Double Standards of the LAA. By Graham Hammond

[Rod1]

Will organisers who rely on 3 / 4 seat aircraft just carry on as normal but drop the “LAA” name? After all each aircraft will be insured and we all take people for rides anyway.

Rod1

[Dave Hall]

We're past the point where the LAA (ie US) is comfortable risking the whole organisation including engineering by having inadequate insurance. There's no argumant about that, I would hope.
Insurance companies find every loophole going for not meeting a claim, and the LAA would be a target if the primary insurance failed through a technicality or an oversight by a member checking it.

I did just wonder if operating YA Days and Scout Camp flying through the LAA ET as a separate company would be able to protect the LAA from contingent (vicarious?) liability. Someone will know the answer to that.

Insurance is a funny thing - I've never needed a seat-belt, but I've been wearing them in cars since 1964, and I've paid considerably more in insurance than claimed. I hope I can keep it that way! John Michie said "If you think insurance is expensive, try having an accident."

We don't know how many will just take a chance and leave the LAA out of it, but that's not really a desirable solution. It will cost you, the organisers something in extra liability insurance; you can't use the Strut insurance in this, (though how you show it's not the Strut organising it I don't know - if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and sounds like a duck etc...). If everyone is paying extra insurance, it may as well be pooled and used to keep the LAA honest.

Meanwhile, anyone with a tame budding Richard Branson, try them out discretely, please!

Can you imagine if Orville and Wilbur were put off by something as trivial as this!

[Joe Iszard]

I know we are not referring to 'Charity Flights' but surely this ;- http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/curre ... 070_en.pdf
has some bearing on taking young children for a flight?

Joe Iszard

[Dave Hall]

I don't think that would get round the insurance required by the LAA - unless the LAA ET didn't require it, which is very unlikely.

(to save looking it up) Charity fund-raising flights where there is a payment can only be flown in CofA aircraft, and only from licensed airfields, which would not work for most LAA events.
Experience is 200 hrs PIC, 25hrs on type and medical minimum is Class 2 JAR and age under 65. Currency is a reasonable 3hrs PIC in last 3 months and 3 t/o and ldgs in the past 30 days.

It would be helpful if everyone could agree on a reasonable level of experience and currency for such flights, but that won't happen overnight.

We could arrange fund-raising flights for cash - subject to the regs. Was that a suggestion? It could pay for the insurance!

[GRF7R7]

I would just like to say a genuine "thank you" to everyone for their comments.
On Wednesday evening Brian and I had a real disagreement about this double standards situation. I could see where he was coming from, though, I could not agree with him. At the end of the evening I left the meeting feeling upset, cross and very depressed at what I feel is the injustice of the LAA's decision.
Reading your comments, from both camps, has been like a tonic. I am just glad that so many feel so strongly.
Whatever the outcome. Thank you.

Graham Hammond

[Nigel Hitchman]

This seems to be a very sorry state of affairs. As several people have said, 3/4 seaters have proven very popular at Young Aviator and similar events, particularly the ability to allow carers or parents to fly with the child.
I wonder how the insurance company justifies this excessive charge for including 3/4 seaters, surely from a risk point of view, it is less if 3 people are taken on one flight, rather than 3 flights. Perhaps we can persuade them to be more realistic, or sponsor the cost themselves! There seems to be no limit to the number of flights we do in one year, so one wonders why the insurance company is prepared to provide insurance that would cover 10,000 flights in two seaters, but not 10 flights in 4 seaters, except for £7000 more.
It would seem to me to be far more logical that any restriction is put on the total number of flights, rather than the number of seats in a particular aircraft. Perhaps we can have 1000 flights in any type of aircraft for £5000, rather than unlimited flights in only 2 seater aircraft.

At least it appears that this restriction only applies to 3/4 seater aircraft giving Young Aviator flights on behalf of the LAA. It doesnt stop 3/4 seater owners from giving flights off their own back- even if they happen to be on the same airfield at the same time as an LAA event. It also doesnt effect 3/4 seater's attendance at LAA fly-ins.

[Brian Hope]

I've just got back from the board meeting where this debate was but one part of the overall LAA Liability discussion. The blame culture and no win no fee lawyers make it a very different world to what it was even ten years ago, and it is likely to get worse rather than better until/unless government legislation re-addresses the balance in favour of commonsense. WE, that's you and me, have to protect the LAA from the possibility of legal action, and everybody who does anything in the name of, or as a representative of the Association has to take the responsibility to ensure they have complied with agreed practices.
On the four seater issue we have decided to upgrade the insurance, but this will be reliant upon individual Struts and YA/Scout event organisers complying with the new, more robust organisational requirements. The currency requirement will remain as per that mentioned in the article/Strut letter.
Longer term we will be having discussions with YES and/or Struts with a particular interest in YA/Scout events with a view to them taking a more proactive role in progressing issues such as funding the insurance, and considering changes to things like the currency limitations. This will all be spelled out in much greater detail in a letter to Struts next week.
The bottom line is that this is a two way street, LAA HQ/Board has an enormous workload and as Roger Hopkinson has spelled out on a number of occassions, the 'Fun' aspects - fly-ins, YA and Scout days etc should be the realm of the Struts. HQ will facilitate those things by providing funding, insurance etc, and in return will require adherence to agreed best practices. It isn't rocket science, and it is to a very great extent, what the best Struts already do to a large extent anyway. We simply have to formalise things a little more.
I hope you will agree that this is a good result, but as I said earlier, it is reliant on co-operation in bringing the new organisational requirements into full operation.

[Dave Hall]

Thanks for passing on the information, Brian. That is indeed a good result.

Thanks too, to the LAA Board for agreeing to extend the contingency cover to include 4-seaters. That will make things much more straight-forward.

[steveneale]

Sorry Dave but it is not a good result.

This 4 seat cover is just one step in the right direction but who decided LAA should gold plate the passenger currency requirements laid down by CAA in the ANO?

This will considerably reduce the ability of experienced but weather bound pilots to contribute to strut events. This will make it much harder for smaller struts like Bristol to stage an event if it will be possible at all in future. Many 4 seaters used have been rented and just a couple of unlucky bookings could exclude a 20000hr ATPL or LAA test pilot from such flying. I am deeply unhappy that it has been made much harder for struts to run philanthropic activities by HQ unnecessary gold plating CAA regulations. Is HQ saying CAA have been remiss in setting the ANO currency requirements?

On top of this add the requirement to force pilots to show all their aircraft and licence documentation to someone in the strut. Some may simply say "get lost" and walk away. Even if pilots are willing to and remember to bring everything, this places the strut person in direct line of fire by ambulance chasers if anything got missed as they are more likely to be targetted if they have signed to say they have check some documents.
Where does the checking stop? What if there was an error in a tech log or a MPD/Mandatory change had been overlooked? The flight would still be technically illegal and an insurance company might refuse to pay out if that omission was a contributing factor. Are organisers expected to be experts on every aircraft that takes part in one of their events?

One final point. This should have been discussed at NC before hand then agreed changes publicised in the magazine. I was not. To do so before consulting NC was at the least impolite and tactically unwise as publicly back peddling over 4 seaters only after a barrage of emails from struts simply makes HQ look stupid and completely out of touch with grass roots activity.

Steve

[Brian Hope]

I am not prepared to go into greater detail here, Struts will get a letter next week setting out the current position, and there will ultimately be a real opportunity for them to influence how these events are run, including revisiting the pilot currency requirements. As a Board I believe we have shown our commitment to the Struts by being prepared to invest additional funds and by deciding to try to establish a Strut/YES led regime to tackle the challenges that these events present us with. Bemoaning the situation will resolve nothing, let's work together to ensure that we can continue to provide youngsters with the thrill of a ride in a light aircraft well into the future. The other alternative, and it is an alternative make no mistake, is to pull the plug on it altogether, and none of us want to do that.

[Nigel Hitchman]

Thanks for the update Brian. I hope the LAA is not just going to agree to pay the extra £5000. Whoever is negotiating this with the insurance company needs to use a bit more persuasion and logic to see what the extra (if any) liability from using a few four seaters really is. £5000 for 50 flights in a four seater, really is not good "value for money" and a rip off by the insurance company. Particularly in the case that some of these 4 seaters might be rented aircraft, from flying schools who probably (I dont know) have insurance far in excess of what we have on our LAA aircraft.
Where is the justification for all of this, what records do we actually have to show what aircraft are used at young Aviator events? We probably have none, which is really as it should be, but if we want to get this insurance realistic then perhaps we need to keep some records, or ask what people did last year etc.
What data do the insurance companies have to justify these charges, what are they basing it on, how many flights are they assuming??

Are we using the right insurance company, dont Devon strut have their own insurance for events (think I read it on their website), maybe they have got a better deal.

For years I tried to get an insurance policy to insure both of my aircraft on the same policy, but only flying one at a time. Said to be impossible. Then I got a quote from another company that allowed this, suddenly it was possible with my original insurance company and cheaper! I now pay the same for two aircraft as I did for one before. I guess you just have to keep asking and shop around.

I think Steve has a good point too, it would have been better to put something like this past a wider audience such as the NC before making it public and now after the outcry the board changing its mind. I know you cant do this with everything and the NC doesnt meet very often, but I guess excluding 4 seaters from these events wa a fairly major change of policy.

As for the recency requirements, I agree with Steve, why are we second guessing the CAA, if they have a requirement for charity flights, perhaps we should use that and not gold plate it (something we often accuse the CAA of!) Why do the Scouts know better than the CAA too?? 10 hours in the last 3 months is a lot, particularly if you have an event in April/May!!

[Brian Hope]

Nigel, the recency issue is not as straightforward as complying with the ANO, which incidentally does not carry specific advice for our kind of event. A simple scenario - we decide to ignore Scout and Cadet guidelines and go with minimum CAA requirements - 3 landings in 90 days, no experience on type etc etc. Little Johnny goes flying with a 50 hour pilot who has done three touch and gos in the past week but nothing else in the past six months. They have an accident and Johnny gets hurt. Explain to some sharp barrister on what grounds you ignored Scout and Cadet guidelines. It's your guess and mine whether simply stating that CAA says it's ok - which in fact they do not in black and white - will convince a judge and jury. Maybe you would like to stake your house, career and possible freedom on the outcome, I certaily would not.
Now, present a system with a well researched and considered safety case to back it up and you are in with a fighting chance. Fact is we - the Board - simply do not have the time to put that safety case together, so we are wanting to bring the interested parties who run the youth education projects together so they can discuss and research this issue, along with others such as funding. The days when central LAA was in a position to fulfil every desire of the membership are gone, the regulatory burden, and ensuring our in-house liabilty protections are robust are just two areas which required considerably less time just a few years ago, but are now major issues. If members want initiatives like YA and Scouts they will have to get more deeply involved in regulatory framework that enables us to run them. I am hopeful that we have enough members committed to make that happen, if we do not then it simply will not happen.
I recently sent out a note to every Strut seeking help with running a flea-market and show if part complete projects at the rally. You all know the rally don't you, that event that everybody whinged about when it was gone and clamoured to have returned. I received not a single reply. The end result if nobody does come forward to offer help is that there will be no fleamarket or show of projects, and then no doubt everybody will blame the Rally committee and the board for the no show. Sometimes I really do wonder if it would hurt less if I stopped banging my head against the brick wall, but I must simply be too daft to actually stop.

[J.C.]

Brian you may have noticed that I have been quiet on here lately.
I've been waiting for the swelling to go down so that I can remove the bandages from my head.
Maybe thats the real sign of a LAA supporter...bandaged head sindrome

[steveneale]

A simple scenario - we decide to ignore Scout and Cadet guidelines and go with minimum CAA requirements - 3 landings in 90 days, no experience on type etc etc. Little Johnny goes flying with a 50 hour pilot who has done three touch and gos in the past week but nothing else in the past six months. They have an accident and Johnny gets hurt. Explain to some sharp barrister on what grounds you ignored Scout and Cadet guidelines.

My response to said barrister would be:

"The scouts are not an aviation regulator so what has that to do with anything?
We complied with all legal requirements of the Air Navigation Order. Are you implying the CAA were lax when they defined those criteria?"



Steve

[Brian Hope]

It comes down to judgement Steve. Would you put your dearly beloved with somebody who meets the CAA minima but nothing more? Do you not believe LAA has a responsibility to require a higher level of ability? I think Joe public would and a court may well agree with them. I agree the Scout requirement does not come from an organisation with a great deal of aviation experience, but they looked at the EAA minima for YA, and the Cadet requirements and made a judgement based on them. That is not to say that an alternative would not make more sense, should number of recent take offs and landings not be considered in the equation? As I say, we want those involved to work on this and make a safety case to support any changes they feel able to present for consideration. As it is you may well be happy to risk your all on the CAA minima, the board decided we were not prepared to risk the Association on it.