LAA CEO Good Value?
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.
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.
Last edited by Solar; 25th Jul 2010 at 13:17. Reason: spelling
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
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
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
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“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
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
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Bristol'ish
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
“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
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
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
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........
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........
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAA
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.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: now in Zomerset
Age: 62
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The LAA should have direct permission from EASA and NOT try to be a company.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sheerness
Age: 73
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Age: 87
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 )
)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
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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, .
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, .
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAA
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.