LAA CEO Good Value?

[Winco Wobble]

The CEO of the Light Aircraft Association is currently at the European Gliding Championships, on full pay, not on holiday. He says he can run the association by email in his spare time? Do the members know about this (or care?). Seems to me that this isn't a great thing at a time when we all need to tighten our belts! With around a million pound turnover, one wonders whether we need an expensive and absent CEO! What do we think? And NO, I won't give my name as he has also shown a very vindictive streak, feeling he can expel a member for making adverse comments!

[A and C]

I think you should stand up or shut up.

It is very easy to snipe from an internet forum when you can't be seen.

Are you a man or a mouse?

[stickandrudderman]

I think anonymity in this case is entirely reasonable.

[robin]

If you are an owner of a Permit aircraft required to be a member of the LAA, does that mean, by being expelled as a member, you can no longer operate your aircraft?

[XXPLOD]

What is his salary?

[eharding]

The CEO of the Light Aircraft Association is currently at the European Gliding Championships, on full pay, not on holiday. He says he can run the association by email in his spare time? Do the members know about this (or care?). Seems to me that this isn't a great thing at a time when we all need to tighten our belts! With around a million pound turnover, one wonders whether we need an expensive and absent CEO! What do we think? And NO, I won't give my name as he has also shown a very vindictive streak, feeling he can expel a member for making adverse comments!

Ah, but if you post under your own name, you would have a thousand strong following you, equally happy to be crucified (inverted) along the road to Turweston, all proclaiming "I'm WincoWobblicus"

Or maybe, probably, not.

Personally, I assume the CEO of our sport aviation organisation is out there, networking with the good and great of other European sport aviation organisations, trying to stop sport aviation being ground into the dust by the heel of some random, uninformed, European legislative jackboot.

So, what's your problem?

[Fitter2]

Another question, in the spirit (but not in agreement) with the original post.

Who would you rather have as CEO of a popular aviation body - an active pilot at the top level of his game (and other related activities) and who has also built up a successful business to the point he can afford to give it up in the interests of furthering aviation, or a politicking blazer and tie wearing chap who enjoys a good jolly to foreign conferences?

I have met both types in the furtherance of aviation, and I know which I prefer.

[Heliport]

PPRuNe has always allowed people to post anonymously and almost everyone does so. There is no reason why Winco should reveal his ID.


Surely it's not unreasonable for a member of an association to query how much its CEO is paid, and how the income from membership fees is spent, especially in these harsh economic times?

Not that harsh economic times affect everyone.
Earlier this year the (previous) government appointed a new Chairman of the CAA on an initial salary of £130,000 for a 2-day week. That's the equivalent of £325,000 per annum - about double the Prime Minister's salary. She has no previous experience whatsoever of aviation.

.

[Rod1]

“If you are an owner of a Permit aircraft required to be a member of the LAA, does that mean, by being expelled as a member, you can no longer operate your aircraft?”

In most cases yes. But the LAA has never done this (yet?:}).

Rod1

[BackPacker]

If you are an owner of a Permit aircraft required to be a member of the LAA, does that mean, by being expelled as a member, you can no longer operate your aircraft?

I can't imagine that the CAA would defer the issuing of Permits To Fly *exclusively* to a private organization that has no formal public oversight but has the ability to expel their members for being, well, critical of the organization.

So if you do end up with a disagreement with the LAA that leads to your termination of membership, there has to be an alternative. And that alternative is probably the CAA itself. Less convenient and more costly, but you'd still be able to fly the aircraft.

Heck, even in communist countries you had the option of not becoming a party member.

[IO540]

does that mean, by being expelled as a member, you can no longer operate your aircraft?”

In most cases yesI think that little piece deserves a little more publicity....

It is totally unbelievable.

I got booted out of the Socata owners group (a website owned by one man who tightly controls it) primarily for repeatedly speaking out on certain avionics manufacturers' design defects which could have serious safety aspects. Luckily this had no consequence whatsoever. But if they had the power to stop me flying I would not have touched them with a 20ft bargepole in the first place.

[Winco Wobble]

A & C (isn't that anonymous too?) - I'm definitely a man, but as one involved with LAA stuff I have very valid reason to keep under the radar.

This post was intended to raise awareness of a situation that I and almost anyone else aware of it find unacceptable. As for suggesting our CEO had built up a successful business but had given it up for this flying oriented job, evidence doesn't suggest this is entirely true. Not the issue here really.

We have a senior officer of a small company, who feels it's fine to bugger off for three weeks on full pay to take part in the gliding championships. Gliding does not come in the LAA remit, it's his HOBBY! He fails to respond to inquiries or emails as naturally his attention is totally focussed on his gliding - you can't run a business from your hotel room in an evening!

He should at least accept unpaid leave, or indeed take his paid leave to indulge in his hobby. The LAA is a business of around ten staff members who all have to pull their weight, not some corporate conglomerate.

I think it's time we as members were shown plainly what our CEO actually does, and that some measure of his performance now he's been in the saddle for two years or so be put in place.

I can tell you that if this post was made on the LAA website it would have been censored by now!

[Planemike]

I think you should stand up or shut up.
Why??

It is very easy to snipe from an internet forum when you can't be seen.
Not seen any "sniping". Seem like reasonable questions and fair comment. If WW is a LAA member, he is entitled to an opinion and is also entitled to express it. Wonder where WW's information came from?

Planemike

[BackPacker]

I can tell you that if this post was made on the LAA website it would have been censored by now!

Actually if you have a legitimate reason to question some policy within the LAA, and you're not using rude language or anything, I can't see how they could censor it without getting in some very muddy water.

And if they would censor it, that's something I would definitely bring up at the earliest all-member meeting. In fact, there should be a procedure for calling an all-member meeting if you have X members' signatures, without needing the approval or help from the board of directors.

On the other hand - A typical CEO of a typical company is paid a fixed amount per year (plus possibly a bonus) to get a job done. He's not on the clock where his yearly job is automatically and magically done after spending 47 weeks of 40 hours (mo-fr 9-5). In that respect the whole concept of "vacation days" becomes a bit blurred and in fact I know a few companies who stopped using that concept altogether for their upper management. The company simply does not care how many (or few) vacation days you take, as long as the job is being done. And that has never stopped these execs from being away from the company for three weeks - as long as they make sure that arrangements are in place to let the business continue. (Being reachable by e-mail/SMS/phone for urgent matters could be one of those arrangements.)

Quick question: How often does this CEO work evenings and weekends, attending seminars, presentations, meetings, trade shows and whatnot, in his function as CEO of the LAA?

[Fitter2]

And Winco Wobble could at least get his facts right, Peter Harvey is flying in the Open Class WORLD Gliding Championships, not the Europeans.

I know of a number of organisations that give free time off to represent ones country, even when the business is completely unrelated to the activity.

Questioning the salary and value for money of the organistion is, of course, completely legitimate. That is normally what AGMs are for....

[mrpinks]

Actually if you have a legitimate reason to question some policy within the LAA, and you're not using rude language or anything, I can't see how they could censor it without getting in some very muddy water.
They own it their rules simples
You are not allowed to post on the LAA website without being a member of the LAA and signing your full name to every post you make. One reason I suspect that it is pretty much dead. If you look, most posts receive no replies.
Also what about internet safety/security, I wouldn't dream of posting my full real name on an open forum (or facebook for that matter)

[Winco Wobble]

Fitter2 - your posts suggest a bias, based presumably on your relationship with the CEO. Frankly I don't care whether it's the Isle of Wight gliding championship, the facts remain the same; the LAA is a SMALL outfit, turning over just over £1m a year. It has an efficient office manager and a fairly autonomously run Engineering Department which is the heart of the LAA as far as pilot owners/builders are concerned. A fair argument would be "Does the LAA actually NEED a CEO?".

Historically, the PFA had a General Manager, controlled by the Executive Committee. When the last one was fired, Graham Newby was taken on as CEO, but on a low salary (for a CEO) and with little spending powers without approval. That changed of course and Graham (whilst being contentious) did a great deal of good, particularly with regard to the NPPL. Two years down the road in our current incumbent's reign and just WHAT can we attribute to him apart from a bunch of risk averse actions which have devalued our organisation? I'd like to know!

As for asking at the AGM, yes, I think you can be sure a number of very pointed questions will be asked!

[Fitter2]

Hello Winco

I have a bias, and respect for an extremely good glider pilot (and World Class hang-glider before that). No other personal relationship, sorry.

I have, however, no respect for any anonymous poster whose first post on the forum is nasty snide comments, when there are many legitimate avenues to discuss the mattor.

[rusty sparrow]

I don't know about forum rules at the LAA, but their forum is pretty dead. Is it over moderated?

Edit - Oh, I see Mr Pinks has already made this comment. Shows it's an issue. Flying should be exiting, not like some failed allotment society.

[Fitter2]

My flying is often exciting (deliberately), but my wife would prefer it not to be exiting................

[Winco Wobble]

Nothing snide about my comments Fitter2, they are straight questions, asked on here because I reckon we might get some sensible answers. It may be my first post as Winco W, but there's a reason for that as I already stated. Snide would be telling you to spell matter correctly!(not mattor), I'm sure that was a typo and I wouldn't actually stoop to that sort of sniping other than as an example.

I have no doubt that Peter Harvey is a good glider pilot, never questioned it. THAT has no bearing on his ability to run a company. BTW an interesting comment came from a member of the Lasham Gliding Club on his appointment to the PFA (as it was then). That was "Never saw him as a team player, he's always been a loner chasing records" - interesting in the light of his performance in the office ;-)

In any case, there are enough LAA members on here to read this, which was my intention. I do post on here in another guise but don't bother asking who! This has one purpose; to raise a debate which won't be censored on the LAA site (which by the way requires real names to be used)

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've worked in a similar environment, and right now I run an autonomous organisation rather bigger than LAA HQ in Turweston. I also fly. I also have studied quite a lot of management topics.

If you look at the truly successful organisations, very rarely are they successfully run by:

(1) People who work stupidly long hours.
(2) People who don't maintain a good understanding of what their organisation is really about - the classic parachuted in CEOs (such as CAA's !) in other words.

So, we've got a chap here who is running a recreational aviation organisation, and is getting out of the office to go and engage with recreational aviation. Okay, a slightly different sort of flying, but that would worry me much less than to hear that he was a golf obsessive.

If he's doing this on work time rather than leave, then as an LAA member I do feel that's inappropriate. If he's spending every other day out there networking with other European GA organisations however, then I'd not be so worried. Ultimately however, if the LAA is running well, and does appear to be, then that is what really matters, not anybody else's idea of how he should spend his time whilst he's in charge.

Plus it keeps him out of the hair of the man who really runs the LAA, and has done for a couple of decades. :}

G

[Justiciar]

The original post seems to assume quite a lot, none of which is established:

Has the CEO taken this as extra paid holiday
Has he already taken his holiday entitlement, whatever that is?
Has this trip been authorised by the board of directors (or whatever they are called)
Is there any power in the LAA's Articles or rules of membership to expell somone for asking awkward questions?
Has this ever in fact happened
What is to stop our poster from raising this at the AGM as you normally would when the performance of an executive director or chief exec is an issue


whether the LAA needs a CEO is a matter for the directors and ultimately the members as a whole. The fact is that the LAA decided to have one. This is a different issue from whether the incumbent should have gone off gliding for three weeks. I would guess though that having a CEO who is still active in aviation sports may be seen as an advantage and may enable him to speak with more authority that otherwise would be the case.

[Fitter2]

Winco Wobbly wrote
I have no doubt that Peter Harvey is a good glider pilot, never questioned it. THAT has no bearing on his ability to run a company. BTW an interesting comment came from a member of the Lasham Gliding Club on his appointment to the PFA (as it was then). That was "Never saw him as a team player, he's always been a loner chasing records" - interesting in the light of his performance in the office ;-)
I am sure I could get an unattributable derogatory 'quote' on anybody, including yourself.

The 'anonymous Lasham member' obviously never attended, or was part of the organisation of any of the BGA conferences Pete organised.

As a matter of interest, can you list any of the recoirds he 'chased'? I always got the impression that between competitions he was too busy building up a successful company.

(Note to self, stop feeding the troll).

[A and C]

I some one has been expelled from the LAA this is a matter to be raised first with the people who run the LAA and if the answer is not satisfactory then it should be put to the membership in an open way with ALL the facts in public view.

It should not be the subject of cheap shots at the CEO (as said above the post will require a lot of "out of hours" work) on an unrelated issue.

Perhaps you would like to tell us why this guy was expelled from the LAA as you see so keen on this forum as a tool for comment on the LAA's policys.

[englishal]

I think it is acceptible for a member of an organisation to question the CEO's salary when their fees are going to pay it.

It does seem that sometimes when people get into senior positions like this that they can abuse their positions (MPs and expenses for example) for their own personal gain.

But saying that, I understand that in a typical CEO position you don't work 9-5. You work whenever is required and the thing that matters at the end of the day is whether the CEO generates or saves more money than they cost.

[Winco Wobble]

It's not clear from the responses to my post how many of you are actually LAA Members? My purpose was simply to provide information on a known scenario, sadly anonymously (but with good reasons). I wanted to see how people felt about this and if it was unacceptable then no doubt appropriate action would follow.

It's a little sad, but not unexpected that certain of you went for a personal approach in defence of the CEO instead of remaining objective. Others did provide objective criticism which is fine but from my perspective was a little off target in these circumstances.

Winco Wobble will remain anonymous, is totally weatherproof! and will return when there is something to air. Understand though, that WW isn't just a whinger, he actually treads the corridors of the LAA and his information will never be without foundation.

So Fitter2, better start turning over stones for that Troll , he's always hungry :ugh:

[A_Pommie]

One assumes that the CEO of the LAA is a saleried post so he doesn't get paid overtime.
That being the case whenever he atends a NC meeting or other meetings at weekends then it is part of the job.
So I doubt it would take very many months to rack up enough time off in lou to cover a couple of weeks gliding.
Personally as an LAA member I don't really care if only works alternate Thursdays when the moon is full as long as the LAA is doing OK.
Oh and judging from your totally negative attitude you are Welshman AICMP.

[Rod1]

"you are Welshman"

That might be a good guess.

Rod1

[NazgulAir]

Hey, would you please stop insulting Welshmen!
Twll tŷn ayb... os gwelwch yn dda.

[hatzflyer]

Rod did you get PM?

[gasax]

As an LAA member I'm at least interested in this topic.


To answer some of the critics - there is no easy way for ordinary memebers to comunicate between themselves - the LAA forum is impossibly heavily moderated. Emailing or phoning gets a response, yes we have received your **** but usually nothing more.

With a potentially contentious issue like this then Pprune is probably the only obvious medium.


The LAA does some great stuff - but equally there have been some disgraceful episodes. As already displayed in this thread the politics of the organisation can make NuLabour look honourable.

I'll be interested to see a somewhat official explanation - but as with all these things it is extremely unlikely to happen.

[J.A.F.O.]

Is there really anything to explain? The boss of an aviation association goes flying; not much of a headline if you ask me.

[Rod1]

“The boss of an aviation association goes flying; not much of a headline if you ask me.”

I suppose that depends. If a significant number of members of the LAA think it is an issue, then it is an issue, as the LAA is a democratic organisation. For this to happen, the anonymous critics will have to stand up to be counted (or shot:E).

Rod1

[A_Pommie]

The problem with the LAA forum is that it went members only to try and control the ****e and spam that infested it. It also insists on posters using there own names so the oh so brave anonimous warriors all left.
That and only a few members use it so the board an NC think it is irelevant.
Unfortunatly it will remain irelevent until the board and NC take it seriously as a medium. If they took it seriously so would the members and therein lies the problem.
Any way back to the more important issues, wibbly wobbly welshman were's my 5 quid?

[rusty sparrow]

The LAA forum is a window to the organisation. They should get a professional moderator/designer to kick some life into it and get it working as a forum that people go back to because it's informative, fun to use, and makes people feel part of a community. At the moment, it looks amateurish and has nothing to draw people back to it - making it sticky as web designers call it.

I'm an LAA member and used their coaching scheme to get my tailwheel rating - it does a lot of good work. But the forum design and operation lets it down.

[IO540]

It also insists on posters using there own names so the oh so brave anonimous warriors all left.Unfortunately one can't have it both ways.

If you insist on using real names then almost nothing of value will get written. It is an unfortunate characteristic of many human activities that a lot of stuff has political / commercial undertones and a lot of comment that is useful has to impinge on these, and this upsets the axe grinders. Aviation is thick with this stuff.

One can make it a members-only forum but anybody can join (of their own initiative, or by invitation from an existing member who wants to settle a score with another existing member) and read peoples' old (and controversial) postings; I have seen this happen (elsewhere) where somebody representing a business joined up and some existing people were threatened with legal action and all kinds of hassle.

In the long run, most of the regulars will get to know each other anyway but still you won't get anything really "cutting" written by somebody under his real name - unless he has absolutely nothing to lose (which applies to almost nobody).

IMHO the only solution is to allow anon posts but to moderate at a level where personal attacks are stopped. Very few forums get this right. It does require near-constant attendance by the mods, which takes effort. For H24 moderation you need 3-4 people, and while certain professions lend themselves better than others to this, it is damn hard to find 3-4 specimens with a sense of humour ;)

[BFJH]

I am an LAA board member and just thought I'd make comment about the inferences made by several posters that the Association wields the big stick against members who choose to criticise it. Some evidence would be welcome.

I have been actively involved in the Association for over twenty years and know of only one person being excluded for two (maybe three I cannot recall exactly) months. He was an Executive Committee member who deliberately worked against an important, then PFA, initiative and threatened its viability. It is not unreasonable to expect EC, now board members to support board decisions.
The person in question did operate a PFA aircraft and action was taken to ensure that his right to do so was not jeopardised in any way, and he actually re-permitted the aircraft during the course of his suspension. Hardly an act of oppressive vindictiveness I'd suggest.
Regarding the LAA Forum, the view was taken that it does reflect on the Association and sniping posts, many by people who were not even members, did nothing to further the cause of the Association. This forum is somewhat different of course; it is not allied to a particular company of association so comments made on it do not 'attack' the provider of the forum. It can therefore be considered as independent.
Some of you may recall the AAIB comments, in a microlight accident report, about a minority of BMAA members working against the BMAA safety culture, resenting over regulation by CAA and giving the impression that it was OK to break the rules. That view was formed in the main by postings on the BMAA forum and whether or not you agree with the inclusion of those comments in the report (I do not), it is clear that what is written on these forums is read and interpreted by more than a few anonymous people who like the sound of their own voice. If you are independent, like PPrune it doesn't matter, if you are not, like the BMAA and LAA forums, it can have unwelcome consequences.
That is why LAA took the decision to limit the forum to members and to use only real names. The forum now tends to be used by members who seek info on aircraft parts, technical issues, fly-ins etc. It is in the main non controversial, which no doubt is why many on here consider it a waste of time. Personally I take the view that it serves the purpose I want it to serve, there are plenty of independent forums available where anarchy rules, though I put little store in posts made by people who are not prepared to come out from behind the shield of anonymity.
I have no intention of commenting on the original subject matter of this thread. Making a submission to the LAA board, or raising the matter at the LAA AGM is the correct procedure for dealing with such issues.
Brian Hope.

[Rod1]

Brian Hope.

Good post!

Rod1

[Lucy Lastic]

Personally I take the view that it serves the purpose I want it to serve,Hmm. IMHO a touch too safe and boring, but it's your site.

In the Board's shoes, on certain subjects I'd want to know the views of the membership and also, to some extent, the non-members.

If you really want the membership to tell you what they think of the organisation then confidential responses are essential - its what you do when you run a questionnaire, after all. And a confident Board would be able to ignore the sniping and look at the bigger picture.

Making a submission to the LAA board, or raising the matter at the LAA AGM is the correct procedure for dealing with such issues.

I disagree. There is too much recent evidence of decisions being rushed by the Board and then being consulted upon

[Planemike]

Personally I take the view that it serves the purpose I want it to serve,


That maybe fine for YOU but what about other members who may want the LAA to have have an interesting, dynamic, controversial forum which makes you want to go there and take an interest in the association an it workings.


though I put little store in posts made by people who are not prepared to come out from behind the shield of anonymity.



Why? Take an look through a random selection of postings on a few forums, both aviation related and otherwise, and I am sure you find plenty of anonymous postings that are interesting and thought provoking.

As Lucy Lastic says it is the LAA's site so they can have what they want but I think there are more than a few members who would welcome a more interesting site. It is hard to imagine the topic being discussed in this thread being being had on the LAA site or being made very welcome.

If the saying "people vote with their feet" is true, I will leave you to draw your own conclusions about the LAA forum.

Planemike

[A and C]

The thread going off topic a little I think, surely winco wobble's accusations of LAA malpractice are what this was about?

Oh ! no real evidence? What a surprize!

WW in case you are wondering I am an LAA member & inspector.

[robin]

A fair point A&C

But it is noticeable that there is an element of discontent within the LAA. The CEO is the embodiment of the organisation together with the Chairman and Board.

The way I read the thread is that some of the issues that caused WW (or Welshman) to post here may have become personalised. Probably not fair or reasonable, as I know Pete Harvey does work hard for the organisation.

The LAA is an organisation still in transition and there are some members who have never really supported the new direction who are feeling abandoned.

I'm sure Brian and the Board are well aware of this, so I will wait to see how they manage to balance things.

[A and C]

As an inspector I see some of this with the LAA engineering team but this is usualy from people who submit applications for modifications that are never going to be approved on safety grounds. Modifications that are safe and well presented usualy get approved quite quickly.

These frustrations by people who don't fully understand what they are trying to do to their aircraft get amplifide on forums like this and it soon becomes folk lore.

[Steve N]

How do you quote another post on this forum?

Anyway:

Rod1,

WW says he is actively involved with LAA matters and treads the boards of the LAA offices. That is not going to be "Welshman".

Point of order:

If WW feels he must post anonymously or risk excommunication then that is a serious misunderstanding of the way LAA operates. Even though it is now a limited company the CEO still has limited powers and could not remove anyone's membership. Only the EC (now a board of directors) could do that and there are plenty of checks and balances there to stop such a thing happening without a lot of justification not the least BFJH above. Even if the board did so it would then have to justify it to members at the AGM or EGM. and it could be overturned. So WW I see no reason to be anonymous and saying who you are will add credibility to your position.

As for the issue of paid leave that is between a CEO and the board. If the board approved it I trust them to run the organisation how they see fit. I would prefer he was out flying his proper aircraft however ;)

Steve

[n8862v]

I am posting this as a result of looking through the other postings.

I have been a member of the ULA/PFA virtually since its inception in Mr. Ogalvie's and Walker's time in office. I am now only a member, as it is the only way I can obtain a permit renewal for my aircraft. The organisation is now far to commercial and regulatory for my liking. Since the loss of our civil aircraft industrie, previously certified A&C chaps have infiltrated the organisation to its detriment.

[Rod1]

“That maybe fine for YOU but what about other members who may want the LAA to have have an interesting, dynamic, controversial forum”

The people in charge of the LAA had a choice. They could have continued to allow postings to be anonymous and employed moderation to keep control. This would have allowed a huge amount of control of criticism. Instead the decision was taken to only allow people to post under there own names. This has resulted in almost all criticism of the LAA being posted on boards where the LAA have no control at all. I think this was a mistake, but it is the LAA which is the loser.

If I want an opinion on maters LAA (not necessarily criticism) I ask the question on here or flyer. There are more LAA members on either board than on the LAA site.

Rod1

[robin]

Only the EC (now a board of directors) could do that and there are plenty of checks and balances there to stop such a thing happening without a lot of justification not the least BFJH above. Even if the board did so it would then have to justify it to members at the AGM or EGM. and it could be overturned.

Steve

I think if you read the rules, the Board can remove the membership of anyone and that there is no appeal process. Further, the AGM is of no relevance since the change of structure.

11a. Conduct Prejudicial to the LAA
In the event of any member being charged with conduct which the Board may consider prejudicial to the LAA or the Company, the member may be called before the Board and failing an explanation satisfactory to the Board may be cautioned, suspended, required to resign or be expelled as the Board, in their absolute discretion, may determine. Any such decision shall not be subject to challenge.

[BFJH]

I think Robin that you would be hard put to find many organisations without such a rule; it is the ultimate sanction against an out and out troublemaker or crook. The measure of an organisation is how they deal with such situations in reality, and as I said in my original post, in the 20 years I have been involved with PFA/LAA at the sharp end, I have only ever known of one person being suspended for 2 or 3 months.

I think the reality of the more open forum that LAA once had (as PFA back then) was that it was wholly unrepresentative of the membership. There were perhaps 30 regular posters, not all members, expressing generally negative views. It is a sad fact that people that are generally happy with things do not take the time to post that fact, but if somebody had a gripe they could use the forum to tell the world about it. That actually gives a very disjointed view of where the truth actually lies - 30 people against the untold views of the other 8000 members. I'm not saying that the 8000 members were all happy as Larry, but they certainly weren't annoyed enough to post their angst, or were happy enough with the status quo. And let's be honest, in an 8000 member association you are going to piss some people off, either their expectations are unreasonably high, or you fail in your service provision.

LAA was in a no win situation because you do not change those 30 people's minds, if they want to believe that LAA is run by a bunch of egotists with their own agendas, or that the Engineering Dept is being unduly obstructive over their mod, etc., then there's nothing I or anybody else is likely to say that will alter that view. If the site is over moderated you get accused of censorship, if you decide not to waste your time responding you get accused of being arrogant and uncaring about the members' views.

The LAA does have a full time staff, but they have enough to do without responding to the forum, and the rest of us are unpaid volunteers, most of us with a living to earn and, quite frankly, with other more important areas of activity within the Association to take care of. In short, the time spent trying to respond reasonably to the more vociferous and unreasonable posters on the forum was out of all proportion to the benefit.

IMHO having an open forum brings responsibilities to those using it to be fair, truthful and reasonable. Personally, I would not post something I would not say to somebody face to face, but sadly there are those that simply want to court controversy, have a wind up or just make trouble for trouble's sake. It pretty well put me off from bothering with it at all, and even now I post quite infrequently because I can't be bothered with the hassle.

Call me a Luddite but I simply do not believe that the current member only LAA forum makes a ha'peth of difference to whether somebody decides to be, or stays a member of the LAA . We do ask non returning members why they decide not to renew membership, and the forum, or event the entire website has never figured as a reason. If you sit and think about it for a moment, it's a pretty sad world where if you want a forum that is lively and very active you have to let people with no allegiance to the forum provider post on it, and everybody to be anonymous so they can say almost anything with minimal risk of legal comeback. You haven't been able to do the latter in other forms of media for very many years. :ugh:

[rusty sparrow]

Looks like a critical disconnect from the membership. Reminds of me the re labelling of Labour into new labour - with the same discouragement of dissent.

The current forum is a waste of time - I'd like to know what's going informally in LAA - but the, under LAA struts, only two posts have been made this month. Most of the strut posts are from 2008/9.

[englishal]

Let me see if I understand this correctly...

The LAA has been given authority by the UK government to issue permits to LAA members to have the right to fly aeroplanes that the CAA doesn't want to deal with. As such members join the LAA and pay a fee, and then as such they have the right to have a permit for their aeroplane as long as they meet certain engineering / other standards, which the LAA inspectors determine.

Now the LAA has the right to expel any member for anything which the board feels is "prejudicial" to the LAA Ltd. And by expelling a member, I assume the Permit to fly is withdrawn and then than person may no longer fly their aircraft.

Would a post on a public forum like PPrune be considered "prejudicial" to LAA Ltd..? If so I would never post my real name IF I were a member (which I am not) because they have you over a barrel and their view may well be that it is prejudicial. Old boys clubs and all that ???

[A and C]

I have seen some real C**p on these forums in the past but your post takes first prize for.................. shall we say misreprisentation.

So far we have seen a rant from some one who will not produce any evidence to support his aligations of LAA malpractice.

I know some of the LAA management and see them as people who are commited to the advancment of light aviation and home built aircraft.

What they cant allow is the interests of peope who think that they should be able to tinker with their aircraft with out out some oversight to endanger them selfs the public and the interests of the LAA community as a whole.

In my opinion the LAA board act without predudice and with the best interests on the majority of the membership mind. Perhaps we might be enlightend as to why (or if) this member has been expelled and on what grounds?

I (and no doubt most of the membership) await the full story with interest!

[Steve N]

Robin wrote:
"
I think if you read the rules, the Board can remove the membership of anyone and that there is no appeal process. Further, the AGM is of no relevance since the change of structure."

LAA is a limited company and the AGM has the same power as any other company. An AGM can question any board decision, even rescind the boards recently awarded privilege to change the rules without an AGM if the board abused it. Of course they wouldn't or we would not have voted for them in the first place. All LAA members are shareholders of the company (assuming they have opted to take up their share). So the shareholder AGM or EGM that might happen if there was abuse of this rule by the board is still fully in control as it was when we were an association.

To get back to the original issue LAA's CEO cannot remove a member, only the board can and they answer to the shareholders.

Steve

[Steve N]

A and C wrote:

"Perhaps we might be enlightend as to why (or if) this member has been expelled and on what grounds?"

IMHO it was a bit of willy waving between a couple of strong personalities, both major assets to LAA. The person concerned was sat at the table at our last NC meeting a couple of weeks ago. If you want more detail pm me and and I will give you his email address so you can ask him yourself.

LAA is NOT Nulabour or anything unpleasant like that. They are doing their best with limited resources and in my opinion do a cracking job for all leisure pilots not just we members. We might wish to cut them some slack.

Steve

[englishal]

I have seen some real C**p on these forums in the past but your post takes first prize for.................. shall we say misrepresentation.

So far we have seen a rant from some one who will not produce any evidence to support his allegations of LAA malpractice.

Well was it crap? I was just trying to get the LAA's role straight in my mind (not being a member) and so far no one has said that what I wrote was incorrect and why? Is what I wrote correct or have I got my assumptions wrong? Please clarify as you are in a much better position to put me straight being an LAA Member / Inspector.

As for "Malpractice"...I don't think the original poster mentioned "malpractice" but was just questioning the actions of a CEO of a Ltd company of which he is a share holder. Isn't that justified? But no one has actually provided a reasonable explanation to him as far as I can see, lots of ranting and raving and twisting of words as usual. I am sure that the CEO can give a reasonable excuse or explanation. I personally think that CEO's of large organisations should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they are "value for money" and get then job done.

[Bigglesthefrog]

Thee pages of posts down the line and WW's original questions seem to have faded into the background as the guns seem to have swung around from the CEO of the LAA to the LAA as a whole. With so many posters possessing current membership of the LAA one is prompted to think that maybe we do need to have a vehicle of sorts with which to air views that would not sit well on the LAA website forum. I can see, and agree with Brian's point that it would not be in the association's interest (and in my view that means the entire membership) to have the kind of free-for-all that we can enjoy here. So would posters that are members of the LAA think it would be a good idea if we had a separate forum heading within the PPRuNe forum network to deal with this?

[Steve N]

A good idea though personally I find PPRune a pain to use. Flyer perhaps.

I agree the LAA BB has been strangled and no one goes there any more. I try now and again but it's like kicking a corpse.

[robin]

Excellent idea. Its exactly what AOPA members did as their official BB forum is a complete waste of time

[A and C]

As an LAA inspector I don't get involved in the day to day running of the LAA or the politics. My role is to inspect aircraft and uphold the airworthiness standards.

Unfortunatly some times members have to be told that their aircraft fall short of the required standard, sometimes this leads to dis-satisfaction with me personaly or the LAA managment. This dis-satisfaction sometimes spills over into one sided rants on the internet.

I do know some of the LAA management and see them working all hours in the service of the LAA, to question of the CEO attending the world gliding chapionships and then rolling in the issue of the expution of a member is in effect is in effect questioning the managment practices of the LAA on a public forum where they can't put their side of the story.

I don't think that raising these issues on a public forum before all the internal LAA procedures are exhausted is a wise idea as it is only likely that people will withdraw to entrenched positions and make an outcome that is exceptable to all harder to reach.

[shortstripper]

Englishal

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure you can apply for a CAA permit for any aircraft. However, it's far more expensive as different rules apply. There are homebuilds on CAA permits (usually as they fall outside the LAA rules on engine size ect), so anyone could if they so wished fly their aircraft and not be an LAA member.

Personally I'm pretty happy with the LAA except that it does these days seem to lean slightly too heavily toward kit rather than plans built support.

SS

[Solar]

Not to worried about the CEO having his holiday busmans or otherwise if he provides value for money.
What does concern me slightly is that some of the mods that we have to pay for are pretty insignificant and certainly does not require any engineering support other than the inspectors nod and this leads to the we're being ripped off line of thought.
Have to agree that the LAA forum is resembling the Dodo these days.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Englishal

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure you can apply for a CAA permit for any aircraft. However, it's far more expensive as different rules apply. There are homebuilds on CAA permits (usually as they fall outside the LAA rules on engine size ect), so anyone could if they so wished fly their aircraft and not be an LAA member.

Personally I'm pretty happy with the LAA except that it does these days seem to lean slightly too heavily toward kit rather than plans built support.

SS

You can take any PtF aeroplane to the CAA, but they'll try very hard to persuade you not to - it'll cost a lot, and they're much happier auditing organisations like LAA than doing the work themselves.

LAA Engineering presumably is mostly dealing with kit aircraft now because that is what the market has moved towards - they can't decide what their members want to build, just support it.

G

[Saab Dastard]

A good idea though personally I find PPRune a pain to use.

Steve,

I'm interested in your comment there, as IB are discussing the upgrade of PPRuNe to v4 of vBulletin, with a simultaneous revamp of the site.

If there are particular technical problems / shortcomings etc. it would be very useful to get feedback to plug in to their process.

I make no promises about when the upgrade will occur, nor that any suggestions get incorporated, but if you don't ask you don't get!

Feel free to PM me if you would prefer.

Thanks

SD

[Rod1]

“You can take any PtF aeroplane to the CAA,”

That is a very interesting statement. 18 months ago I was doing a comparison of costs. Brian had told me that the CAA could take on any LAA PtoF aircraft. I contacted the CAA to find out how much it would cost to put my MCR on the CAA. After trying quite hard I was told that some LAA aircraft could transfer, but not mine, and that my only option was the LAA. Further research showed that a letter may exist within LAA HQ that throws further light on the situation. Despite further efforts, I could not get hold of the letter or find out who from the CAA wrote it. I posted my results and was contacted by several other people who had attempted the same thing and got the same result, one of whom was a very experienced engineer who regularly negotiated with the CAA in this day job and had many contacts.

If anybody knows anything, which could further my research in this area, I would be happy to take it further, but based on my own attempts, and others, I have to say that the CAA is not an option.

This is not intended in any way to be a criticism of the LAA, who off course have no control over the CAA.

Rod1

[Steve N]

When I log in I find the anti robot visual check text thingy hard to read in less than perfect light conditions As a result I often get it wrong. When I do there is no single click option to try again. Why is this necessary when other boards don't seem to need it? This grey background I am writing on now is not the best to write posts in some light conditions. Why not white?

There is no help I could find on features of the board to help learn how to do things. For example what is permlink (top right) or whatever it is called.

I find PHPBB as used by flyer generally more intuitive but that my just be what I am used to. I appreciate you have to manage a lot of traffic from media and trolls so may get attacks other BBs don't get.

If I post and edit it before anyone replies (usually typos). Why sometimes does it say I have edited the post even though it cannot effect any reply?

None of this is a criticism of the massive effort you guys put into this BTW :)

Hope that helps.

Steve

[Saab Dastard]

Thanks Steve, I shall pass your feedback on.

SD

Sorry for the hijack! :O

[Genghis the Engineer]

“You can take any PtF aeroplane to the CAA,”

That is a very interesting statement. 18 months ago I was doing a comparison of costs. Brian had told me that the CAA could take on any LAA PtoF aircraft. I contacted the CAA to find out how much it would cost to put my MCR on the CAA. After trying quite hard I was told that some LAA aircraft could transfer, but not mine, and that my only option was the LAA. Further research showed that a letter may exist within LAA HQ that throws further light on the situation. Despite further efforts, I could not get hold of the letter or find out who from the CAA wrote it. I posted my results and was contacted by several other people who had attempted the same thing and got the same result, one of whom was a very experienced engineer who regularly negotiated with the CAA in this day job and had many contacts.

If anybody knows anything, which could further my research in this area, I would be happy to take it further, but based on my own attempts, and others, I have to say that the CAA is not an option.

This is not intended in any way to be a criticism of the LAA, who off course have no control over the CAA.

Rod1

Interesting - looking at CAP733 it indeed says nothing about this.

I'm guessing that the view being taken is that they (CAA) don't want to see the management of any type split - so you can either take all MCRs to CAA, or keep all MCRs with LAA; much the same that you can't split a type between BMAA and LAA (although variants are - so for example some MW5s are LAA aeroplanes, and some are BMAA aeroplanes, but all MW5(K)s are BMAA, whilst all MW5Ds are LAA).

I have to say, having had significant professional dealings with all three, for a private recreational aeroplane, CAA is the last organisation I'd want to deal with directly.

On the other hand, if I was developing a fairly radical new prototype, I might well stick with CAA, who have phenomenal technical and human resources if you really need that. Horses for courses.

G

[peter272]

Steve

Can you put that in English. I didn't understand a word of your last post.

[hatzflyer]

Basic tranlation...CAA are ****:ok:

[hatzflyer]

If you are online now, go to the LAA website to see what they have to deal with. Some bible basher has hacked the sight!:\

[Planemike]

Hatz..........

Just been on the site, nothing seems untoward to me. If they have been "hacked" sadly that is just one of the hazards of using the internet, that sort of stuff is just indescriminate. It not should be used as a reason to deny its members the chance of having a forum that is interesting, challenging, dynamic and worth visiting............

Three or four years ago the PFA site fulfilled those criteria. Todays LAA site is dull, boring and very largely unused by the membership.

Planemike........

[hatzflyer]

It was cleaned up almost as quickly as the time I put something contraversial on it !!!!

[n8862v]

If one looks at the origional transference of CAA powers to EASA, in other countries EASA delegated light aircraft control to each countries aircraft sporting bodies. In our country the CAA trying to keep control as they were used to, and got EASA to delegate to them this control. In order to keep the thing going they, the CAA again delegated these light aircraft to the PFA and achieved their purpose of having their cake and eating it. Many licenced engineers also transfered to the light permit aircraft arena bringing with them their CAA doctrins and attitudes which is why the present LAA is so structured. If one wants to see why French and Spanish equivilent aircraft are controlled just look into what organisations were delegated EASA permissions and compare it with us. The LAA should have direct permission from EASA and NOT try to be a company.

[peter272]

The LAA should have direct permission from EASA and NOT try to be a company.

Quite right, and if and when ELA1 comes in (it will be for aircraft less than 1200kg) that might be the opportunity the LAA needs - if they are brave enough to go for it.

[IO540]

Most UK pilot forums have been infected in recent months, probably via a known vulnerability in the off the sheft BBS software used.

It tends to be a silent redirection to a malicious website, and I think usually it is the advertising feed that is infected.

In most cases, sadly, no announcement is made to help people virus check their PCs.

[BFJH]

n8862v I'm afraid you are way off beam with your perception of the current situation. EASA does indeed wield most of the rule making authority these days, and the National Airworthiness Authorities (NAAs) basically implement those rules. Regarding 'our' aircraft though, Permit to Fly and microlights (Section S), and similar classifications across Europe, EASA has yet to decide how they should be regulated. They have all been classified as Annex 11 aircraft and remain under the control of the NAAs, nothing has changed either in UK or the rest of the EU on that score - yet. Some states have traditionally had 'easier' regimes than that laid down by the CAA and hence embodied by LAA, France being one example, but that has nothing to do with EASA.
LAA does have representation on a number of EASA working groups in relation to ELA1 and when a final modus operandi is established will decide how it is best suited to being involved. The will is definitely there to be so.
As for Annex 11 nobody knows when, or even if, EASA will ever get around to defining an operational regime, or regimes, for the aircraft currently within it.
LAA standards have tightened up over recent years, mainly due to CAA requirements becoming more stringent, but also because in the litigious society we now have to operate in, we do have to be more stringent.
I'm sure there are many of us that hanker after the old days, not only in aviation but in many other sectors of our lives, but many in the modern world are unforgiving of accidents and unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions.
As far as being a company, with 10 staff salaries to pay, 2300+ aircraft flying that need permits and on-going airworthiness, and maybe 1000+ projects in build, running a Mickey Mouse operation is no longer an option. LAA is an Association for the members first, but a commercial operation a close second, and the members will not thank us if we allow the company to go broke.
Brian Hope.

[Winco Wobble]

As far as being a company, with 10 staff salaries to pay, 2300+ aircraft flying that need permits and on-going airworthiness, and maybe 1000+ projects in build, running a Mickey Mouse operation is no longer an option. LAA is an Association for the members first, but a commercial operation a close second, and the members will not thank us if we allow the company to go broke.



Quite! So let the members SEE that our illustrious CEO is actually providing value for money as an employee of the company. It's not unreasonable to ask that the board devise a way of measuring his effort - scant as it seems from this troll's eye view! WW (unashamedly anonymous := )

[Genghis the Engineer]

Quite! So let the members SEE that our illustrious CEO is actually providing value for money as an employee of the company. It's not unreasonable to ask that the board devise a way of measuring his effort - scant as it seems from this troll's eye view! WW (unashamedly anonymous := )

Absolutely not. Measuring effort is closely followed by micromanagement, which is rapidly followed by the best staff clearing off to work somewhere where they're given more respect.

Measure his results by all means - and if they're what were wanted, leave him alone to do the job how he believes it should be done, and don't interfere.

As a wise man once said, once you've bought a dog, stop barking yourself.

G

[robin]

Nicely put BFJH. It does seem to show the dilemma the Board is in.

On the one hand the LAA could grow and take on some of the roles the CAA don't want to do - namely deal with light GA.
It would take the will to move beyond the narrow remit of the Permit fleet but would bring status, additional income but also cost.

On the other hand the LAA could remain in its comfort zone and stick with the Permit fleet, kit-building and youth activities.
It gives guaranteed membership and as costs rise and owners move away from CofA types, the LAA can gradually 'hoover-up' the new members.

The latter is certainly safe and the evolutionary approach minimises risk.
I suppose that which option you will choose depends on the character and commitment of the Board and CEO.

Given that you have a very small employed staff, I would guess you will go for the safe option and grow the business over time.

Over the next few years the LAA will have a once in a lifetime opportunity to become much more than a members association. It will take courage and commitment to do it especially when it comes to reconciling the conflicting views of the membership.

As you say, standing still isn't an option and the chance might not come again, .

[n8862v]

I operated a permit type aircraft in France for many years and it was simular to the PFA many years ago, to use litigation as an excuse to mount the CAA system that the current LAA does is a means of employment and making money to spend on inflated salaries and travel perks in europe. The present LAA staff, especialy the ex licensed engineers have made the paperwork and rules no different to the CofA system. Let the owner justify to himself and if neccesary answer for any mistakes, as in France, USA and Spain. It used to cost me the equivilent of £10 a year to get my aircraft rubber stamped in France, even the local garage could do some maintenance, subsequently rubber stamped. Roll on the introduction of the EAA in europe.

[BFJH]

Well n8862v, if you can persuade the CAA to let us adopt such a system we will all be eternally grateful. The simple fact is that LAA can only operate the system that CAA lay down, and unfortunately the UK is not as liberal as the French, Spanish (though I know little about the Spanish system and take your word for it being simpler) and Americans when it comes to regulating light aviation.
Quite what EAA would do in the UK I know not (and I have been a member for some years). They do have a strong lobbying voice and they do offer advice to builders, but the airworthiness aspects of Experimentals are regulated by the FAA.
The real measure is not the £10 you used to pay in France, nor the four shillings I used to pay for a gallon of petrol when I had my first motorbike, it is whether today, owning and operating an LAA Permit aircraft is a less expensive option than running a Cof A aircraft, and in my experience, and I have no doubt the vast majority of LAA aircraft owners will agree, the answer is an unequivocal yes it is.
It should also be considered that the aircraft types we operate today are considerately more complex than they were 20 years ago. The ultra simple low powered, fixed pitch, fixed prop low performance VP1 and Luton Minor, great little aeroplanes though they are, have been replaced by sophisticated 150mph plus retractable, ultra lightweight construction, constant speed prop turning, glass panel equipped sportsters that actually do demand a higher level of maintenance management. Much as we'd like to go back to a simpler, less regulated lifestyle I'm afraid society will not allow us to do so.

[BillieBob]

Regarding 'our' aircraft though, Permit to Fly and microlights (Section S), and similar classifications across Europe, EASA has yet to decide how they should be regulated.Actually, there is no decision to make - it's nothing to do with EASA. The removal of 'Annex II' aircraft from EASA's responsibility is enshrined in Article 4 of the Basic Regulation, which can be changed only by the European Commission. In the UK, the regulation of 'Annex II' aircraft is, and will remain, the responsibility of the CAA - they may choose to continue to delegate responsibility to to the LAA (or, perhaps, not) but that is entirely their decision, not EASA's.

[peter272]

It should also be considered that the aircraft types we operate today are considerately more complex than they were 20 years ago. The ultra simple low powered, fixed pitch, fixed prop low performance VP1 and Luton Minor, great little aeroplanes though they are, have been replaced by sophisticated 150mph plus retractable, ultra lightweight construction, constant speed prop turning, glass panel equipped sportsters that actually do demand a higher level of maintenance management.

True. So remind me how that happened.

Complex aircraft with great performance and higher maintenance management are allowed to be on Permit, but a simple Super Cub or Stampe or tailwheel Robin can't be.

Are the LAA, in their regulatory mode, doing anything to even out this illogical situation? Or is it something that is outside their brief.

[Rod1]

It is outside the brief, in that the CAA tightened the rules and some Cubs etc were on an LAA permit and no more could be added! The LAA would, I suspect, like to take on as much of the fleet as it can. Talks are well advanced to take on CAA permit types like the Yak’s, and ELA1 may allow the LAA to expand as well.

Rod1

[BFJH]

BillieBob I think your view is rather optimistic. Annex two was established as a holding pattern because EASA had more than enough on its plate and did not have the time or inclination to get embroiled in the hugely diverse regulatory systems in which amateur built aircraft, microlights and some Vintage types operate throughout the EU states. The original intention was to come back and fix it later, to introduce an EU wide regulatory regime, and if the legal framework means that the Commission has to authorise that then that is what will happen, I do not profess to be any kind of expert on how they cross the T's and dot the i's. Whether this actually happens is anybody's guess, over the years there have been rumours that it is about to happen, and rumours that these aircraft will forever be looked after by the NAAs; truth is it is still not clear but I get the vibe that the latter is currently the considered best guess.
Peter (Robin DR200 series?) whether or not LAA can 'adopt' a type for Permit is, unfortunately, not LAA's decision. The CAA/EASA take the view, and I suspect that it is also tied in with ICAO, that if an aircraft is able to have a Certificate of Airworthiness, then it has to have one and cannot be orphaned off to a Permit to Fly. The measure of CoA acceptability is whether there is a Type Certificate Holder, and the Robin 200 series and up Type Certificates are still extant. Unless Apex (or Finch, not sure who legally owns them now) decide to relinquish the TC, as Apex did with DR1050 and D140 a while back, they will have to stay on CoA.
The Stampe situation is that there is no TC holder so the CAA wrote to Stampe owners giving them the option of staying on CoA if somebody came forward to effectively take on the TC responsibilities in what is called a Type Responsibility Agreement (TRA), or go onto PtF. Though the vast majority wants to come onto PtF, a handful who operate the aircraft on Public Transport CoA for pleasure flights etc, want to stay on CoA and somebody has said they will take on a TRA. Unfair as it seems, the majority decision is not what counts, if just one wanted to stay on CoA and somebody takes on the TRA then CAA will make them all stay on CoA.
A number of deadlines for the potential TRA to be put in place have passed and CAA has extended the deadline yet further. I believe our Engineering guys have been asking questions in the appropriate places and hopefully this issue will finally be resolved sooner rather than later and the majority view of being transferred to PtF will prevail.
The only option for getting what is a CoA type onto a Permit is if you imported an example that was of dubious parentage. For instance, if you had a Piper Cub that had operated abroad but not on a CoA (in France on a CNRA, a restricted CoA that is used for homebuilts and some non conforming factory builts, for example), such that parts traceability, history etc was severely compromised, you could apply to LAA to see if it could be accepted for a Permit. LAA Engineering would make representation to the CAA if it supported the view that to put it onto a UK CoA would not be a viable option. It should be noted though that this is a last ditch effort and if CAA said no then you have a major rebuild on you hands to get the aircraft back to UK CoA status, and we all know how much of a ball ache that might be.

[Winco Wobble]

I agree with you Genghis, but sadly, micro-management is exactly what our CEO is guilty of. Couple that with slippery I'm far too busy to deal with that type bodyswerving and what have you got that's effective? THAT is why I would like his actual effectiveness measured. A summary of what has actually been achieved by him v cost would do fine. Come on Roger H, put our mind at rest!

[Rod1]

“actual effectiveness measured.”

It would be possible to use some sort of “balanced scorecard” approach to measure effectiveness. This could be combined with regular assessment meetings to keep him on track. Almost all senior managers / directors have to go through this and I assumed our CEO was no exception.

Rod1
(with new theory on who WW is)

[S-Works]

I know of at least 2 Cessna 120's that are on permit to fly despite having a full CofA history.

G-BVUZ
G-BRJC

[peter272]

Peter (Robin DR200 series?) whether or not LAA can 'adopt' a type for Permit is, unfortunately, not LAA's decision. The CAA/EASA take the view, and I suspect that it is also tied in with ICAO, that if an aircraft is able to have a Certificate of Airworthiness, then it has to have one and cannot be orphaned off to a Permit to Fly. The measure of CoA acceptability is whether there is a Type Certificate Holder, and the Robin 200 series and up Type Certificates are still extant. Unless Apex (or Finch, not sure who legally owns them now) decide to relinquish the TC, as Apex did with DR1050 and D140 a while back, they will have to stay on CoA.


Thanks Brian

I am (so are the other DR200-series owners) fully aware of the reasons for remaining on CofA and the sneaky way it was done.

My point is that EASA and CAA are doing nothing and feel no need to do anything, hiding behind legislation they could change tomorrow, given the will to do so.

What is needed is a shove (or something stronger) from elsewhere . But it would seem that the LAA is not looking to engage in this either, waiting, perhaps, for the day when they are asked to take us on.

[BFJH]

The anomoly of there being some aircraft on a Permit and others of the same type having to be on a CoA stems from a change of heart in the mid/late 1990's by the CAA. Up to that point many Cubs, Jodels, Luscombes etc were imported and allowed to go straight onto a Permit, then the gravy train hit the buffers and new arrivals had to go on a CoA, pretty much ending the import of these types because it was no longer considered viable. A great shame really as I don't doubt that many more interesting old Classic and Vintage types would have graced our shores had they still been allowed to go onto a Permit.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I agree with you Genghis, but sadly, micro-management is exactly what our CEO is guilty of. Couple that with slippery I'm far too busy to deal with that type bodyswerving and what have you got that's effective? THAT is why I would like his actual effectiveness measured. A summary of what has actually been achieved by him v cost would do fine. Come on Roger H, put our mind at rest!

Last time you said you wanted to measure his effort, now it's his effectiveness. They are very different things.

Whilst I'm not the most energetic member LAA has in getting involved with the association (to be honest, given my personal profile, it probably wouldn't be welcomed at Turweston if I did, and anyway, I'm too darned busy), I can't say that I've seen much in the way of unwanted micromanagement by Peter Harvey - what has he done to offend you particularly?

G

[hatzflyer]

Brian, nice to see you airing your views, I know we don't always agree on some subjects, but you are always helpfull when explaining things as per your posts on this thread ,breaking your long silence.
Its a shame you can't get this sort of thing going on the LAA website like the old days!:ok:

WW. if you remain anonomous no-one will give your posts any credance and if you have a point you are actually shooting yourself in the foot.I am afraid you iether have to fess up who you are if you have serious concerns or just swallow them.:bored:

[A and C]

I find you statements about the LAA engineering to be very economical with the truth.

As an LAA inspector I only apply one standard to aircraft and that is one of safety, I won't pen off a deathtrap just because it is a permit aircraft (I have seen a few) and the owner wants a cheap job.

The so called excessive LAA paperwork will take me less than an hour to go over for a permit renewal, for an EASA ARC renewal it would be three or four hours.

In my veiw the LAA system provides the minimum oversight required to keep the permit fleet in an airworthy state while letting the owner do most of the maintenance himself.

As always there is some one who can get the job done better & cheaper but usualy these peope don't have to deal with the practicalitys and take any sort of responsability for the activity.

[hatzflyer]

As an inspector as well I agree with the above post.

[n8862v]

From what I remember in those days, because so many ex cofa aircraft were transfering. They the CAA panicked and put the bar up because the number of private cofa aircaft was decreasing. Remember prior to that we had a one year ,2year and then 3 yearly cofa's. I had an aircraft on a 2 year special catagory cofa. The opinion at the time was as what we now know as EASA was on the horizon the CAA needed to retain a high number of private CofA aircraft to compete with other countries regulatory bodies.
This info from a senior surveyor now retired.

[Winco Wobble]

From the LAA Website: 27 Apr: Press Release - CEO to leave LAA

CEO Peter Harvey has decided to leave the Association to pursue his career elsewhere and has tendered his resignation......

Not before time. I didn't bother with this thread anymore as it had drifted anyway and many of you weren't too impressed by my anonymity (still necessary I'm afraid). But, as you will see, this original post was not without foundation. Our CEO has done very little for his salary in real terms and now he's off to pastures new having had a fair chunk of the members subscriptions for the last couple of years (around £10 per member per year approx!)

Perhaps we can have a summary of just which songs he has sung for his suppers?

No tears from this wobbly Winco! :D