I know little about the LAA side but if one thinks about it a little I reckon there must be a catch of some sort, otherwise a load of PPL schools would move to operating LAA types, with the cost savings which can be obtained by using some form of DIY maintenance or freelance “engineer” maintenance.
The regulatory concession which enables the existence of the “homebuilt” scene basically hangs on the principle that the builder will hopefully be extra careful with building a plane in which he/she might get killed. The UK LAA (G-reg) scheme, with it’s annual LAA inspector test etc, sidesteps a lot of this principle (which is why e.g. the buyer of an already built G-reg homebuilt gets the same maintenance privileges as the original builder – not a common concession at all when you look at other homebuilt registrations; multiple threads here on this) but the cost savings remain.
The catch is that the student must have a share in the aircraft or be related to an owner.
the student must have a share in the aircraft
It should take you about 5 seconds to work out how a school could arrange that
I seem to recall that there can only be two shareholders in the aeroplane and only them and their children or spouses can train in a permit a/c. I could be wrong though……
Many LAA aircraft have more than 2 in the syndicate. I cannot believe that the situation is that restrictive. I’ve seen a maximum of 20 in a syndicate mentioned elsewhere, which would make more sense
The max of 20 applied to the old requirement for a Public Transport CofA being needed if anyone’s shareholding (in a syndicate around a certified plane) fell below 5%.
From vague memory, the figure of 5% still does appear somewhere today but I would be surprised if it was in the LAA world. Anyway, I can’t imagine an LAA type having 20 members – for all sorts of reasons.
A permit aircraft can not be used for hire, but there is an exemption for groups of which the members own at least a 5% share, hence the 20 member limit. There are other restrictions on the amount charged for direct and indirect costs, but basically it must be an equitable arrangement.
Of course, there’s no guarantee that an ATO and instructor will be available.
Only heard of this (gossip), but it’s not entirely clear to me what it does, lots of things mentioned.
Microlight license – this one is obvious, but it’s a national thing.
EASA FCL – this can be taken in a homebuilt (not microlight) and when taken at an ATO then this will give you a EASA FCL, even in a RV (or other homebuilt)?
Other FCL – Taken in a homebuilt, but not at an ATO. What kind of license will you get?
I understand that the training can be for any initial licence – EASA or national. But you would need the cooperation of an ATO to conduct the training on a suitable aircraft.
I don’t think this includes homebuilts (RVs, Lancairs etc).
I think that’s exactly what it DOES cover