Peter wrote:
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”.
I don’t know the LAA, but I assume that it is a membership organisation? In that case the aircraft owner is not a customer.
I suppose so, too, but their monopoly position does make them into a kind of supplier, with the members the customers, who have nowhere else to go. I quite agree the “DAR” system is a lot more open, and thus more efficient – the heritage of bureaucracy is still thick in many European heads, more’s the pity.
Am I missing something? Permit aircraft are thankfully allowed to operate in the airspace of other countries, yet they operate under an exemption from having to comply fully with ICAO regulations. Each country has its own traditions as to how it enables this. Even with CoA aircraft there’s some unease about allowing people to search for the least restrictive regime, but at least with ICAO aircraft there’s likely to be some baseline standard. For permit aircraft this isn’t the case – see SSDR aircraft as an example.
Now, I don’t see SSDR aircraft as flying deathtraps(++), but if someone were to base an UK permit aircraft abroad on a permanent basis, it seems to me that this would be against the spirit of the reciprocal agreements already in place, that could in a worst-case-scenario be rescinded.
Arguably there should be more European harmony on the management of these aircraft – particularly perhaps when it comes to the approval of factory built lsa types. But I think this is one of those areas where one should be careful what you wish for as we could easily end up with the most restrictive regime rather than the least.
(++) Actually thinking about it, I don’t think the LAA has any remit to deal with SSDR aircraft so perhaps there’s nothing to stop them being based abroad?
It’s not that black and white. The EAA has their own “Technical Counselors” that assists and checks during the build, and the EAA is an organisation just like the LAA. A “DAR” is just a representative appointed by the authorities. I would think everyone (in the UK as well) is free to bypass the organisation, or start their own organisation, but you cannot bypass the authorities. In essence, one of the main functions of the organisations is to make it easier for both the individual builder and the authorities.
In Norway the technical counselors/inspectors are mandatory and are appointed by the authorities, thus the need for an organisation (the EAA) is not that visible perhaps. But they do make life 10 times easier for any builder because the contact with the authorities (with all the needed forms and papers amongst lots of other things) is well established. Once the airplane is finished though, the organisation is not “needed” anymore, but still will be of valuable help, and of course you meet others.
I don’t know much about the LAA, but when they say “it’s not in the best interest of the LAA”, this is not a bad thing in my opinion. They have a “system” of making (and operating by the looks of it) homebuilts that is made together with the CAA. Of course they have to protect that system that probably has evolved over decades of interactions with the CAA, and is the foundation for a free and democratic organisation. I don’t understand why the aircraft have to be “permit” though. Why not let the CAA issue a special CofA like it’s done anywhere else? Surely there must be other ways of building aircraft that involves the CAA to a larger extent?
What is SSDR?
From my point of view it’s no “valuable help” to send owners abroad a letter, saying that they are no longer considered as beeing “in the best interests of the organization”. Still I don’t see any reason for that approach. Why should I renew my membership as an owner??
Plus I have my doubts, that it’s possible to bypass the LAA for permit renewal.
europaxs wrote:
Plus I have my doubts, that it’s possible to bypass the LAA for permit renewal.
Of course it must be possible. The government cannot force anyone to join an organisation, regardless of cause.
LeSving wrote:
Of course it must be possible. The government cannot force anyone to join an organisation, regardless of cause.
Millions of Germans would be happy if what you write was actually true. We are forced members of quite a few organizations in different areas.
What I was getting at earlier is that I have a feeling that the rules under which the UK CAA delegated the Permit powers to the LAA do not actually say anything about shafting G-reg Permit aircraft whose owners just happen to have non-UK postal addresses! And the LAA don’t want anyone to find out.
Maybe somebody familiar with the LAA can comment? Presumably the deal must be in the public domain…
that it’s possible to bypass the LAA for permit renewal.
The obvious solution is to find an LAA inspector who is willing to travel.
There is probably an LAA (used to be called PFA) forum… there is a forum for everything from keeping goldfish to tuning VW Sciroccos 
So throw a post in there… even if the forum seems dead (there is a number of dead aviation forums around the UK) somebody may read it and send you a PM.
Good idea to post it there http://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum
It doesn’t seem to be dead, although not that busy as EuroGA
The EAA has their own “Technical Counselors” that assists and checks during the build, and the EAA is an organisation just like the LAA.
The EAA in the U.S. is a club having no regulatory role whatsoever. Certification of homebuilts is done using the DAR system, in which the designees as individuals act as representatives of the FAA. Builders have no requirement to interact with any person or organization except the FAA designee they choose.
