Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Is the LAA acting on behalf of UK CAA or is it just an association?

I’m sorry if it sounds silly, but is the UK LAA just an association or is it rather an “authorised body” acting on behalf of CAA?
what’s the link between the UK LAA and CAA in other words on what bases does the LAA issue permits to fly and technical leaflets. As I understand those are legally binding in the UK

some background: based in Poland I’m applying for IFR permit for my amateur built Vans RV. Local regulations among other things require a “certified” engine for IFR approval of homebuilts and other non-EASA airplanes. Type certificate is defined in the regulations as: “a document issued by aviation supervision of another state or an authorised body of another state”. Vans Aircraft sells “non-certified” Lycomings. Non certified meaning without 8130-3 form or any other “certificate”. UK LAA approved or certified the “non-certified” Lycomings in TL 3.15. My understanding is that the above mentioned TL 3.15 is a certificate (of some sort) based on which the LAA approves construction and issues permits to fly for amateur built aircraft

Poland

Thinking of who might know…
@norman
@carbon_copy

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

RV14, my understanding was that the LAA acts on behalf of UK CAA as an approved organisation and issues the UK CAA Permits to Fly (PtF), which are valid in the UK and might be recognised by some other countries.

EGTR

RV14 wrote:

an “authorised body” acting on behalf of CAA

This is the case. The LAA for the UK, the RSA for France, the EAS for Switzerland, etc., are the same, whereas said recognised association is given delegated rights, and duties.
The only problem, once more the sad reality of the failure of Europe where every authority and politician is trying to pull the rug in his direction, is that there is no standard between the rights and duties between these different associations (and respective NAAs)… as an example the re-registration of a homebuilt say between DE and CH is not possible (at present…), but the other way round as in CH to DE works.

Dan
ain't the Destination, but the Journey
LSZF, Switzerland

Dan wrote:

The only problem, once more the sad reality of the failure of Europe where every authority and politician is trying to pull the rug in his direction, is that there is no standard between the rights and duties between these different associations (and respective NAAs)

In that respect it really is a prime example of complete dissonance between how things should and could be done, and how things actually are done. All due to pointless “we know best (and everybody else are stupid)” bureaucratic nonsense by incompetent people. One characteristic about bureaucrats is they are extremely loyal to their “bureau”, its regulations and their country. (It is rather remarkable how EASA even exist, very much against the grain. EU also for that matter.)

How this has happened, has to do with the history of homebuilding in each country, and is the story of “the little man” trying to do odd stuff in an extremely bureaucratic environment during several decades, a century more or less. These “little men” are all very result oriented, and are satisfied as long as it can be done. Exactly how (bureaucracy vise) doesn’t matter.

It is also really funny how people in general do not understand the concept of certification, even among those who really should understand it, the national CAAs. How a certified Lycoming somehow should have a “higher quality” (or whatever) than a noncertified Lycoming is the funniest. The same goes for Rotax. It’s the installation of the engine in a specific airframe that defines the quality and also the certification (and is mostly about such things as generators, vacuum pumps etc). Engines themselves are only engines, and are identical. If the airframe is not certified, then believing that installing a “certified” engine by itself somehow by magic is better than a noncertified engine, then this is the very definition of incompetence. The only exception that I am aware of is instruments (IFR GPS, VOR, transponder, radio etc). This has nothing to do with “quality” whatsoever no matter how this is defined, nor certification as such. This has to to with performance specs. These instruments must adhere to performance specs set by the airspace or by telecommunication bureaus. There are lots of stuff (design, third party testing, reports etc) involved in these performance specs. It is practically impossible to make a “noncertified” version without actually “certifying” it. In theory anyone can build a IFR GPS on their kitchen table, install it and use it, as long as the respective bureaus has accepted the proper documentation for performance. I believe this is true, even in a certified aircraft, in principle. That “one of” kitchen table GPS will for sure be much more expensive than a certified mass produced one.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

The UK LAA is a body which has been given powers delegated from the CAA.

So e.g. they “run” the NPPL license but the actual paper is issued by the CAA.

There is a lot of variation in what LAA inspectors like or dislike, but that’s probably true for every national Annex 1 inspection regime.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
6 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top