LAA Coaching scheme

[gijoe]

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

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

I don't think I will bother again.

G

[robin]

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

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

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

[foxmoth]

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

Not sure where you get this from?? You DO need to be an LAA member, but there is no requirement to own, I have in the past, but do not now and it is not part of the requirements.

[robin]

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

[S-Works]

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

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

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

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

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

[Genghis the Engineer]

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

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

G

[robin]

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

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

[Genghis the Engineer]

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

G

[S-Works]

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

[robin]

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

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by robin

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

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

G

[S-Works]

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

Incorrect.

http://www.lightaircraftassociation....0a%20Coach.pdf

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

[gijoe]

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

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

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

G.

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

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

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

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

[Genghis the Engineer]

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

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

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

G

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

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

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

Your response was:

All sorts.

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

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

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

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

[Genghis the Engineer]

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

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

G

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

[goldeneaglepilot]

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

[Genghis the Engineer]

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

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

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

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

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