Pointless GAPAN.

[Bogeymann]

Just wondering - has GAPAN got a role in aviation? I just heard that they are firing missiles at the Microlighters at the moment. Christ, aviation has enough of a hard time with the CAA without GAPAN jumping in too.

Anyone know what it is that GAPAN actually did to wind up the microlight council?

[StrateandLevel]

GAPANS role in aviation is:

To establish and maintain the highest standards of air safety through the promotion of good airmanship among pilots and navigators.

To maintain a liaison with all Authorities connected with licensing, training and legislation affecting pilot or navigator whether private, professional, civil or military.

To constitute a body of experienced airmen available for advice and consultation and to facilitate the exchange of information.

To strive to enhance the status of air pilots and air navigators.

To assist air pilots and air navigators in need through the Benevolent Fund.


It doesn't include firing missiles!

[Bogeymann]

Thats all whoopydo but I was sent this quote - its said that this was sent to the BMAA CEO who is a member of GAPAN but its said that this was done behind his back.

quote
"The Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators is disappointed to note the recent response from the BMAA to the NPPL Policy and Steering Committee concerning the NPPL aircraft rating revalidation and renewal proposals supported by the remainder of the committee.

Whilst the Guild would not wish to see the BMAA’s existing rights concerning 3-axis microlight aircraft questioned in any way, the distinction between such aircraft and single engine piston class aeroplanes is becoming increasingly slim. With the performance of modern microlight aircraft having increased to such an extent that some now comfortably exceed the performance of many traditional SEP aeroplanes, the Guild considers that it is not unreasonable for all pilots to be required to undertake a routine biennial training flight with a flight instructor. This safety measure is now particularly relevant to microlight aviation given the increase in microlight flying activity which is expected to result from the recent changes in regulations governing the hire of such aircraft.

The NPPL aircraft rating revalidation and renewal proposals supported by the other members of the NPPL P&SC are far from onerous and the Guild strongly urges the BMAA to accept them in full."

unquote..

Sounds like they are firing missiles to me! Trying to get extra rules when they should we working , with the rest of us, to reduce the red tape!

BM

[High Wing Drifter]

It has to be said that some of the new Microlights are really not in the spirit of the traditional view of a microlight. They climb faster, cruise faster and have a greater endurance than a C152. Either the C152 is reclassified or the new breed of microlights are!

Also, a check every two years is not really that unreasonable for NPPLers. Also, as GAPAN says, it is completely absurd to have these concerns about the safety of NPPL holders without considering that of those high performance microlight pilots.

I have to say, I somewhat, but not wholeheartedly, agree. However, I may not be equipped with all the facts.


[Edited cos of usual bad spelling]

[Hilico]

Here's my 2p. Firstly, the adaptation of machinery to the rules is nothing new. Look at what happened to mopeds in the seventies under the rule 'must have pedals and be 50cc'; result, the FS1E where the pedals were effectively footrests and a 50cc engine that would drive it to 50mph.

As to safety, what proof do we have that these new microlights are less safe? Or more safe? Have they been flying for long enough to establish any kind of record? Would it not be better to establish that there is a safety case to answer, before answering it? And if they do turn out to be safe, what about relaxing some of the parallel restrictions for their 'bigger' brethren? (Some hope, I know.)

[tacpot]

If that's firing missiles, GAPAN are okay to fire missiles at me, and while they do, I'll sip a cool Gin & Tonic sat by the pool-side!

It also looks like you have answered you own question; GAPAN have upset the BMAA by trying to encourage them to accept the NPPL aircraft rating revalidation and renewal proposals put forwards by the NPPL Steering committee.

If The CEO of the BMAA is also on the managment committee of GAPAN, then for GAPAN to issue such a statement, without all the committee members agreeing for it to be issued, does seem a little odd. But if this is the case, I'm more interested as to why the CEO of the BMA is on the Board of GAPAN. This isn't a case of "jobs for the boys"?

If the proposal is accepted, surely the BMAA will be in charge of the BFR arragnements anyway, and can make them as cumbersom or slick as they wish?

[Bogeymann]

But should we not be looking for ways to reduce the regulatory stranglehold on aviation rather than looking for ways to navigate around them?

I was told that the CEO of the BMAA is "considering his position" within GAPAN.

[Stampe]

GAPAN should do what it does best!! an expensive dining club for ageing and retired aviators in their twilight years reminiscing of their illustrious careers and wonderful contributions to aviation bygone.Only a very few of their membership are seriously engaged in modern day aviation in any large scale .In recent years driven largely by a few individuals who have sought and found a vehicle in GAPAN to promote their own careers in flying instruction ( many never made it to the airlines) the organisation attempts to shape policy!!.God knows why!!?. This should be left to organisations representing those currently investing time and money in modern aviation ie owning,flying,and operating aircraft for commerce or pleasure.This role the BMAA AOPA,PFA ,BGA and BALPA do admirably.Sorry GAPAN time to get back to the guild regalia and gin and tonics and memories of the past.;)

[Thrifty van Rental]

I am puzzled why anybody should find a bienniel checkride/test/instructional flight a problem.

Of course, we are all superheros so we shouldn't be checked, but surely all the other less capable people we know would benefit from such a regulatory strangling once every 24 months :cool:

Perhaps BMAA members are above that?

[Bogeymann]

The imposition of rules should be to solve a problem - as far as I can tell the microliters safety record is the same as GA. Wonder why the PFA, AOPA etc dont try and get this daft rule binned and quoting the BMAA as the reason for doing so.

If the GAPAN quote is word perfect then it would indicate that the PFA think the BMAA should accept a biannual check also.. surely not! They are not that blinkered... are they?

BM

[tacpot]

The UK appears to have much less red-tape that many other countires and seems to have found sensible routes in delegating certain authorities to 'single-role' organisations, e.g PFA, BGA, BMAA. I don't think our situation is all that bad.

But I certainly don't want it any worse, but I don't see how asking all pilots whether they fly certified aircraft, microlights, homebuilts, or gliders to fly with an instructor once every couple of years makes things worse. I understand that any such change breeds it's own paperwork, and terminology, but as I said before, if it is down to the BMAA to devise and operate the scheme, they can make it very easy to do so.

If you are at all worried about the form the scheme might take, get yourself onto the BMAA committee.

It is sad that the BMAA CEO sees this as an issue to 'consider his position about' - GAPAN are entitled to an opinion as are the BMAA. As a member of both organisations he must surely understand that he has a different ability to influence the BMAA compared with GAPAN.

[StrateandLevel]

I think the BMAA are quite capable of looking after themselves. No doubt they will ask GAPAN for details of the safety case supporting their disapproval, if there is one! Which of course there isn't.

Its interesting to note that the JAA biennial flight to which they refer is copied directly from FAR-AIM. The FAA do not require pilots of similar aircraft in the US to hold licences, let alone undergo biennial checks!

[LowNSlow]

I thought the requirement under JAA to have a check flight or one hour with an instructor every 2 years to be a stupid rule.

When it was my turn I chose to have a check flight with an employee of the CAA. I found myself checking my flying and found a few bad habits. These habits had developed in the 5 years since I did my taildragger training. I managed to eradicate most of the bad habits developed whilst flying without let or hindrance from small grass fields within an hour or two (nothing major I hasten to add, I had just allowed myself to get a tad sloppy) and the check flight went without a hitch.

I now look forward to my next check flight and, even though I could go for an hour with an instructor, I will be going back to the former employee of the CAA.

The point that the PFA made regarding performance of some of the current generation of microlights is very valid IMHO. WHile the slow landing speeds are maintained, the cruise speeds in excess of those of a lot of "conventional" SEPs does need a different mindset to the cruise speeds of, say, a Thruster. I am sure that 99% of high performance microlight pilots will ensure that they are comfortable with their new aircraft through training / shared experience. I think that GAPAN are making a point that there are people who can get their PPL D and leap into a whizzer after training on a chugger.

Realistically though, how many people would do this? There are a few people who can afford a P-51 Mustang. Every one I'm aware of has gone the PPL / taildragger / Harvard / P-51 route. However, given that most of the modern micros seem to be designed to for ease of use, I think that some people could leap from a Thruster into a 120mph whizzbang as there isn't the obvious threat to one's life that is blatantly obvious when getting out of a C150 and into a P-51.

LNS dons flak jacket and kevlar helmet and ducks below the parapet.......

[BEagle]

"Whilst the Guild would not wish to see the BMAA’s existing rights concerning 3-axis microlight aircraft questioned in any way" does not seem to me to be evidence of 'firing missiles'. It sounds more like support.

[LikLik Draggerbalus]

Nobody yet has added the Scholarships that GAPAN offers to Ab Initio students and to other students both for PPL and for Commercial courses. It also offers assessment courses at Cranwell to establish whether a student would be likely to be successful in a commercial career or not. That sounds VERY much like supporting and encouraging aviation to me.
Gin and Tonic swigging ageing and retired aviators eh.?? Hmmmmmmmm. Well what a put down on a body of people who have put their life into aviation, and often put their lives on the line in combat and in test flying. (The immediate Past master is Duncan Simpson who took the Hawk into the air for the first time and did test flying on the Harrier)

[techdir]

Mr Bogeyman

Since I do know to what you are referring, it is somewhat difficult to give you an answer to your query re GAPAN and the microlighters. However, if you care to email me at [email protected] with chapter and verse I will do my best to assist you.


Chris Hodgkinson
Technical Director
GAPAN

[Bogeymann]

Why dont you just comment on that which was posted in an earlier mail

quote
"The Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators is disappointed to note the recent response from the BMAA to the NPPL Policy and Steering Committee concerning the NPPL aircraft rating revalidation and renewal proposals supported by the remainder of the committee.

Whilst the Guild would not wish to see the BMAA’s existing rights concerning 3-axis microlight aircraft questioned in any way, the distinction between such aircraft and single engine piston class aeroplanes is becoming increasingly slim. With the performance of modern microlight aircraft having increased to such an extent that some now comfortably exceed the performance of many traditional SEP aeroplanes, the Guild considers that it is not unreasonable for all pilots to be required to undertake a routine biennial training flight with a flight instructor. This safety measure is now particularly relevant to microlight aviation given the increase in microlight flying activity which is expected to result from the recent changes in regulations governing the hire of such aircraft.

The NPPL aircraft rating revalidation and renewal proposals supported by the other members of the NPPL P&SC are far from onerous and the Guild strongly urges the BMAA to accept them in full."

unquote..

WHY!!

[Pilotage]

Am I alone in thinking this is all arse about face?


I happen to have a copy of CAP701 on my desk, this shows the certified light aircraft fatal accident rate at a pretty constant 1 per 70,000 hours, and the microlight fatal accident rate at 1 per 50,000 hours and improving. Not a huge difference.

Shouldn't the GA chappies be rather looking at the microlight chappies working practice and trying to adopt their approaches which make things cheaper without degrading safety, rather than what does rather smack of "we have to put up with these expensive rules, why shouldn't they".

Quick back-of-envelope sum. The UK has about 5000 microlight pilots and about 150 microlight instructors, who each fly I think around 400 instructional hours per year. The change would need to add about 16 flying hours - or about 2 average weeks onto the load of each instructor. Another way to look at it - at about £50/hr thats a cost to the BMAA's membership of about £125,000 per year. You start to see where BMAA's CEO is coming from.

Also looking at the BMAA's hiring rules on their website (here) (http://www.bmaa.org/032_1.pdf) it includes a mandatory checkout with an instructor for anybody hiring. So what would a BFR add to that?

P

[oli carley]

has gapan got a role in aviation????

with the name, guild of air pilots and navigators, i think its safe to say so!

[Bogeymann]

Dont be soft:O a group of people can themselves what they want and that need not necessarily represent thier role - Christ, just look at the CAA!!

Actions count - pointless rule making does not.

If they had any gumption at all they would have stood firmly on the side of reduced regulation; they would have spoken to one of their own freemen (CEO of the BMAA) before spouting trash.

[BEagle]

Mr Bogeymann,

The Guild works closely with all organisations involved in aviation. They are as concerned about over-regulation as anyone else.

Much work is being done to acheive a reasoned compromise; this work is being carried out in committee and with other aviation groups. This thread has only highlighted part of that work and it is regrettable that this topic is being aired in such an ill-informed way; petulant and abusive comment is serving no-one well.

But, out of interest, what routine continuation training (ground or air) do you think would be reasonable for microlight pilots?

[Bogeymann]

Then why oh why did GAPAN not consult with one of its freemen who just happens to be the CEO of the BMAA - why would you call petulant the direct quote from GAPAN itself?

What continuation training is required in the BMAA - as I understand it no continuation training is currently required yet no case is to answer. Why force it upon them? Well an earlier contributer said it all. Jelousy.

Quote forwarded to me
In over 20 years of microlight training alone I have noticed a common trait in both students & pilots. The average microlight pilot seems to have to develop a natural and better feel for the air than nearly all of the conventionally orientated pilots that I have flown with.
I often have a tougher time teaching those who fly normal aircraft. The intricacies of flying a low inertia, high power to weight ratio and high drag aircraft (the types used by 90% of the microlight schools) are often diametrically opposed to the types that the conventional pilot has flown. As you know the typical weightshift pilot has to develop strange but unique skills that nearly always result in them converting to other aircraft in very short time. Whereas conversion of conventional pilots to weightshift can often be a nightmare! But still the conventional flying fraternity look down on them as not 'real' pilots.

Having been at the receiving end of typical conventional flying school tuition on many occasions, I find that the emphasis is very much on flying as a means to an end ie. professional pilot goal. Flying within a club environment can still be so expensive that the average pilot often only just manages to do the minimum required for revalidation and therefore I can understand somewhat the feeling that they need some form of skill test/check flight.

Microlight aviation on the other hand has not only made flying more accessible but has allowed the average pilot to knock up more hours and experience annually. Generally, the only reason a test is made is when they have not managed to clock up the minimum times for a C of E. In microlight flying this rarely happens as most people can fly their own aircraft regularly.

I hope that this steady trend towards increasing bureaucracy will not have just the opposite effect on safety. There is a constant feeling of despondency amongst pilots as they see that more regulation, often justified on the grounds of safety is usually just red tape!

Unquote...l

[skua]

Can I throw in my tuppence ha'pennyworth?

1. GAPAN does not have a "board" - this submission probably came from their Education & Training Committee
2. Said committee seems to have some sort of role in allowing aged aviators to pass their experience back into the industry - many members are ex-mil, and many are ex-training captains.

From my experience there are some in the Guild who have had their fill of directly patricipating in aviation (or who have lost their medicals), and a proportion have little experience of GA. However there are many who are supremely qualified, and a current member of the "Court" (nearest thing to a board) is an experienced GA FI.

Most in the Guild are passionate about attracting the best into the profession, and making it a fulfilling career. I hate red tape too, but I would have thought that this submission was well-intentioned.

[Bogeymann]

Is it not the harshest thing to say about any committee - "Well they mean well"...

If an opinion is wanted it should be sought from the experts within that field and not by members of another sector of aviation,

[BEagle]

In which case, Mr Bogeymann, rather than just cutting and pasting quotes from others, perhaps you would answer the question I posed earlier:

"....what routine continuation training (ground or air) do you think would be reasonable for microlight pilots?"

[Bogeymann]

I have already answered that one - the members of the BMAA have no safety case to answer. Why attempt to force continuation training on them when it is plainly and clearly not required. This sentiment is echoed by many and hence the cut and paste. This obvioulsy goes against your stance and hence the reason you fail to answer any of the points contained in it. It is sad when the CAA's own experts (Panel Examiners), the BMAA Council and the microlight instructor industry recommend one course of action based on their expert knowledge, to then have a group who obviously hold our expertise in contempt tell us off!

[BEagle]

Without wishing to labour the point, perhaps you might be care to ask your Chairman whether he considers there to be any merit in continuation training?

Perhaps, as I've inferred, not a flight. Perhaps different requirements for different types of microlight. Even a routine 'safety module' briefing conducted by the Examiner who signs your CofE?

I sincerely hope that compromise can be reached equably and expeditiously. Because I would personally hate to see the sort of changes enforced upon you that some have mooted.

Give a little and gain a lot - or give nothing and lose a lot?

[Bogeymann]

But this should not be about petty posturing and totally about what is best all round. The system the BMAA has works. Enforced change just for the sake of compying with the red tape of others is quite simply daft.

I dont know what the chairman of the BMAA thinks is best continuation training wise but I do know that the BMAA does not have a safety case to answer therefore any continuation training is pointless.

The same applies to your idea of a meeting of minds somewhere halfway - WHY! Its getting a little repetitive now but the BMAA has no safety case to answer. I am sure that if it did someone would be shouting it out loud and clear - they are not.

[gasax]

The whole continuation training argument is flawed.

Actually look at the data. The US introduced the requirement many years ago - that accident rate did not improve.

JAR introduced the requirement - the accident rate ( over admitedly a short period) has got worst.

But the 'flight training industry' is solidly behind the requirement on safety grounds - yeah right!!! I think we can see what grounds they actually support.

It is a sensible argument - but one that is simply not supported by the evidence. Perhaps that is because simply re-tracing parts of the original training syllabus does not add much value, perhaps having the least experinced pilots (in real world terms, i.e. frozen ATPLs), as instructors is wholly flawed. Whatever the problem the present continuation training is not reducing the accident rate.

So when GAPAN state the BMAA must 'get onside' with the financial vested interests where is the evidence that safety is being improved?

To be blunt light aviation would be much better off if it followed the BMAA approach rather than the 'we all want to be airline pilots' approach that most of the GA organisations seem to have.