LAA CEO Good Value?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sheerness
Age: 73
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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low powered, fixed pitch, fixed prop low performance VP1 and Luton Minor, great little aeroplanes though they are, have been replaced by sophisticated 150mph plus retractable, ultra lightweight construction, constant speed prop turning, glass panel equipped sportsters that actually do demand a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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: now in Zomerset
Age: 62
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Rod1
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sheerness
Age: 73
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Age: 87
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“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)
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)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: now in Zomerset
Age: 62
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sheerness
Age: 73
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
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
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: suffolk
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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.
Its a shame you can't get this sort of thing going on the LAA website like the old days!
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.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
n8662v
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
laa
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.
This info from a senior surveyor now retired.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Age: 87
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just when you thought it was over.....
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!
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!
