LAA Coaching scheme

[S-Works]

I really do not understand why this stirs up so much emotion and ego. The LAA coaching scheme is a service by members for members. The requirement is to have a high number of SEP hours and those hours need to be from a permit background. If the scheme gets two applicants one, with considerable experience on the LAA scheme and has all the qualifications and another who has the same qualifications but not the experience of the LAA types, who is going to get chosen? There is only a need for a finite number if coaches so they can choose who they want. It's not difficult to comprehend.

Flying microlights, engineering on a 146 or teaching on spam cans is great experience but not the specific experience the coaching scheme is looking for. Why get so worked up about it? If someone is desperate to be a coach then go out and meet the requirements and apply.

I have been a coach for several years and have found it to be well run and well supported with training conducted and regulated to a high standard.

I will say now, there is no money it, your basic expenses are covered, after that it's about putting something into the organisation and helping keep grass roots flying cheaper.

[Dan the weegie]

The LAA is unquestionably a force for good as far as light and grass roots aviation goes. The magazine is the only light GA magazine that is worth reading (that I've known of) beyond that first year of reading pilot and it's full of help and assistance for those who want to know more.

I have no doubt that the coaching scheme is also well run on the basis of a couple of small exchanges that I've had with the guy that runs it. I chose not to go further, I'm flying away for work most of my days so home time is used exclusively for family and my own wee machine. That said when I get the opportunity to have some more time I really very much want to be part of it because I enjoy it and I don't think it's something you can easily get in all parts of the country from the flying schools available.

I didn't think you actually needed to be an owner/part owner to be a member of the LAA, you just needed to pay your membership. The magazine alone makes it worth it. Even so unless you're serious about touring by IFR I can't think of any reason to fly EASA CofA aircraft.

If you want to know more, head for Sywell at the end of the month.

[Peter Gristwood]

Thank you Dan

You are Head of LAA PR and I claim my £5

[Genghis the Engineer]

I really do not understand why this stirs up so much emotion and ego.

Probably because nobody prepared to offer their time and skill for free likes it much being told "no, you aren't good enough". As you say, an ego thing - we all have one.

With a side issues of preferring to have access to the LAA's support if we're members and may be teaching on those aeroplanes anyhow.

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

G.

Probably because nobody prepared to offer their time and skill for free likes it much being told "no, you aren't good enough". As you say, an ego thing - we all have one

Not so sure that (based on what you said) that they told you that you were not good enough, rather more the case of your experience did not meet their criteria (at this point in time).

Its no different to my experiences of teaching a young lad to fly, who completed his PPL in two weeks after his birthday. I could not send him solo until his birthday, thats the rules, even though he was more than to the standard. If the LAA sets 1000 hours SEP as the standard then that's how it is, if people don't like it then its always worth putting forward a case for change (as members)

[Peter Gristwood]

IIRC there is also another element that the LAA uses to decide whether a candidate for Coach status is being considered and that is the number required in a specific area or region. I'm not sure if Jon Cooke uses a formula to work out the demand, but I guess if there is a fair number already, then they probably don't need to recruit new ones.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ah well GEP, you definitely come up against my ego there.

As a young gingerbeer, I was a bit of an early starter (O levels at 14, degree at 20, CEng at 25) and it was a regularly easy way to get my hackles up saying things like "no, you can't do this yet, you're too young", often heard from people older but less qualified than I was. It's something that still gets my goat on occasion (both ways, as I don't like hearing that anybody is too old to do something either).

I've never, myself, been overly fond of minimum age/hours for anything - either somebody's good enough or they're not. But it is an easy way for lazy regulators to save themselves work, in a multitude of environments. This may or may not be such a case.

If LAA is considering "need" in particular areas - so far as I know they didn't say that to me, nor to anybody else we've heard from in this debate. It would be a fair point, but perhaps they should be open about it if using that criterion.

G

[S-Works]

So basically Genghis, you have a very high opinion of your own ability and don't like being told no.

Freud would have a field day.....

In all of my contact with the Chairman of the PCS I have not once ever found him to be lazy or trying to save himself work. He is a knowledgeable and capable individual who insists on the highest standards for the PCS and gives greatly of his time as a volunteer in order to coordinate it all.

Any LAA member who meets the laid out requirements is able to apply, if you meet those requirements and there is a need for another coach then you stand a chance. If you don't meet the laid out standard and/or there is need need then it's tough luck. But really it's not grounds for lambasting the system just because it bruises your ego a little!!!

Its how the real world actually works!!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Correct on all points Bose. Or at-least, I'd like to have had my ability assessed, and was grumpy that a "wrong" mix of hours prevented that.

As I've said several times, I firmly believe that the LAA coaching scheme is a Good Thing, and populated by excellent people.

I wanted a shot at becoming/demonstrating that I could become one of those excellent people, but wasn't allowed because I didn't tick the right boxes on experience yet. This annoyed me, but I'll get over it, and if I'm not too busy and still flying such aeroplanes (which I probably will be) when I tick the right boxes I may re-apply.

Other people have said similar things, I was just more vocal. Presumably other people were just turned down and went off to do something else and haven't posted here.

I've not "lambasted the system", I've said repeatedly that it's an excellent system, but that I personally felt that in one area it was being a bit inflexible and that this affected me personally. I have tried about 3 times to just say "okay, I'll leave it now and just go and do other stuff", but people do keep prodding and I then have the choice to either respond and seem bloodyminded, or appear to be rudely sulking in the corner.

G

[S-Works]

I am just prodding you out of mischief to see how high you rise to the bait....

The lambasting comment was target less, just an observation.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Fair enough, it's a Monday, and a good argument about flight training beats the paperwork I'm otherwise knee-deep in.

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

I've worked it out G, the reason for the rejection by the LAA is simple, it's nothing to do with the lack of hours - you failed to wear the correct tie for the suit when you filled the form in.



Pre-edited for spelling mistakes and wrong assumptions

[Genghis the Engineer]

Worse, I suspect that I wasn't wearing a tie at-all at the time. The front cover of most issues of Light Aviation shows clearly that you should be wearing a tie for all purposes, particularly flying light aeroplanes.

G