What's going on at LAA

[Peter Harvey]

And on a more positive note…
Some stuff we're actively working on:
Consultation: Not counted specifically, but it looks like we're involved in around 30 consultations for airspace, NPAs, revision to charges, foreign home built charges, UAV areas, etc. That’s a huge volume of work.

We're organising a large stand for Splash on Nov 29th, the AGM (you are all coming?), the Rally team are beavering away, the HQ/lease (expires end of next year), the workshop for the first Educational Trust courses (I did a deal for an old Porta-cabin with the Turweston Aerodrome owner and we craned it into position next to the car park yesterday, Saturday 25th Oct). Brian Hope, John Dean (this forum's moderator) and others were then stripping it out and re-fitting ready for the first metal work course on November 15th. It’s cheap, we can trash it, it’s put together by volunteers and is a terrific resource to improve the skills of those interested. Mega.

We’re working on the budgets for next year. Charges up everywhere. It’s going to be tough to balance the books and maintain our low charges.

We need to revamp the engineering and membership systems, they’re creaking in places, with another 150 aircraft each year and the overall membership numbers slowly increasing. The impact of system enhancement on processes is potentially interesting, since we’re in discussions with CAA about reducing the volume of paperwork by utilising the web more. Our postage bill is around £36k per annum if memory serves (plus an annual scanning charge for paperwork). Why should you need originals of everything? What’s wrong with sending pdfs, and folks printing their own Permits, renewals, licences, permissions, etc? Much faster and cheaper. There’s a huge amount of paperwork back and forth between LAA and CAA which might be cut down if we can provide access to our systems, or even link them. Of course, there are legal issues and times when the actual original ink on the paper is relevant, but we’re exploring when these moments might be to see what scope there is. Imagine the inconvenience of losing your documents the day before flying overseas and the convenience of us emailing your encapsulated pdf for you to print at home (Yes, we know there’re issues, I’m just telling you what we’re exploring. And yes, we know some folks don’t use the web, so we’ll always have the good old postal system).

Licensing. Peter Davis and Jon Cooke are making great strides with our whole coaching side of things. More info to come, but it’s looking very exciting. In the meantime, they are leading our response to the very major NPA 17 on Flight Crew Licensing. This has now been put back by EASA to December as the full implications and ramifications are becoming apparent. You want an IMC? GP medical? Go anywhere NPPL equivalent? It’s all here and loads more.

Loop is getting better and better (well many of us think so), but there appears to be a glitch with distribution to South Wales and Cornwall, plus a couple of the overseas mags have been late. We’re chasing this, but have sent out a large number direct from the office. Expensive and time consuming. Please email [email protected] if your mag is appreciably late.

EASA is becoming more complex as the high level laws are cascading down into the ‘point solution’ NPA outputs. We’re working hard both in front and behind the scenes to ensure our freedoms are enhanced, or protected. It’s increasingly difficult for EASA to merge the differing requirements from across the national and cultural divides within a common framework that’s ‘appropriate’, legal and everyone’s happy with. Governments want tax revenues, commercial want to minimise GA because of the hassle and cost, airport operators need to make a living, but have increasing costs and regulation, UAVs want ever more airspace, the lawyers want to nail even the slightest misdemeanour, the CAA appear to be under increasing cost pressure and there we are, just another GA national body. Make no mistake, the financiers and lawyers are starting to flex their muscle within the European arena and we may well have to turn to the politicians to find the answer. If you think your membership fee just went on a neat magazine and an engineering facility, you’re severely missing the point. If we don’t continue ducking and diving on your behalf (and, by default, all GA) within this emerging regulatory landscape, you’ll have little airspace, licensing privileges or be able to afford to fly your beautiful aircraft. I’d love to write more on this, but you’ll understand it’s inappropriate to place ‘behind the scenes’ diplomatic efforts into the public arena. The folks actively involved on this include John Brady, Barry Plumb, Roger Hopkinson, Peter Davis, Jon Cooke, John Broad, myself and many others. There is a huge amount of email between EC members discussing the issues. I reckon some of these chaps are spending an average of 3-4 days per week, as volunteers on your behalf. In fact, many of your EC and NC put in significant amounts of time. There’s always something else to get done and rarely sufficient resource. If there’s something that’s regularly left undone, it’s the communication to yourselves the members. In the time taken to do this posting, on a Sunday, I could have written a letter to the new head of SRG, reiterating my outburst at the last GACC meeting about the bleak outlook for GA and why a positive wrap on the CAA’s GA regulatory review was not so appropriate. He’s got a tough job to do too, but LAA must take a fair, but robust stand occasionally. And whilst I’m writing about the other GA arenas, our Chairman, Roger is working hard on the GA Alliance, EFLVA (the European light aircraft community), attended the Parliamentary Group this week, regularly meets the CAA and DfT and Chairs the NPLG.

We will need more volunteers as the workload increases. We can’t afford more professional help, but need to be ever more active.

On a more ‘business as usual’ level, we’ve just had our NPPL audit from CAA. The engineering team have revised our Exposition (significant re-write). I’ve been reviewing our whole insurance cover after big changes with our suppliers. I need to look closer at the strut cover too, to ensure we’re continuing the cover we need and have the processes in place to protect ourselves and the public. Gretta left recently and we’ve received many CVs for her replacement. Apologies for any delays on engineering paperwork and a big thanks to the team for racing around to cover in the meantime.

This time of year we have an external contractor scan, record and burn onto CDs a huge pile of engineering paperwork. That needs checking. Our main server backup has exceeded the tape capacity, so we’re moving to a data warehouse solution, with local hard drive backups. On Friday, out engineering database (the MAIN one) appeared to have a corruption. Jon Viner took it on and within an hour had the previous night’s backup (or the relevant section of it) restored and everything working normally. At least we know the system works. There’s always something.

So, a bit more than I’d anticipated. There’s loads more too, but I really must get to the family (it’s Sunday). Please note, the above is about what’s happening. It’s not finished work, so please don't expect all the answers yet. We don’t have them all. I certainly don’t have time to explain all the thinking, considerations, politics, financials and other aspects of everything we’re working on and to deliver on it (let alone stay polite). If you want to know more, then get involved. We do welcome positive feedback and offers of help. There are a lot of folks doing some sterling work on your behalf, often unpaid and largely un-thanked. I’ll try to make these updates more frequently.
Pete Harvey

[Mike Mold]

Thanks Peter. Hopefully, your reassurances and valuable feedback on HQ/EC activity will satisfy the anonymous, conspiracy theorists, for a short while, at least! But then again...

[Donald Walker]

Loop is getting better and better (well many of us think so),

Some of us think Light Aviation is getting better and better too

Donald

[Richard Mole]

Peter,

like very many other members, I expect, I found your post very informative. I feel proud to be a member of the LAA and continue to wonder at the fantastic value for money bought by my subcription.

Please could you make this type of posting a regular event? I woudn't want you to feel bound to report on a calendar basis, but perhaps a posting every few months giving insight into the energy, enthusiam and effectiveness of the 'centre' would go a long way to bringing on board with new spirit some of those who currently snipe from the periphery.

Its great to be an LAA member benefitting from all the hard work,

[flyin'dutch']

I can see that the future of the organisation can only get better, and that it could easily take over many of the functions of the CAA over time - this is a great opportunity and a huge challenge. Don't shirk it....

I wish the LAA well but there are come caveats on that particular one.

There are quite a few owners/groups who could until recently operate on a CofA cheaper than they now do on an LAA permit; and that is before the compulsion to become an LAA member is added to the mix...

One of the cornerstones of the LAA's manifesto is to provide cost effective aviation for its members, isn't it?

[Brian Hope]

Frank, the trouble with some people is that they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
LAA is not a charity, it costs money to operate the services provided to members, and nobody is getting rich on the back of the members either, it is a non profit organisation that ploughs its surplus funds back into member services. You might like to think for a moment on just how much CAA is fighting your corner in the regulatory world.
The bottom line is that if you think LAA is not good value then don't buy an LAA permit aircraft, go buy a CofA aeroplane, or a BMAA microlight, or a balloon, a boat or a set of golf clubs. It's called freedom of choice.

This is of course my own view under my own name. It does not necessarily relate directly to LAA policy in any way.

[flyin'dutch']

Brian

The problem is that some people having owned a machine which was previously on a CofA were forced down the LAA route; they had no choice.

These folks are now paying a premium over what they used to pay when they were on a CofA.

Not to mention the considerable amount of delay caused by the LAA that was involved in the process.

Where was the choice in all of that?

[Brian Hope]

Frank, the choice was to have a hangar ornament. The CAA decided it was no longer willing or able to continue with the continuing airworthiness and certification of these aircraft. It had absolutely nothing at all to do with the LAA. LAA though, were there to offer the owners a means to continue to operate their aircraft. Don't you think therefore that it is a mite churlish for them to complain that it might cost them a little more?
You are of course totally missing the point, as those who want to moan about costs so often do, and not unwittingly I suspect. Operating under an LAA permit these guys have an opportunity to improve their aircraft and save money. For example, Potez engined Ambassadeur owners can now do an engine swap to an O-200 or have the Olivier ignition mods carried out at far less mod fee costs. They, and other orphans, can also use fit for purpose components rather than possibly manky old bits that cost twice as much and are donkies years old but just happen to have the right bit of paper.
And they don't have to pay a maintenance operation a four figure sum for an annual that they can do themselves under the guidance of an LAA inspector. But let's be absolutely clear here, nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head. If LAA doesn't stack up financially, by all means try elsewhere.

Again, purely my view and not necessarily that of the LAA.

[Rod1]

Peter and Brian

I completely take your point that if an owner does not like the LAA system then sell up and go CAA but that is not always “reasonable”. I spent three years + building my plastic fantastic and created a 10 year “business case” to make it work. If you are going to;

“revamp the engineering and membership”

Please take into account that building and owning an LAA machine is not a short term commitment. I deliberately selected my machine to keep the running costs as low as possible so please do not turn the existing system completely on its head and bump up everything by a huge amount, or I and a lot of others will bumped out of the system. This will reduce not increase the LAA total income in the same way that BL kept putting its prices up and sold less cars till it ceased to be.

Rod1

[Peter Harvey]

Rod1
Re: quote 1.
'...that if an owner does not like the LAA system then sell up and go CAA'

I don't believe I suggested that anywhere. Would you care to retract? I'd like to think that folks joining LAA is a good thing and helps us do our bit for all GA.

Re: quote 2.
'This will reduce not increase the LAA total income in the same way that BL kept putting its prices up and sold less cars till it ceased to be.'

Not really a vote of confidence in our approach is it? Do I understand you believe we should not review the system after all?

We receive much feedback, directly, not on the sidelines like this, regarding the response from engineering. We also know the limitations of the system in use.

We'd like to improve it.

If we don't do something very soon with the system, then it will fail anyway. 'No action' is simply not an option to us.

So, we will review the engineering and membership systems, plus the processes, with the objective of improving services, simplifying where possible, allowing for expansion, keeping the costs as low as possible, avoiding a data clash meltdown, ensuring against loss of service from a provider going bust, accesibilty from the office and remotely, providing a central repository of documents for EC and staff to respond to external stakeholders, ease of use, easy to adapt and enhance, plenty of expert support (no lock-in), linkability to other entities (eg.CAA and EASA), possible link to our financial system, co-ordination between eng and memb system, online accessibility and 'customer' self-service, etc, etc. A customer sounds rather impersonal, but it includes members and members to be, CAA, DfT, HMRC and so on. Rest assured, we will take this seriously and do our best. Do we still sound like BL?

Please keep it positive (my request). I need to save my fighting energy to deal with the outside interests...
Pete Harvey

[flyin'dutch']

Brian that would have indeed been an option but that would have been even worse than being forced down the LAA route.

I don't think it is churlish to make some comment about the cost involved with these transfers, especially as the LAA prides itself on striving for cost efficient flying and wants to embrace a larger part of the GA scene than it traditionally did.

From my perspective it is totally reasonable to question these issues; for a considerable premium my friend can now continue to fly his aeroplane but has lost the privilege to fly it at night, in IMC or use it for a lot more training options than is now the case?

Why did the LAA not negotiate that these privileges were safeguarded with the transition, was a very good opportunity to negotiate these much sought after privileges for at least part of the Permit fleet!

Add to that the totally unacceptable delay of 2 months which was a direct result of a lack of capacity at the engineering department for something that was clearly identified as coming the LAA's way and maybe even the most staunch supporter of the LAA can see that this was not the way to make for happy members.

No doubt people wanting to apply mods can be accommodated for easier on a permit than on the old CofA but that is no solace for those who just want to continue flying as their aeroplane is and who have an engineer who does the maintenance.

Rather than accusing folks of being churlish it may be worthwhile to examine why the permit route works out more expensive than the CAA one.

The premise to which I responded was that Cirrus hoped that a great many things would move from the CAA to the LAA; my point is that unless that indeed means a more cost effective, quick and efficient scheme there may well not be such a great appetite for a transfer as Cirrus suggests.

Unless the LAA adopts a more positive and pro-active policy so that a wider section of GA feels welcome it will have to hope for the regulator to push things their way and 'victims' of these transitions to be brought on board kicking and screaming.

Maybe it will raise numbers but I can hardly imagine that this would be the favoured method.

The recent attempt to merge BMAA and LAA has failed and although I am not privy to the details of the why and what beyond what is available in the public domain it was clear to me that the attitudes from the LAA were likely to be seen arrogant by those in the BMAA, especially those with long memories.

But to understand that requires an amount of introspection and self reflection which is not the natural domain of some of the movers and shakers within the LAA, and I include you in that.

The very sad thing is that such attitudes alienates a lot of folks, some who may not be vociferous enough to post on a bulletin board.

As I have said on the thread about the BB itself, it is time for the LAA to review its communications policy and decide how the LAA wants to communicate with its membership. That would be a lot better than to continue to score own goals as yet again recently was done on the thread on 'anonimity to go on the LAA BB'

With regards to your disclaimer that you are posting your own views; you are the editor of the magazine and as such hold a privileged place and as such it is important that your views are moderate rather than inflammatory.

Rod1
Re: quote 1.
'...that if an owner does not like the LAA system then sell up and go CAA'

I don't believe I suggested that anywhere. Would you care to retract? I'd like to think that folks joining LAA is a good thing and helps us do our bit for all GA.

You didn't but Brian suggested to hang these aeroplanes up as a hangar ornament.

Rod's comment was the natural conclusion of that process.

[Rod1]

Peter I find your post a little hard to understand, so forgive me if I am being an idiot.

------------------------------------

“that if an owner does not like the LAA system then sell up and go CAA'

I don't believe I suggested that anywhere. Would you care to retract?”

-------------------------------------

I was interpreting Brian’s post above + his previous statements, I did not state you said it; the post was to both of you!

----------------------------------------

“'This will reduce not increase the LAA total income in the same way that BL kept putting its prices up and sold less cars till it ceased to be.'

Not really a vote of confidence in our approach is it? Do I understand you believe we should not review the system after all?”

---------------------------------------

I cannot give you a vote of confidence as I do not know how your revamp will go. I was cautioning against a big change which would drastically increase peoples cost over a short time frame. We are all facing the recession and flying funds are going to be squeezed very hard.

---------------------------------------

If we don't do something very soon with the system, then it will fail anyway. 'No action' is simply not an option to us.

------------------------------------
As a user this was not obvious to me. I did not say we should not review (although the existing systems work well for me), just do not lurch too far to quick.

Rod1

[Brian Hope]

Frank, as you see fit to interpret my personal viws as those of the LAA, despite my disclaimer to the contrary, I will simply comment that LAA is, and has been since before the orphan aircraft came on board, working towards getting night and IMC priviledges for certain permit aircraft. The first stage was to get rid of the overflight limitation, and that we (or was it AOPA?) have been successfull in achieving. Work continues on night and IFR but it certainly won't happen overnight.
I have become increasingly frustrated by posters who refuse to accept that I have a personal view and wish to tar the Association with claims of being intransigent or arrogant based on what I have written. I have therefore decided to withdraw completely from the board so this will be my final post.
If anybody has a partricular query they think I might be able to help with then by all means contact me via email or phone, my contact details are in the magazine.