching scheme is very much a good thing.

G

[gijoe]

I am on an experience par with Genghis - but because 'I don't own, or part-own, an LAA type' I am not eligible to be a coach.

My part of the world is dying out for it...

I don't think I will bother again.

G:ok:

[robin]

What I find really strange is that the selection process is very arbitrary - very experienced instructors and examiners are being excluded but under-experienced LAA pilots are accepted.

Secondly how is it that LAA coaches with lower qualifications than CAA instructors with Class 1 medicals and associated costs can sign off the SEP rating when said instructors cannot.

Seems to me that the LAA is a closed shop where those that fit in get the benefits and those that don't don't.

[foxmoth]

but because 'I don't own, or part-own, an LAA type' I am not eligible to be a coach.
Not sure where you get this from?? You DO need to be an LAA member, but there is no requirement to own, I have in the past, but do not now and it is not part of the requirements.:confused:

[robin]

But part of the requirement is that you need to have significant experience of owning or operating LAA Permit types

[S-Works]

I am on an experience par with Genghis - but because 'I don't own, or part-own, an LAA type' I am not eligible to be a coach.

So why do you want to be a coach? The coaching scheme is a service to LAA members by LAA members. A lot of permit aircraft are outside of the ordinary and as such require familiarity with permit types. This invariably comes from being involved in the ownership or operation of a permit type.

All LAA coaches are Instructors and as they are operating within the LAA RTF are approved as revalidation examiners. Many of us are also industry instructors and examiners who give our time to the coaching scheme to benefit other LAA members.

As the requirement is for LAA coaches to have a thousand hours and be an Instructor they can hardly be described as inexperienced can they?

The LAA is an organisation that exists to support its membership, providing training by individuals experienced in the permit arena is a natural extension to this. It is not just some avenue for an Instructor to make a few quid or fly something interesting just because they might think they are qualified. It is not a closed shop, just one that requires membership and participation in the organisation.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm going to defend the LAA at this point.

Flying from uncontrolled non-radio grass strips, in one-off aeroplanes, of types seldom if-ever seen in flying schools and never on FIC courses is a different type of flying. Regardless of the other minor difference of opinion I have with them, I absolutely agree that this needs pilots with substantial experience of that sort of flying in the coaching scheme.

G

[robin]

As the requirement is for LAA coaches to have a thousand hours and be an Instructor they can hardly be described as inexperienced can they?

Not sure there is a requirement to be an instructor...

[Genghis the Engineer]

There is, you have to be at-least a CRI.

G

[S-Works]

Every LAA coach is an Instructor It is a requirement to become a coach.

[robin]

I know of some who are not, but were offered LAA Coach on the basis of experience

[Genghis the Engineer]

I know of some who are not, but were offered LAA Coach on the basis of experience

From what I recall reading into it, those were (a) former instructors from some other environment, and (b) required to become CRIs before they became operational.

G

[S-Works]

I know of some who are not, but were offered LAA Coach on the basis of experience


Incorrect.

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/2010/Pilot%20Coaching%20Scheme/Forms/CSL3.1%20Becoming%20a%20Coach.pdf

If a person accepted to be a coach does not hold an Instructor rating then they are required to gain one, which can be done internally or at a facility of their choice.

[gijoe]

The owning or part-owning bit quote from Cookie. Something about not being in the spirit of the scheme.

Owning or part-owning doesn't suit my circumstances at the moment so it won't happen...and therefore I won't be offering again to be a LAA coach despite having flown many LAA types.

G:ok:

[goldeneaglepilot]

G.

To quote what you said in the recent "Urgent -Woodvale" thread on the private forum, when you were replying to a question by someone asking what types you fly:

Professionally I have a history of making flying machines of any size up to 4 engine jet "do stuff".


Perhaps thats the clue - the LAA Coach scheme looks for people with experience on relevant types of aircraft, LAA Aircraft, SEP rather than 4 engined jets or microlights.

I would think that you would be able to offer something once you have ticked the 1000 hours SEP box.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Cross posting between threads is a bad habit GEP, as is ressurecting something when somebody has bowed down politely. But yes, I've dealt professionally with a wide variety of flying machines - but including a lot of SEP.

By your argument, all the LAA's experience on SEPs means that it should hand all its microlights, and any microlight instructional issues, over to the BMAA, since LAa is clearly not a dedicated microlight specialist organisation and the different classes of aeroplane have minimal crossover of knowledge and skill, experience coaching on, and certifying, SEP being irrelevant to aeroplanes like the Shadow and MW6. Then again, maybe it should :E

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

G

My edits are marked, unlike yours - I see you altered the wording with reference to your work as an engineer, however no record remains. I feel my point is relevant, irrespective of information from one thread to another. The LAA have defined what they want as minimum experience with respect to flying SEP aircraft.

Sorry if I miss read your post on the other thread, the question there from funfly was:


Gengis, after seeing millions of your posts, would you be prepared to tell me what aircraft you fly?


Your response was:

All sorts.

A CTSW this morning, an AA5 this afternoon. Next week I'm hoping to add a Rans S6 to my logbook and fly the CT again and possibly either of a Mainair Blade and Stinson 108 if we can sort w couple of engine snags.

Professionally I have a history of making flying machines of any size up to 4 engine jet "do stuff".


I am presuming from what you have just said that you don't actually do the flying of the 4 engine jets and that you are there in an engineering capacity?

Getting back to the LAA, they set the benchmark which is 1000 hours SEP as the minimum for one of their coaches. It's their ball and they can play with it as they like

[Genghis the Engineer]

No I don't fly "heavy metal" as a pilot, I have other roles.

The LAA isn't "they", it's "we" of-course, since I imagine pretty much everybody posting here is a member. Perhaps "they" are the handful of people managing the coaching scheme within "our" organisation?

G

N.B. No, my edits don't get marked. I've absolutely no idea why - PPrune seems to treat me as a "special case" in this regard.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Thats an easy one to address then, if enough people write into the management of the LAA then they will be obliged to answer why they set that criteria in "our" organisation

[Genghis the Engineer]

Or we can just go and play somewhere else, as I and clearly several others have - quite legally within our assorted licences.

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

I guess as a resource the LAA do then lose out. Which is a shame. However the LAA have been delegated by the CAA the task of running the permit aircraft scheme, if its members feel that they could improve the scheme surely they can always ask for change?

Which in my book is a better way of dealing with things than just walking away.

There are a number of organistation's that have delegated responsibilities from the CAA, such as the BMAA, LAA, BMFA, and BPA. Most seem to do a great job, including (in my opinion) the LAA.

[S-Works]

I really do not understand why this stirs up so much emotion and ego. The LAA coaching scheme is a service by members for members. The requirement is to have a high number of SEP hours and those hours need to be from a permit background. If the scheme gets two applicants one, with considerable experience on the LAA scheme and has all the qualifications and another who has the same qualifications but not the experience of the LAA types, who is going to get chosen? There is only a need for a finite number if coaches so they can choose who they want. It's not difficult to comprehend.

Flying microlights, engineering on a 146 or teaching on spam cans is great experience but not the specific experience the coaching scheme is looking for. Why get so worked up about it? If someone is desperate to be a coach then go out and meet the requirements and apply.

I have been a coach for several years and have found it to be well run and well supported with training conducted and regulated to a high standard.

I will say now, there is no money it, your basic expenses are covered, after that it's about putting something into the organisation and helping keep grass roots flying cheaper.

[Dan the weegie]

The LAA is unquestionably a force for good as far as light and grass roots aviation goes. The magazine is the only light GA magazine that is worth reading (that I've known of) beyond that first year of reading pilot and it's full of help and assistance for those who want to know more.

I have no doubt that the coaching scheme is also well run on the basis of a couple of small exchanges that I've had with the guy that runs it. I chose not to go further, I'm flying away for work most of my days so home time is used exclusively for family and my own wee machine. That said when I get the opportunity to have some more time I really very much want to be part of it because I enjoy it and I don't think it's something you can easily get in all parts of the country from the flying schools available.

I didn't think you actually needed to be an owner/part owner to be a member of the LAA, you just needed to pay your membership. The magazine alone makes it worth it. Even so unless you're serious about touring by IFR I can't think of any reason to fly EASA CofA aircraft.

If you want to know more, head for Sywell at the end of the month.

[Peter Gristwood]

Thank you Dan

You are Head of LAA PR and I claim my £5

:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

I really do not understand why this stirs up so much emotion and ego.

Probably because nobody prepared to offer their time and skill for free likes it much being told "no, you aren't good enough". As you say, an ego thing - we all have one.

With a side issues of preferring to have access to the LAA's support if we're members and may be teaching on those aeroplanes anyhow.

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

G.

Probably because nobody prepared to offer their time and skill for free likes it much being told "no, you aren't good enough". As you say, an ego thing - we all have one

Not so sure that (based on what you said) that they told you that you were not good enough, rather more the case of your experience did not meet their criteria (at this point in time).

Its no different to my experiences of teaching a young lad to fly, who completed his PPL in two weeks after his birthday. I could not send him solo until his birthday, thats the rules, even though he was more than to the standard. If the LAA sets 1000 hours SEP as the standard then that's how it is, if people don't like it then its always worth putting forward a case for change (as members)

[Peter Gristwood]

IIRC there is also another element that the LAA uses to decide whether a candidate for Coach status is being considered and that is the number required in a specific area or region. I'm not sure if Jon Cooke uses a formula to work out the demand, but I guess if there is a fair number already, then they probably don't need to recruit new ones.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ah well GEP, you definitely come up against my ego there.

As a young gingerbeer, I was a bit of an early starter (O levels at 14, degree at 20, CEng at 25) and it was a regularly easy way to get my hackles up saying things like "no, you can't do this yet, you're too young", often heard from people older but less qualified than I was. It's something that still gets my goat on occasion (both ways, as I don't like hearing that anybody is too old to do something either).

I've never, myself, been overly fond of minimum age/hours for anything - either somebody's good enough or they're not. But it is an easy way for lazy regulators to save themselves work, in a multitude of environments. This may or may not be such a case.

If LAA is considering "need" in particular areas - so far as I know they didn't say that to me, nor to anybody else we've heard from in this debate. It would be a fair point, but perhaps they should be open about it if using that criterion.

G

[S-Works]

So basically Genghis, you have a very high opinion of your own ability and don't like being told no.

Freud would have a field day..... ;);)

In all of my contact with the Chairman of the PCS I have not once ever found him to be lazy or trying to save himself work. He is a knowledgeable and capable individual who insists on the highest standards for the PCS and gives greatly of his time as a volunteer in order to coordinate it all.

Any LAA member who meets the laid out requirements is able to apply, if you meet those requirements and there is a need for another coach then you stand a chance. If you don't meet the laid out standard and/or there is need need then it's tough luck. But really it's not grounds for lambasting the system just because it bruises your ego a little!!!

Its how the real world actually works!!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Correct on all points Bose. Or at-least, I'd like to have had my ability assessed, and was grumpy that a "wrong" mix of hours prevented that.

As I've said several times, I firmly believe that the LAA coaching scheme is a Good Thing, and populated by excellent people.

I wanted a shot at becoming/demonstrating that I could become one of those excellent people, but wasn't allowed because I didn't tick the right boxes on experience yet. This annoyed me, but I'll get over it, and if I'm not too busy and still flying such aeroplanes (which I probably will be) when I tick the right boxes I may re-apply.

Other people have said similar things, I was just more vocal. Presumably other people were just turned down and went off to do something else and haven't posted here.

I've not "lambasted the system", I've said repeatedly that it's an excellent system, but that I personally felt that in one area it was being a bit inflexible and that this affected me personally. I have tried about 3 times to just say "okay, I'll leave it now and just go and do other stuff", but people do keep prodding and I then have the choice to either respond and seem bloodyminded, or appear to be rudely sulking in the corner.

G

[S-Works]

I am just prodding you out of mischief to see how high you rise to the bait.... ;)

The lambasting comment was target less, just an observation.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Fair enough, it's a Monday, and a good argument about flight training beats the paperwork I'm otherwise knee-deep in.

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

I've worked it out G, the reason for the rejection by the LAA is simple, it's nothing to do with the lack of hours - you failed to wear the correct tie for the suit when you filled the form in.

;)

Pre-edited for spelling mistakes and wrong assumptions

[Genghis the Engineer]

Worse, I suspect that I wasn't wearing a tie at-all at the time. The front cover of most issues of Light Aviation shows clearly that you should be wearing a tie for all purposes, particularly flying light aeroplanes.

G