Achimha wrote:
Yes because OUV are responsible for German homebuilt projects and the LAA are responsible for UK projects. Makes sense, doesn’t it? Each homebuilt has to be built according to the rules of an organization that has assumed oversight by power of the CAA and your craft was built under LAA rules which are different from OUV rules so OUV cannot take over that responsibility.
Hi Achim, as you write it there, it makes sense. I also agree with the statement that each national authority can choose its own strategy. I simply said that I do not understand that stance taken by Germany because it appears very unique compared to the rest of Europe, this is the subtlety behind my comment. Well, to be precise my comment is aimed at the OUV. The DFS allow aircraft access according to ECAC with no further restrictions. But the OUV won’t even inspect a foreign aircraft.
You are in essence trying to operate a homebuilt like any other aircraft that is built, sold and operate
How so? That’s a sweeping statement which puts all of us in the same box. There are some that wish to operate a homebuilt that way, for certain reasons, access to cheaper non certified parts, better fuel consumption from rotax, able to use standard E10/Mogas. But there are those of us who will operate them as homebuilts and get very involved with the maintenance.
I have just spoken to one LAA inspector (not local to where I am based but somebody I know) whose view seems to be
I don’t know how the last situation above is solved – apart from the obvious (an illegal flight).
Re the first item above, to me this statement is not surprising because how do you define “based”? To make the definition strict e.g. “the aircraft happens to be abroad when the annual inspection is desired” would be an outrageous restriction on the freedom of movement. It would also be stupidly wrong for an aircraft which is unquestionably based in the UK 99% of the time but e.g. the owner falls ill when abroad, and the Permit renewal comes up.
Actually there must be cases where an aircraft has got stranded abroad due to bad weather, and the Permit expires. Then what do you do? It sounds crazy to me. I am sure there are solutions but I can see nobody wants to talk about them. I would not talk about them openly if I knew them 
Peter wrote:
if the Permit expires when abroad, the reason you have a BIG PROBLEM is that an LAA (G-reg) aircraft needs a flight test, which is impossible to do legally outside the UK once the Permit has expired.
Why? Any CAA is free to let any aircraft test-fly to regain airworthiness. They are of course free to say no, but that seems unreasonable when they allow it to fly with a “permit” in the first place.
It’s the geographical restriction which seems arbitrary.
After all, LAA aircraft can fly anywhere (subject to getting the required permits for each flight) so it would be cray to require one to be dismantled and carted back to the UK if the owner/pilot got into some trouble and allowed the Permit to lapse. Clearly it must happen…
My situation is:
I purchased a G-registered homebuilt in the UK. The UK CAA register shows me as a new owner, with my home address. This is the only geographical information LAA has and based on this it (correctly) assumes the aircraft is stationed abroad.
After a number of discussions and e-mail exchanges the final LAA statement is:
As this statement gives no options, I just have started the registration process at my local CAA.
As a member I’ve sent an E-Mail to the LAA almost a week ago to ask for the reason for their (new) strange approach but didn’t get a response yet, other than “We acknowledge receipt of your email, which is receiving our attention.”
Must be a very difficult answer to an easy question…….
A classical monopoly issue. The CAA gives a monopoly to the LAA and they abuse it. Create a second organization with identical privileges and very soon, the quality of the service will increase.
Delegation to individuals, not organizations works even better DAR Directory
Back to the beginning (if the original poster is still around) : what was the reason for asking, and what been done about it?
My guess, from the form of words they are using, is that the LAA knows they are operating a policy which is outside their authority and are hoping to fob people off for as long as they can, and hopefully nobody will turn up with a lawyer.
“does not consider that it is in the best interests” is not something written by somebody who is on firm ground. It is typical corporate stonewall / whitewash / bullsh1t. They just left off the normally obligatory “reach out / looking forward / our partners / at this time / etc”.
And the phrase ""does not consider that it is in the best interests of the LAA" is just saying “we are here to serve ourselves, not you as our customer”. It’s an astonishing phrase to use and risks creating what I am sure is a wholly incorrect impression of what sort of people might be at the top of the “organisation”.
But any homebuilder whose aircraft is in any way nonstandard (which will be most of them – otherwise why have a homebuilt type?) is not going to get aggressive because he cannot afford to p1ss off the very few LAA inspectors who might be willing to travel abroad. In such a situation, the LAA has you over a barrel even if you are based in the UK. It’s like if you are flying a certified type full of dodgy mods… you aren’t going to get nasty with the one maintenance company which turns a blind eye to the mods and have been doing so for years. The other day I had lunch with an LAA “client” and saw the multi-page report on the LAA flight test on his homebuilt… I would bet the LAA has the tightest system in Europe. I would think twice about being on the G-reg, having seen and read this stuff. But non-G has all the other issues already discussed if you are to be based in the UK.
The original poster has not logged in since his original post.
