PDA

View Full Version : LAA to take aircraft up to 5 seats / 450hp


Rod1
5th Jan 2010, 10:46
The CAA are supporting a proposal to extend the range of aircraft eligible for an LAA permit to include aircraft up to 2000kg, 300mph, 450hp and 5 seats! This would include things like the Yak 52. Aircraft with a c of a will have to stay, for now at least, but CAA permit types will be able to transfer.

Rod1

Saab Dastard
5th Jan 2010, 11:54
to include aircraft up to 200kg

Should that be 2000Kg?

SD

Rod1
5th Jan 2010, 12:07
Yes :suspect:

Rod1

peter272
5th Jan 2010, 12:47
Rod1

Have you got a reference for the original proposal? Is this part of the EASA agenda?

Peter

Rod1
5th Jan 2010, 13:20
No ref as far as EASA is concerned; I am quoting from the LAA mag. Looks to me like the CAA want to pass its annex ll aircraft over to the LAA, but that is just a guess.

Rod1

peter272
5th Jan 2010, 13:37
From my limited knowledge, the CAA have been keen to dump the low-end on to the LAA for some time. I'd guess we'd need to see if money and staffing go with it, as the LAA is strapped for cash.

A move from Turweston to the Belgrano perhaps?

tmmorris
5th Jan 2010, 14:59
IFR?

No, I suspected not.

I'm not going to LAA-laa land until we have LAA aircraft doing IFR.

Tim

BossEyed
5th Jan 2010, 16:25
There is currently work going on in that direction Tim (and night, of course).

For example, Steve Noujaim's article in one of the mags a few months ago (about his Cape Record attempt in a G reg RV-7) mentioned that he was getting positive vibes and guidance from the CAA on this.

I know nothing personally, but I'm hoping for a lifting of the curtain soon on the work evidently being done on this.

Genghis the Engineer
5th Jan 2010, 16:34
CAA have always been quite happy for all sorts of Annex II work to move out of the Belgrano.

So, the BMAA took on type approved microlight approvals a few years ago, and LAA have been steadily encroaching on larger and vintage aeroplanes.

All good news so far as I can see - a bigger mass allows the associations to do a better job, and they'll certainly be more competent and user friendly than CAA is capable of being for private owners.

Whilst CAA continues to oversee the associations, which is fair enough - somebody should (although oversight of CAA is sadly lacking since they managed to do away with ARB about a decade ago.)

G

Genghis the Engineer
5th Jan 2010, 16:39
IFR?

No, I suspected not.

I'm not going to LAA-laa land until we have LAA aircraft doing IFR.

Tim

Perhaps they could do with people like you onboard to help make it happen?

I'll predict that it will happen in the next few years - probably subject however to a certified engine and primary flight instruments, and handling assessed to CS.23 standards. None of which should be a major issue for something like a Europa or Vans.

G

robin
5th Jan 2010, 19:14
They will have to bring the low-end certified fleet in as well. It makes absolutely no sense for some of the advanced permit aircraft to be able to fly at night, in IFR etc, when low-end CofA aircraft such as Cubs, Robins etc are stuck with the cost and hassle-factor of EASA/CAA oversight.

Rod1
6th Jan 2010, 08:31
“I'm not going to LAA-laa land until we have LAA aircraft doing IFR.”

It has been amusing to see the excuses for not joining the LAA change over the years. At one time it was “toy aircraft with no range and speed”. The average kit aircraft 15 years ago would out perform a club spamcan, so this stopped. Then it was “only 2 seats, I have to have 4 even if I never use them”. The LAA gained 3 and 4 seaters some time ago. Then it was “you cannot fly over the built up bits”, we got that removed recently. The IFR excuse is being worked on and will follow the other excuses into history. This would of course happen more quickly if you all joined and we had more resources.

Rod1

mmgreve
6th Jan 2010, 11:12
Rod1

You are right, and consequently I 've just joined via the website

Keep up the good work :ok:

steveking
6th Jan 2010, 16:26
Imagine if the RV10 ever got IFR clearance. I'm sure sales would go through the roof.

hatzflyer
7th Jan 2010, 08:46
Its only a matter of time. Better buy it now before the price goes through the roof!

Rod1
8th Jan 2010, 08:35
mmgreve

“I 've just joined via the website”

Good man! Welcome to the LAA. If I can be of any help, drop me a PM.

Now, what about the rest of you…

Rod1

Arclite01
8th Jan 2010, 08:48
If nothing else it's worth joining the LAA just for the Magazine which gets posted to your house !!

Arc

Zulu Alpha
8th Jan 2010, 09:07
I also have to praise the LAA. I posted my aircraft permit renewal at 2pm on a Monday and the permit arrived in the post at 10am Wednesday at a cost of £180.

I also did my biannual flight review with an LAA examiner in his lovely Auster. I put the fuel in his aircraft, made him a cup of tea and paid my £10 (I think) fee to the LAA and my licence was valid for 2 yrs.

The NPPL is brilliant if you only want to fly in the UK (but may be accepted elswhere soon) and as I alredy had a UK PPL all I had to do was get a £10 medical record review from my doctor which is valid for 5 yrs.

Overflight of built up areas is no longer an issue.

Overal the service is quick, reasonably priced and leaves the owner and his LAA inspector in charge. It is the savior of private avaiation as I would have just stopped flying if I had to rent a certified club aircraft in order to fly.

Perhaps the only area they could improve is the speed of approval of modifications and other more complex non standard issues. These can take a while as they are very thorough in their review and always seem to be very busy.

I would encourage people to join and there is a good free magazine which rivals the other publications if you are a member.

DJ

Lister Noble
8th Jan 2010, 09:19
Plus they have reasonable priced good quality clothes (sweashirts etc) with logo;)
Lister:)

jonkil
8th Jan 2010, 12:40
Easy to make excuses why you shouldn't be a member.
I fly all over the UK, Ireland and a good chunk of Europe in a LAA aircraft and on the NPPL licence, no IFR and no mad fees, but then it suits me just fine.

Jon

Genghis the Engineer
8th Jan 2010, 13:28
To be fair, the UK has too many organisations and you can't join all of them.

Personally I'm a member of LAA, BMAA and RAeS: I could of-course join AOPA, GAPAN and you could think of a few more as well and it's easy to criticise people who belong to the wrong list of associations.

Personally, I think that we should all join and engage with at-least one of the national bodies, but be patient if not everybody joins our own favourite.

G

Cows getting bigger
8th Jan 2010, 13:40
Reading this thread, if the LAA becomes much more popular it will have to be called the Popular Flying Association. :)

PS. LAA member who thoroughly endorses all the previous good words.

hatzflyer
8th Jan 2010, 13:50
very droll perhaps we should ask for a name change!

The B Word
8th Jan 2010, 18:08
I've been a member of PFA/LAA for the past 9 years - a fantastic organisation :ok:

Even better when it moved down the road to Turweston and started doing the "old style" Rally (IMHO).

The B Word (an LAA fan)

bertdeleporte
8th Jan 2010, 19:43
Even Froggies are LAA Members;);););););););););)

As new owner of a PtF Smyth-Sidewinder (G BRVH), I'm very glad of the services provided by the Association....As mentioned, the monthly LAA Magazine is very pleasant to read: small aircrafts, personnal histories, excellent technical subjects, excellent updates of the regulations (EASA / airspace) issues...


Join, Join, Join!!!!!!

Bertrand

RVAviator
9th Jan 2010, 14:53
Wow, What a change to see so many positive remarks for an organisation that does its upmost to keep GA alive in this country.

No one organisation can be perfect all the time, but with the limitations that are imposed on the aviation community in this country by the so called safety minded members of the EU, the LAA shouts load and clear to ensure we survive.

Well done to all and keep up this brillient PR broadcast to encourage as many people to join and strengthen what is a fantastic community.:ok:

Genghis the Engineer
9th Jan 2010, 15:14
Wow, What a change to see so many positive remarks for an organisation that does its upmost to keep GA alive in this country.

No one organisation can be perfect all the time, but with the limitations that are imposed on the aviation community in this country by the so called safety minded members of the EU, the LAA shouts load and clear to ensure we survive.

Well done to all and keep up this brillient PR broadcast to encourage as many people to join and strengthen what is a fantastic community.:ok:

A change?

I'd say that all three of our main sport flying organisations consistently do an excellent job, and don't attract much criticism.

The main problem is probably of people who take them for granted, rather than join and help their work. That and, to some extent, the people who forget that LAA isn't the only one of the three doing all this work.

G

RVAviator
9th Jan 2010, 15:26
Genghis,

totally agree with you. On this occasion I was shouting on behalf of the LAA, but you are quite right they are not the only ones doing good work on behalf of the lighter avaition community on this country.

As for criticism, I hear quite a bit that is negative and it sadens me to think that these individuals are all too happy to take what they can and criticise accordingly without a single thought of the organisations themselves and the good work they do, but also the good work put in by individuals free of charge to ensure the survival and upkeep of the flying community.:ok:

Zulu Alpha
9th Jan 2010, 17:20
Who are the other two?

ZA

Rod1
9th Jan 2010, 17:52
The BMAA would be next as far as the lighter side is concerned...

Rod1

tmmorris
9th Jan 2010, 17:59
I'm not sure I need an excuse not to belong to something just because you all do :\

Seriously, there is a bit of an overload. I'm an AOPA member - I joined because of the wings scheme (even though I never quite seem to make it to Gold) - and I have nothing particularly against the LAA as such - it's more that I visit the US regularly and read some of the experimental aircraft magazines and am regularly frustrated by the lack of IFR and night privileges which make no regulatory sense.

Tim

Genghis the Engineer
9th Jan 2010, 19:01
Who are the other two?

ZA

LAA: 8,000ish members, 2,500ish light, vintage and microlight aeroplanes
BMAA: 4,500ish members, 3,500ish microlight aeroplanes
BGA: lots of members (not sure how many): 3,000ish gliders


(To be fair, there are also BBAC, BPA, BHPA, BRA - but I'm sticking to talking about things roughly aeroplane shaped.)

G

Rod1
9th Jan 2010, 19:31
“LAA: 8,000ish members, 2,500ish light, vintage and microlight aeroplanes”

The LAA also has just fewer than 2000 aircraft projects on the go.

Rod1

A_Pommie
9th Jan 2010, 19:34
Tim

I while you are free to not join your logic escapes me.
You are frustrated by the lack of night and IFR for permit aircraft so you haven't joined the one UK organisation that is actively fighting for those priveleges?

eharding
9th Jan 2010, 20:14
The CAA are supporting a proposal to extend the range of aircraft eligible for an LAA permit to include aircraft up to 2000kg, 300mph, 450hp and 5 seats! This would include things like the Yak 52. Aircraft with a c of a will have to stay, for now at least, but CAA permit types will be able to transfer.

Rod1

Without wanting to wee on anyone's parade, I would caution against breaking open the champagne and celebrating the fact that Yak-52 maintenance costs will drop to those of, say a Pitts S1, if this change of circumstances occurs.

Having until recently been part of both an LAA Permit Pitts S1 syndicate, and a Yak-52 syndicate - getting on for 5 and 6 years respectively - I have a modicum of insight into the engineering requirements of each. I sold my share in the Pitts partly - only partly - because it became clear that when the 50 hour checks and annual came around, it was largely muggins who spent a day or so rolling around on the floor in a Waltham hangar before and after the event spannering the bloody thing. I grant you that the major reason for selling the Pitts was that as a result of the excellent cuisine at Waltham, the most stressful part of any flight was getting in and out of it. I remain a member of the Yak syndicate - the seating arrangements are more than ample.

Regardless - a Pitts, RV, Cub or any of the other airframes currently operating on LAA Permits are a far cry from a Yak-52, which possesses some complex, arcane and downright odd systems, the spannering of which I personally would not undertake in a month of Sundays. A look at the toolkit which comes with a Yak-52 should be evidence enough - I can identify the purpose of about 10% of the contents of ours - the set of weapons-grade spanners and the great-big-sod-off hammer. The rest of the implements, frankly frightening pieces of metal worthy of Torquemada himself, have no clearly identifiable purpose, but the fact the Soviets decided they'd be a good thing to have in a field toolkit - they weren't given to whimsy in these affairs - is another indication that there are things in a Yak-52 the fertling with of which is best left to those qualified in the appropriate fertling art, and those wise in the ways of such fertling are thin on the ground.

Obviously, some relaxation of the frankly ludicrously short mandated official lifetimes of some components would be more than welcome, as would a migration to paperwork oversight by the LAA - because they're nice people at the end of the day, and understand we're just operating the aircraft for fun, a concept which the CAA Permit-to-Fly infrastructure has never really understood.

Whatever changes occur, I suspect the same people who spanner Yaks today will be those who maintain them after the change of arrangements, and they'll be paid to do it - and I have, generally, no problem with that.

tmmorris
10th Jan 2010, 15:08
A Pommie,

You may have a point there. Not being a LAA member I didn't know it was an active campaign with a chance of success - I'd not seen that reported anywhere.

I'll take a look. But I wonder if I can justify AOPA membership as well... the latter costs me an hour's flying a year as it is...

Tim

Twiddle
24th Jan 2010, 12:00
Any likely candidates for the 5 seaters?

Phil Space
24th Jan 2010, 12:47
Rapide:confused:

mmgreve
24th Jan 2010, 13:42
Velocity XL :ok:

Twiddle
24th Jan 2010, 15:04
Website says that the Velocity XL is a 4 seater?

gasax
24th Jan 2010, 17:04
Do n't break out the champagne yet regarding 4-5 seaters. Remember that the PFA as it then was negotiated a set of requirements for 4 seaters on permits. From memort this included the use of a certified design or one full approved or compliant with JAR23, certified engines and many of the other components.

So many of the potenital 'permit advantages' do not exist if you have more than 2 seats.

Having said that the inclusion of Yaks and the like on LAA permits will, much like the Austers, allow the use of sensible spares rather than those which someone has written a JAR 1 for and decided to increase the cost by 4 to 10 times.

Would a Yak be cheaper on an LAA permit? Undoubtedly, if only because of spares issues. As for them being complicated? It is only a pneumatic system so actually pretty straignt forward. And best of all these aircraft were actually meant to be maintained by 'everyman' so they have proper manuals and tools.

Things are certainly becoming interesting! What will become of non-permit, non-ELA1 'light aircraft'?

mmgreve
24th Jan 2010, 17:04
Yes, to be very precise, the Velocity XL is a 4 seater, while the Velocity XL-5 is a 5 seater ! I shall remember to be more precise in the future :)

It is an interesting piece of kit I think, but maybe less suited for the short grass runways of Europe.....and I am not sure about that central stick,

more info:
Velocity Aircraft (http://www.velocityaircraft.com/airplane-models-xl5.html)

oh, and they are apparently planning to do a six seat turbo-prop, that looks like a scaled down version of a Piaggio Avanti

Twiddle
24th Jan 2010, 19:53
Sorry, googled and got lazy! I should have looked at their site, thanks for the pointer.