Shafted again?

[paulbh]

The following extract is from the email sent out by the LAA appears to be good news “Following on from the recent good news that UK Permit to Fly aircraft can now visit Ireland without prior permission needing to be sought, the Irish Aviation Authority has now announced that visiting UK based NPPL holders with SSEA, SLMG or Microlight ratings can now operate in Ireland. There are a number of criteria which must apply, none of which are likely to be problematic to the typical NPPL holder”. Great news eh! Well no, not at all if you fly a factory built Gyrocopter which complies with BCAR Section T for Light Gyroplanes.

For information BCAR Section T for Light Gyroplanes is based on BCAR Section S, which is applicable to microlight aeroplanes, suitably amended to cover gyroplanes, and is intended to reflect a similar level of airworthiness source http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP643.PDF

So there we all are, proud gyro owners paying membership & other fees to the LAA & CAA while being prohibited from joining our fellow aviators flying to Ireland or over Congested Areas within the UK source http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1413/20120109 ... dAreas.pdf even though the aircraft manufactures and agents have spent a great deal of money and effort jumping through all the hoops to reflect a similar level of airworthiness.For those that do not understand the landing capabilities of a gyrocopter have a look at the dead stick landing of a gyrocopter on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8IB-5PbL9U and tell me that in the event of an engine failure you could put your aircraft down so safely and in such a controlled manner in a similar sized area?

If I was to let my cynical side out for a walk and looking at the above would I think “shafted again”? Who knows? I think it may be best keep the cynical side locked up.

[Brian Hope]

Hi Paul, I have no idea why gyros have not been included but will ask the question and get back asap.

[Trevor Harvey]

There is a link in that email from LAA that refers to the Irish regs (page 5) & I'm sure I saw a ref to gyros in it, but not page 5?

[paulbh]

Hi Trevor,

Part and only part of the point I am making is the double standards. I own and fly an aircraft that meets or exceeds all of the required UK standards as do all the benefiters’ of the CAA/IAA agreement who fly on NPPL or in a Permit aircraft. The link you refer to http://www.iaa.ie/library_download.jsp?libraryID=843 states that Rotorcraft-Gyroplanes pilots.

(1) Submits to the Authority a completed application form.
(2) Holds or obtains an ICAO Annex 1 or JAR-FCL Class 1 or 2 Medical Certificate.

The MTOSport gyro is flown on a CAA permit and I hold a NPPL medical and license, I can under this arrangement fly a pretty much any GA permit aircraft that meets the national UK standard to Ireland. However as soon as the word gyrocopter is mentioned regardless of the fact it is fully compliant with BCAR Section T (which is similar to BCAR Section S (microlights)) the double standards come out and are applied to the disadvantage of gyrocopters and gyro pilots insofar as I have to obtain a JAR-FCL Class 1 or 2 Medical and fill in and submit an application form to the IAA.

Essentially three questions should to be asked of permit aircraft:

1. Does aircraft meets the national standard?
2. Does the pilot have a recognised license?
3. Does the pilot have a recognised medical?

If the answer to all three questions is yes why is a differing or double standard applied to gyrocopters on a permit?

Cheers Paul

[Trevor Harvey]

Hi Paul
As far as I recall it is not possible to fly a gyro on a NPPL GP sig medical.
Though I think a PPL(G) can be held with a GPsign off med declaration.
But I agree double standards. The gyro exists, is recognised as an aircraft, is acepted by CAA & LAA.

4.1 Private Pilot Licences (Rotorcraft-Gyroplanes)
The holder of a PPL (Gyroplane), not issued in accordance with Annex 1 and restricted to
operation of gyroplane category aircraft, may exercise the privileges of such PPL within the
State under a Certificate of Validation (period not exceeding 12 months or such shorter period
as the Authority deems fit), provided that the applicant:-
(1) submits to the Authority a completed application form with the required documentary
evidence;
(2) holds or obtains an ICAO Annex 1 or JAR-FCL Class 1 or 2 Medical Certificate;
(3) has not less than 50 hours total flight experience as pilot of the relevant aircraft class,
including at least 25 hours dual instruction and 10 hours PIC time including not less than 5
hours PIC cross-country time; and
(4) holds a Radio Telephony (Restricted) Rating endorsed on the licence submitted, or a
separate Radio Telephony Licence, entitling the holder to use VHF radio-telephony
communication equipment, in the English language.

[Brian Hope]

Hi Trevor, I am not sure quite who you believe to have double standards, it is certainly not the LAA or the CAA on the gyroplane isssue. As you say if the answers are positive to the questions:

1. Does aircraft meets the national standard?
2. Does the pilot have a recognised license?
3. Does the pilot have a recognised medical?

Then you should be allowed to fly freely - and in the UK you are. These aircraft are covered by a non ICAO national certification, Section T, which is not recognised outside of the UK. Just as Microlights are covered by Section S and homebuilts and orphans by LAA Approval to a variety of design codes, they all have a Permit to Fly - again a UK only non ICAO regime whether that be administered by LAA, BMAA or the CAA.
In order to operate outside of the UK, agreements have to be reached with other states and the unfortunate fact is many of those states simply do not understand gyroplanes, and they insist on excluding gyroplanes from cross border agreements.
So, why the distrust of gyros? Well it comes down to the fact that there is very little safety data available about gyros within most National Aviation Authorities and, unlike microlights and homebuilts, where associations have built up a body of evidence to support the argument that the aircraft have a satisfactory safety record, and work together across Europe to gain mutual benefit, the gyro movement has not. Effectively NAAs do not see the gyro movement coming to the table with well prepared and researched argument to support its desire to be treated on an equal footing with other non ICAO type aircraft which are at the table and do present a strong case.

I do not doubt there are reasons for this, let's face it the modern two place gyro movement is very new and still relatively small, as is the British Rotorcraft Association. It takes time to form liaisons with other gyro organisations across Europe, and a will, finance and volunteers with the drive to create a European federation. But if the gyro movement wants to spread its wings these are the kind of things it will have to do. I don't doubt most people believe that being allowed to fly a permit aircraft abroad and now use your NPPL in Ireland just happen by magic - I can assure you they do not and an awful lot of discussion, documentation preparation and debate goes on to gain those freedoms, it happens because LAA has a well-earned reputation founded on years of hard work and trust.
Nobody is going to deny that great strides have been made by manufacturers with the modern gyroplanes, to some extent the problem is that in moving from a very small niche sector of homebuilt single-seaters to a far more active group of factory built Section T approved two-seaters, the BRA and the movement generally has, understandably, not developed the broader requirements of European representation.

Part of the solution would be the BRA deciding who it wants to align with, BMAA or LAA and working with them to make a safety case, based on researched data, and also working to unite the various European gyro groups to have a stronger European voice. That will require a group of gyro guys with the drive to make that happen, pillars of the gyro community with the desire to work with the powers that be in a professional and patient manner, because success in these arenas does not come overnight. The desire, drive and ambition must come from within the gyro community, just as in all walks of life, the world owes nobody a free ride.
On a personal level, I have tried to interest the gyro fraternity to bring their Gyro Village concept to the Rally but have met only negativity, there seems to be a view that the LAA membership is not a potential gyro customer opportunity. I don't believe that is true for a moment and a great opportunity is being missed. As a relatively casual observer of the UK gyro scene, I have witnessed the fact that in recent years a handful of agents, and instructors have displayed great professionalism in raising the bar considerably. I know not what their status is within BRA but consider that they should be pushing for what appears to have become stalled discussions of merging with another group to restart. I do not believe LAA has a negative attitude to gyros at all, we do after all have the homebuilt gyros on our fleet, but unless we sit around a table together and try to thrash out an agreement I do not see the lot of the gyro owner improving in the foreseeable future.
I should add that these are my personal views, not necessarily those of the LAA Board.

[Trevor Harvey]

Hi Brian
I have nothing to do with gyro's except I was once interested enough to look into them & tried it for a weekend.
Point I was making was that as they are a recognised aircraft by the CAA/LAA why the need, from the Irish, for an application form &, (I may be wrong here) why the need for a class 1/2 medical when in the UK they can? be flown on a GP sign off?
It just looked as though the Irish authoriies were asking for more from the gyro pilot than the rest of us.
I take your point about the safety record but was under the impression that the problem had been addressed, (thrustline etc).
Also since my last post I have, by pure co-incidence, discovered a somewhat cavalier attitude to their operation/maintenance/record keeping "system". So perhaps I should review my opinion

[paulbh]

Hi Trevor,

Quote "Also since my last post I have, by pure co-incidence, discovered a somewhat cavalier attitude to their operation/maintenance/record keeping "system". So perhaps I should review my opinion" Unquote.

I think that you need to expand on that one, if someone has a cavalier operation/maintenance/record keeping "system" that is doing the sport damage then name and shame.

Cheers Paul

[Trevor Harvey]

Hi Paul.
I do not know who the person was who either bent it, repaired it, sold it, signed it off. But for an a/c to be in the "serviceable a/c" loop in such a condition is not in my opinion funny. Rest assured it is being fixed correctly but that doesn't excuse those upstream of now.
Sorry I won't give names, regs or details. In the wrong hands the accident stats would have increased.

[paulbh]

Hi Paul.
I do not know who the person was who either bent it, repaired it, sold it, signed it off. But for an a/c to be in the "serviceable a/c" loop in such a condition is not in my opinion funny. Rest assured it is being fixed correctly but that doesn't excuse those upstream of now.
Sorry I won't give names, regs or details. In the wrong hands the accident stats would have increased.

Hi Trevor,

I am sure reasonably sure that the LAA and the CAA have seen work signed off as "serviceable" on all aircraft types which is anything but "serviceable" but the point you seemed to be making on your previous post

Also since my last post I have, by pure co-incidence, discovered a somewhat cavalier attitude to their operation/maintenance/record keeping "system". So perhaps I should review my opinion

As the word their when writing about gyros implies that all gyro owners/engineers are cowboys reinforces the individual and corporate sub conscious against gyros when in reality it is an individual who has behave in the way discribed and who in all likelihood will continue to do so, regardless of the aircraft involved! If I appear to be overly sensitive then my apologies, but I have decided it is time to challenge stereotyping of gyrocopters as an unsafe aircraft consciously or unconsciously. It is time for the LAA/CAA to start from a positon of yes this group of aircraft should fly; what proof is there preventing safe flight. Not from a position of no you cannot fly unless you prove xxxx yyyy zzzz.

Cheers Paul
ps those xxxx are not kisses

[Brian Hope]

Paul, you are making the same sweeping assumptions as Trevor when you say
"It is time for the LAA/CAA to start from a position of yes this group of aircraft should fly; what proof is there preventing safe flight. Not from a position of no you cannot fly unless you prove xxxx yyyy zzzz."
Neither the CAA nor LAA is trying to prevent gyros from flying, the complete opposite is true. The proof CAA require that a gyro is airworthy is no different to that for a microlight of Group A aircraft - it has to be approved against an airworthiness code and it has to be suitably maintained. Once that has been done, and both Rotorsport and Magni have had their aircraft approved, they are allowed to fly in the UK. Likewise LAA has cleared a number of single seat homebuilt types over the years and continues to support them with the Permit to Fly scheme. At this moment in time, LAA has absolutely no involvement with the new generation two seat Section T machines.
It is very easy to complain that the world is out to get you, it isn't. CAA and LAA enable gyros to fly in the UK and pilots to gain licences to fly them. The problems come when people wish to operate outside of the UK, so railing against CAA and LAA is rather like biting off the hand that feeds you. A more positive stance would be to read my earlier post and decide how the gyro community can begin to help itself by improving its profile in the broader European community.

[Trevor Harvey]

Brian,
I would like to point out that I have never made sweeping assumptions on any subject.
You however seem to have assumed that I am blaming the CAA/LAA regarding this issue.
Quote:Paul, you are making the same sweeping assumptions as Trevor when you say
"It is time for the LAA/CAA to start from a position of yes this group of aircraft should fly; what proof is there preventing safe flight. Not from a position of no you cannot fly unless you prove xxxx yyyy zzzz."Unquote.
My actual words were Quote:But I agree double standards. The gyro exists, is recognised as an aircraft, is acepted by CAA & LAA.Unquote.
Meaning that the supposed un-acceptance was from the Irish authorities or elsewhere.
I would demand, not request, that you be advised that I have the utmost admiration for the LAA in it's work on our behalf and always have had.
Yes I am considerably peeved at the thought that my views have been mis-understood.
Regarding the cavalier attitude.
I have deleted the details because I am no longer getting involved

[paulbh]

Hi Trevor, I am not sure quite who you believe to have double standards, it is certainly not the LAA or the CAA on the gyroplane isssue. As you say if the answers are positive to the questions:

1. Does aircraft meets the national standard?
2. Does the pilot have a recognised license?
3. Does the pilot have a recognised medical?

Then you should be allowed to fly freely - and in the UK you are. These aircraft are covered by a non ICAO national certification, Section T, which is not recognised outside of the UK. Just as Microlights are covered by Section S and homebuilts and orphans by LAA Approval to a variety of design codes, they all have a Permit to Fly - again a UK only non ICAO regime whether that be administered by LAA, BMAA or the CAA.
In order to operate outside of the UK, agreements have to be reached with other states and the unfortunate fact is many of those states simply do not understand gyroplanes, and they insist on excluding gyroplanes from cross border agreements.
So, why the distrust of gyros? Well it comes down to the fact that there is very little safety data available about gyros within most National Aviation Authorities and, unlike microlights and homebuilts, where associations have built up a body of evidence to support the argument that the aircraft have a satisfactory safety record, and work together across Europe to gain mutual benefit, the gyro movement has not. Effectively NAAs do not see the gyro movement coming to the table with well prepared and researched argument to support its desire to be treated on an equal footing with other non ICAO type aircraft which are at the table and do present a strong case.

I do not doubt there are reasons for this, let's face it the modern two place gyro movement is very new and still relatively small, as is the British Rotorcraft Association. It takes time to form liaisons with other gyro organisations across Europe, and a will, finance and volunteers with the drive to create a European federation. But if the gyro movement wants to spread its wings these are the kind of things it will have to do. I don't doubt most people believe that being allowed to fly a permit aircraft abroad and now use your NPPL in Ireland just happen by magic - I can assure you they do not and an awful lot of discussion, documentation preparation and debate goes on to gain those freedoms, it happens because LAA has a well-earned reputation founded on years of hard work and trust.
Nobody is going to deny that great strides have been made by manufacturers with the modern gyroplanes, to some extent the problem is that in moving from a very small niche sector of homebuilt single-seaters to a far more active group of factory built Section T approved two-seaters, the BRA and the movement generally has, understandably, not developed the broader requirements of European representation.

Part of the solution would be the BRA deciding who it wants to align with, BMAA or LAA and working with them to make a safety case, based on researched data, and also working to unite the various European gyro groups to have a stronger European voice. That will require a group of gyro guys with the drive to make that happen, pillars of the gyro community with the desire to work with the powers that be in a professional and patient manner, because success in these arenas does not come overnight. The desire, drive and ambition must come from within the gyro community, just as in all walks of life, the world owes nobody a free ride.
On a personal level, I have tried to interest the gyro fraternity to bring their Gyro Village concept to the Rally but have met only negativity, there seems to be a view that the LAA membership is not a potential gyro customer opportunity. I don't believe that is true for a moment and a great opportunity is being missed. As a relatively casual observer of the UK gyro scene, I have witnessed the fact that in recent years a handful of agents, and instructors have displayed great professionalism in raising the bar considerably. I know not what their status is within BRA but consider that they should be pushing for what appears to have become stalled discussions of merging with another group to restart. I do not believe LAA has a negative attitude to gyros at all, we do after all have the homebuilt gyros on our fleet, but unless we sit around a table together and try to thrash out an agreement I do not see the lot of the gyro owner improving in the foreseeable future.
I should add that these are my personal views, not necessarily those of the LAA Board.

Hi Brian,

If you look at this LAA/PFA proposal made to the CAA regarding over flight of congested areas http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co. ... Change.pdf

You will see the LAA proposal states that "The condition applies to all UK CAA and UK EASA permit-to-fly aircraft, which includes those supervised by the PFA and BMAA as well as those handled by the CAA itself; the latter including former military aircraft operated under CAP 632. This paper analyses the issues as they relate to light single engine aircraft and then makes a comparison with airworthiness regimes and data on microlight and CAP 632 aircraft. Rotorcraft are not considered". If that does sound like a double standard please tell what it meant to sound like? To me it reads we (the CAA/LAA/BMAA) will take up the task of enabling any permit aircraft except gyrocopters to be exempt from The UK Air Navigation Order preventing flight over a congested area.

As you have stated the LAA has few gyros in their fleet but for gyrocopters to be excluded at the very start of a LAA proposal to the CAA while still taking membership and engineering fees is in my view a little disingenuous. However I certainly agree with you that part of the solution would be the BRA deciding who it wants to align with, BMAA or LAA and working with them to make a safety case, however it should not be all up to the BRA to make the safety case as the LAA has gyros within its fleet.

I would like to know who you have been in contact with within the BRA which prevented the Gyro Village concept being at the Rally due to their negativity so that I may take it up with the BRA directly.

Cheers Paul Harrison

[Alan Kilbride]

Go on then my turn to look stupid.

Does the reason for Gyros not being considered relate to their lack of ability to "Glide Clear"?
Can they in the event of an engine failure Glide any distance?

i just know I'm going to get bitten,but I don't know the answer.

[Brian Hope]

Hi Paul, I think the proposal pretty well makes the case I suggested in my first post - the argument for allowing overflight for PtF Group A and microlight aircraft is made based on a good safety case, something that could not be done for the gyros - at that time mainly single seat homebuilt types that had a pretty poor accident history.
I'm afraid I cannot give you any names re the Gyro Village, I have spoken to different people at NEC and Popham, and my colleagues on the Rally Team also spoke to people at Popham last year and there is general disinterest in appearing at the Rally. I don't think it is a BRA organised feature, I've always had a good rapport with their reps at the shows, seems more to be a UK agents/training schools run thing but I may be wrong. We'd love to see them at the Rally and would be happy to discuss favourable terms.
Trevor, my comment about sweeping statements was because you said: "It is time for the LAA/CAA to start from a position of yes this group of aircraft should fly; what proof is there preventing safe flight. Not from a position of no you cannot fly unless you prove xxxx yyyy zzzz." Now in my book that's a comment accusing LAA and CAA of taking a negative view on gyros and trying to prevent them from flying, and that is patently not the case. I don't believe that comment is easily misunderstood, though maybe it's not what you meant. Better to say what you really mean perhaps than demand that I somehow read between the lines that you were really talking about the IAA and not the CAA/LAA.