PFA / BMAA Hot Rumour

[912ul]

Heard a snippet from my buddy at Gatwick that the CAA are non too happy about the departure of the BMAA CTO and the lack of suitable engineering expertise at the BMAA.
Rumour has it that BMAA will be faced with two stark choices if they do not find a suitable candidate in quite short order - submit to CAA for ALL Permit and Mod issues or go cap in hand to PFA.
Who knows what the BMAA may choose to do, but if it comes down to purely money then the merger of the BMAA and PFA may come by default rather than intent.

[dublinpilot]

One has to wonder where this rumour started, and who's interest it was in, to start it!

[Confabulous]

In my opinion it makes some sense to merge the PFA and BMAA - I always wondered why there needed to be two 'authorities' to oversee microlight certification and maintenance. The BMAA has indeed lost a lot of expertise with the departure of the CTO, by all accounts he's extremely experienced and capable, however there's got to be someone who can jump in to his BMAA boots! Besides, the CTO is not leaving until November, so I think this rumour is a non-starter

That said, apparently the BMAA board recently voted down a fees increase to bring it up to full capability - strange when you think of how much people spend on building or buying a microlight, you'd think they'd want the best service possible, skimping on the pennies doesn't make a lot of sense and I'm sure BMAA members would have sanctioned the increase readily. I doubt the CAA would get involved in merging the two entities, as it has far too much to do as it is - that's why it farmed it all out to the PFA in the first place.

Now if only Ireland would follow suit...

[bar shaker]

Some rumours should be heard and not repeated, for fear of looking stupid.

The BMAA has two other people who are CAA authorised signatories, that it can call on if required in an interim situation. It also has a very capable ACTO in the shape of Jon Viner, who would almost certainly become a signatory, if he applied for the power.

There are many other people out there who are more that capable of doing the job and who may apply when the job is advertised.

There are stark differences between the BMAA and the PFA. The PFA only started doing microlights when manufacturers of microlight and VLA aircraft asked them to, so keeping the aircraft under one authority. The PFA have recently applied to look after factory built microlights and this has always been the preserve of the BMAA. As a result, the BMAA recently ballotted its members and as a result have applied to look after VLA versions of microlights.

Whilst this has leveled the playing field between the two organistations with regard to revenue streams, the membership is greatly contrasted. The PFA has a high number of non aircraft owning members and of serial builders. The BMAA has a virtually no members who do not own aircraft and the vasy majority own factory built, or factory kit aircraft. There are probably less than 10 plans built owners in the BMAA.

The final difference is that a high percentage of BMAA members are flexwing owners. Francis may correct me, but I understand he is not interested in looking after flexwings. Of course, he may become interested in them in the future.

Because of the disparity of fee income (one off builds v factory kits), even combining the Engineering depts, let alone the entire organisations would need some serious head scratching on income allocation. Of this thorny subject, the bigest stumbling block would be that the BMAA work with open source information and work for no profit. The PFA will only handle a mod if they assume ownership of the copyright for the mod and then have the right to make money out of future copies. Despite this, the PFA have made eye watering financial losses in the last two years.

The two organisations are good at looking after their core members aircraft and whilst there are many areas where co-operation would benefit all, I believe that they should both stick to what they are good at.


Confab

It was me that proposed a high increase in fees for BMAA home builders and it was defeated for a smaller increase (albeit still 400%) by the members at the AGM, not by the Council. This will be reviewed at the next AGM in December.

Both the BMAA and the PFA subsidise their eng depts with membership subscriptions.

[912ul]

Confab.

Your observations probably reflect a view shared by 99.99% of everyone in aviation apart from microlight pilots.

Bar Shakers post full of bravado and spin as it is surely reflects the dire position of the BMAA unless they can come up with a suitable CTO pretty quickly. He probably actually believes much of what he has written and can neither imagine nor believe that the BMAA's existence depends entirely on satisfying the CAA, not those on this forum.

One point in Bar Shakers post though probably does add to the credibility of the rumour and that is of a shortage of engineering funding. If the BMAA were short on engineering support before the CTO resigned then I imagine the CAA would be most concerned now that he has gone / is leaving and the BMAA not providing necessary funds to ensure adequate and suitably qualified cover for such a large fleet of aircraft.

Just a thought..............

Technically, what would be the effect of the CAA pulling the plug on the BMAA Permit remit? Would all Permits have to be CAA Permits? I suppose they would until such time as the PFA could demonstrate suitable proficiency on type and then BMAA Members would have a choice of PFA Permit or CAA Permit.

[bar shaker]

912UL

Not wishing to let the facts get in the way of a good rumour...

The BMAA Tech Office is sufficiently well funded that it has already been advertising for a third engineer. This is partly to cope with an increased number of kit builders and partly to progress its plans to handle VLA aircraft.

The BMAA has made a profit every year in recent years and now has considerable financial reserves. The PFA has lost over £130k in the last two years. Which organisation do you consider to be in better financial health?

Permits are not handled by the Tech Office, they are carried out by the Inspector and Check Pilot network. A temporary shortage of CTO would not stop anyone in the BMAA from having their permit renewed.

[912ul]

<<Not wishing to let the facts get in the way of a good rumour...

A temporary shortage of CTO would not stop anyone in the BMAA from having their permit renewed.>>

I guess 'temporary' is the key word, then again if it were more than temporary there would not just be Permit issues to worry about.

As a matter of interest Bar Shaker I am interested to know if you speak with authority? I presume by your name that you fly microlights and you certainly seem to be 'one of the troops' as your support for the cause is evident - but are you in a priviliged position within the BMAA EC or even perhaps a paid employee? I am just interested that's all.

I admit that my snippet came from a source within the CAA and is a third party story which cannot be relied on in a Court of Law, it also came last night after the downing of very many pints with my source (friend!!) whom I have not set eyes on for many years.

I will tell you, however unqualified it may be that I am led to believe that there are some pretty p****d off people at the CAA who have had it with maverick microlight types and it was the former CTO who maintained a dignified and mutually respectful relationship with the CAA which some at the BMAA were positively hostile to.

I am not making a case, simply passing on a rumour which from passing observation would seem to have some merit. This is after all a 'rumour' bulletin board so where better than to share it. If you are a BMAA EC Member or employee and can refute it - go ahead and refute it. If like me you are passing on conjecture then we will never know if the rumour has any merit or not.

Incidentally, I think PFA Members (myself included) would be equally alarmed if this rumour had merit not least because of a potential increase on our already stretched engineering side.

It's nice to pass on rumour though isn't it - I once heard a rumour that Walter Smith would one day manage Scotland and at the time you could get 25:1 on it.

[Seroxat]

As a PFA AND BMAA member I have to say that the PFA know absolutely sod all about microlighting.

Their technical office has the worst record for customer service that I have ever experienced. The real misfortune is that I can only base this on personal experience of the PFA, since I am unfortunate in that I fly a PFA administered microlight.

PFA microlights are more to do with has- been pilots who cannot reach the required medical standard for PPL pilots and who need an easy way around the problem so that they can carry on wearing their 5 bar epaullettes with pride while they whittle away at their stick building rather than flying.

The PFA will never understand the true meaning of 'microlight' which has bugger all to do with some pre set technical definition but is everything to do with a particular mindset which I really admire.

Don't write off the BMAA yet.

[Jodelman]

"The BMAA has two other people who are CAA authorised signatories"


Are you sure?? I think you will find that the BMAA exposition from the CAA allows only the CTO to be a signatory.

The position is similar in the PFA.

[shortstripper]

Sexorat,

That's a pretty damning post and it's a pretty shameful way to look at any of the amateur associations. I have been a PFA member for over 20 years and have also been a member of the BGA and BMAA. I am very much into the "grass roots" type of flying and to be honest find the "lower" end (for want of a better description) of the PFA to be full of real characters and real fun flying. A single seat PFA type such as a VP1 or FRED is about as fun and as cheap as it gets, even microlights struggle to compare. I have met microlight pilots with huge egos and VERY expensive kit; just as I have met similar PFA pilots ... they even exist in the BGA! I have also met some really great microlight, PFA and glider pilots ... and the price or technical flavour of their aircraft had no relevance.

Let's stop knocking each other and al try to get along. The PFA have just relocated their whole HQ so you'd expect things to take a while to get back up to speed. That said, our last permit renewal was returned two days after it was submitted ... pretty slick I reckon!

SS

[Flyin'Dutch']

I understand a prominent BMAA member is standing for a post on the Executive Committee of the PFA.

No doubt the start of an invasion/take-over!

:}

Read all about it on the PFA bulletin board.

I know nuffink about the PFA/BMAA relationship but from the outside it seems that there are tensions which may well be detrimental to having a harmonious co-existense.

[muffin]

Their technical office has the worst record for customer service that I have ever experienced. The real misfortune is that I can only base this on personal experience of the PFA, since I am unfortunate in that I fly a PFA administered microlight.

I agree 100% with this. I have never had the misfortune to deal with any other organisation that is so unresponsive and badly run. If my company were to provide such abysmal customer service we would have gone to the wall years ago.

[stiknruda]

Their technical office has the worst record for customer service that I have ever experienced. The real misfortune is that I can only base this on personal experience of the PFA, since I am unfortunate in that I fly a PFA administered microlight.

I built from plans a Pitts in the late nineties and found PFA Engineering to be very helpful. I do concede that their turnaround times could have been improved but on the whole it was far easier doing business with them than it is with my ISP, an organization that has competition!


Stik

[VP959]

Good to see a bit of scurrilous rumour spreading 912UL......

Anyone who knows what's what (and certainly the SRG at the CAA) will already know that the other engineer in the BMAA tech office has been approved by the CAA for much of the work already over the past year or so, so there would not seem to be much of a crisis looming at all, just the normal ebb and flow of staff as one might expect.

For what it's worth, I hope that the BMAA get themselves a good, pragmatic engineer as CTO, one who displays common sense and who fully understands the real nuts and bolts of very light aircraft engineering. I very sincerely hope that the BMAA don't opt for a highly qualified theoretician, with aspirations to make very simple aircraft complex.

The PFA made a good choice with their Chief Engineer, an eminently sensible and down to earth fellow. Shame they felt the need to disempower him by appointing a manager who seems to want to run the engineering show as a profit making business with no time for one-off home builders.

Best thing would be to merge the two engineering/technical offices into a single, approved, not for profit, service company for any light aircraft organisation to use. All this daft competition stuff being bandied about will cause the demise of both, in my view.

[Seroxat]

912UL states "I am led to believe that there are some pretty p****d off people at the CAA who have had it with maverick microlight types"

I assume these p****d off people have some kind of definition of 'maverick microlight types'..............or did you just make it all up to stir up a bit of nonsense on the forum??

Shortstripper...you are correct and I do apologise for the tone of my post . I know that from the pilots point of view at the 'lower end' as you describe it, the flying mindset is much the same as at the lower end of the microlight scale. I totally agree with you about ego's in certain microlight pilots.

My problem is with the PFA "organisation" and the EC in particular who are so far away from the grass roots people who we relate to that they are barely on the same planet.

Permit turnaround is no judge of quality as both the PFA and BMAA have turned around permits within two days for me. I made numerous phone calls, sent letters, and emailed Francis Donaldson without reply because I was told by PFA engineering that he was the only person who could deal with my query about a VNE change. When I eventually received a reply - it was too far down the line for me to act on it.

Seroxat

[bar shaker]

FD

Keith Negal is standing to hopefully show the PFA EC that its members do want them to exploit areas where co-operation is mutually beneficial. There is a long thread on the PFA bulletin board about this and I don't want to start another one. All I will say is that I have known Keith for some time and he is a good man, with good intentions.

912UL

I am not on the BMAA Council nor am I an employee. That does not mean that I am not well informed by those that do hold such positions.

Have you considered how your "rumour" may turn out if a senior member of PFA Eng Dept were to apply for the BMAA CTO job?

Don't write off the BMAA just yet.

[912ul]

Interesting stuff Bar Shaker.

I had a nosey around your microlight chat group last night and notice that a couple of people are suggesting - as you appear to be - that Francis Donaldson might be jumping from the 'sinking ship' of the PFA? - Now that is a rumour worth exploring, but allow me to take a dose of imagination drugs first, in case logic prevents me seriously considering it.
I also happened to notice a couple of contradictions to statements you made on your posts here regarding signatories and Permit issues. Jodelman already highlighted your error about signatories and a post on your chat group referred also to Permit issues only being delegated as a result of the exposition which is in place in the name of the CTO. No big deal Bar Shaker really, I admit that I have posted a snippet of information (rumour) but which has all the hallmarks (to me) of being true, when you post your 'facts' you could perhaps consider pointing out that the facts you state are not actually verified. Full marks though for your enthusiasm and dedication to the cause.

Sexorat
<<912UL states "I am led to believe that there are some pretty p****d off people at the CAA who have had it with maverick microlight types"

I assume these p****d off people have some kind of definition of 'maverick microlight types'..............or did you just make it all up to stir up a bit of nonsense on the forum?? >>

I refer you to your earlier post - re - maverick types............

<<The PFA will never understand the true meaning of 'microlight' which has bugger all to do with some pre set technical definition but is everything to do with a particular mindset which I really admire.>>

VP959

<< Best thing would be to merge the two engineering/technical offices into a single, approved, not for profit, service company for any light aircraft organisation to use. All this daft competition stuff being bandied about will cause the demise of both, in my view.>>

Very perceptive VP959 - there are those in the CAA now who see the BMAA CTO departure as an opportune time to pressurise the two Organisations to do just this. It makes life much easier for the CAA and will probably make life easier for the respective Members as well. Though I can imagine much blood will be spilled on the way as Sexorat, Bar Shaker and other radicals will fight off the perceived threat of change and loss of identity.

Incidentally, my mate was somewhat sheepish yeterday after spilling the beans especially when he saw this post on here but he has not retracted anything he told me.

[bar shaker]

I had a nosey around your microlight chat group last night and notice that a couple of people are suggesting - as you appear to be - that Francis Donaldson might be jumping from the 'sinking ship' of the PFA? - Now that is a rumour worth exploring, but allow me to take a dose of imagination drugs first, in case logic prevents me seriously considering it. I also happened to notice a couple of contradictions to statements you made on your posts here regarding signatories and Permit issues. Jodelman already highlighted your error about signatories and a post on your chat group referred also to Permit issues only being delegated as a result of the exposition which is in place in the name of the CTO. No big deal Bar Shaker really, I admit that I have posted a snippet of information (rumour) but which has all the hallmarks (to me) of being true, when you post your 'facts' you could perhaps consider pointing out that the facts you state are not actually verified. Full marks though for your enthusiasm and dedication to the cause.



912UL it seems that you will search out any post, anywhere, whether informed, correct or otherwise to support your view and use it as supporting evidence. Whilst it is clear you have an agenda, it is also clear that you know nothing of the workings of the BMAA, of its history or of the succesion plans that its CEO has in place.

As such, there is no point trying to debate this further with you.

[912ul]

Bar Shaker

<<912UL it seems that you will search out any post, anywhere, whether informed, correct or otherwise to support your view and use it as supporting evidence.>>

As you know, I looked at and reported from your microlight chat group - is that not a good place to look?

I haven't attacked you, nor have I belittled you during this exchange but your defensive and personal responses are typical of the bombastic attitude that is very evident on the microlight chat group.

Why get personal?
Why respond with untrue supporting 'facts' that do nothing but re-inforce the perception that you are on the defensive?

However little I know of the workings of the BMAA I did know about the CAA exposition applying to all aspects of BMAA engineering. You seemingly either did not know this or you chose to make a claim denying it which on a forum such as this is a be a bit of a dangerous tactic when there is so much knowledge around.

[VP959]

Bit of selective editing there, 912UL.

I also pointed out that the DCTO at the BMAA was already partially approved by the CAA and is already deemed to be a "suitable person" as far as the CAA are concerned, as I understand it.

As such, the rumour of impending doom is somewhat exaggerated, I fear.

Back when the BMAA only had one engineer in the office, in the late 90's, they lost him and worked OK without a CTO at all for 9 months. I don't seem to recall the PFA rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of "taking over" back then...............