Yeah with each permit renewal the LAA require all sorts of info to be recorded in a check flight.
The Check Flight Schedule is here on the LAA website
Because of the number of things to check, myself and many LAA owners just copy most of the details over from the previous year, because a regularly flown aircraft will have problems fixed anyway and if a number is slightly outside of what the LAA want it just means you’ll have unnecessary hassle getting the form renewed. So it’s nothing more than a paperwork exercise.
Recording everything in the check flight schedule could be useful for some kind of trend monitoring, but when considering that the check flight can be performed at any point in the 12 months preceding the permit renewal none of this makes sense.
I regularly fly my RV to Vne on descents with no problem whatsoever, but on some other types I’d not be so thrilled. I never flew my escapade to Vne.
In general the LAA is a mess. For example I’ve been trying to get a simple answer out of them for 10 weeks, the only person who I’m told can answer my question doesn’t know the answer and she responds to her emails once every 3-4 weeks.
The good news is that in 40 years homebuilt GA won’t exist in the UK I’m fairly sure, so who cares
Thanks for your, rather disappointing shall I say, reporting.
It demonstrates, amongst other things, how differently NAA and/or designated homebuilt associations work. Another demonstration of European unity I guess.
In CH the system is completely different, as the PtF is renewed on a biennial basis, by the NAA (FOCA) itself. An NAA inspector will spend the best part of half a day scrutinizing the subject aircraft and it’s relevant paperwork. The conclusion is then either the issuance of a new PtF (ARC as on certified), a single or more Level 2 entry where the defect is to be fixed within a given time, or Level 1, where the aircraft is grounded (PtF invalidated) until the fault has been corrected.
But all this checking is static, as in no (could be requested) engine running, and no flight test.
Returning onto thread tracks, the logic (or supposed logic) of the Vne flight test requirement is given right in the head of the box:
Another oddity is that in the Vans specified Vne for an RV6 is 210mph, or 182 knots. The LAA Type Acceptance Data Sheet for the RV-6 shows 184kt for some reason and they have no intention of changing this.
Some UK RV6s have 182 knots on their operating limitations sheet and some have 184, including mine. This caused a problem on the last permit reval because I put 182kt as the max speed achieved instead of 184. There’s no difference in reality but this situation kinda highlights how pointless the whole exercise is.
this situation kinda highlights how pointless the whole exercise is.
I work in engineering development of aircraft equipment. In order to properly manage program risk and costs we determine which parameters should be part of one-time Design Validation Testing performed by the manufacturer to certify the design, and which should be tested on each unit as a check of initial functionality or ongoing condition. A Vne test is so clearly a design validation test that the determination would take 2 seconds. What the requirement for an annual test to Vne by the end user shows me is that LAA doesn’t have a basic understanding of this subject.
I also disagree that homebuilt aircraft designs need to be qualified or certified, they should be experimental, but that is different discussion. Promotion of individual innovation and education should be part of the system, including an allowance for individual management of risk. There is a reason why LAA personnel apparently never learned basic test engineering.
Silvaire wrote:
I also disagree that homebuilt aircraft designs need to be qualified or certified, they should be experimental, but that is different discussion.
Well, for truly experimental things the UK has got “e-conditions”, where you ask a “supervising adult” (a person of certain standing in aviation industry) to sign papers and you can get UK CAA approval fairly quickly. Valid for a year, you might be able to extend it for another year, but this is not a permanent thing. And it is valid in the UK only.
One might consider that being an adult should preclude the regulatory requirement for a ‘supervising adult’ 
Silvaire wrote:
One might consider that being an adult should preclude the regulatory requirement for a ‘supervising adult’
:) Well, obviously, they give it a different name, but you see the point…
“Another oddity is that in the Vans specified Vne for an RV6 is 210mph, or 182 knots. The LAA Type Acceptance Data Sheet for the RV-6 shows 184kt for some reason”
Maybe different airspeed – IAS, CAS.
I got an email rap for using the wrong airspeed from the DR1050 Manual – the LAA still accepted the Permit application, 1 knot too low.
PS It is important that the pilot is familiar with the type.
When the Auster J/1 went onto the LAA permit, they reduced the Vne by 20 mph, so the Vne test isn’t such a bother.
I do know that an awful lot of LAA aircraft owners don’t do the Vne test and just write in the “expected numbers”. It is pointless and hazardous and everyone knows it. Overall, I do like the LAA but they have an odd habit of gold plating certain things. For instance, the LAA requirements for radios (all of which are certified!) are more onerous than CS-STAN. It’s silly.
alioth wrote:
I do know that an awful lot of LAA aircraft owners don’t do the Vne test and just write in the “expected numbers”. It is pointless and hazardous and everyone knows it. Overall, I do like the LAA but they have an odd habit of gold plating certain things. For instance, the LAA requirements for radios (all of which are certified!) are more onerous than CS-STAN. It’s silly.
Indeed.
I regularly fly two LAA aircraft (a PA17 and an RV-8, rather contrasting) and have performed a number of annual permit revalidation check flights myself. From conversations I’ve had, I get the impression that very few owners of LAA aircraft actually do the VNE test and just fill in the paperwork indicating that they have. The consensus is that there is no benefit whatsoever to performing the test, and a degree of added risk that may vary from nil to significant depending on pilot competency and currency.
I would not base arguments against it around the question of risk – that is likely to move the LAA towards requiring a special qualification for performing the check, rather than eliminating it. I’d base arguments on there being no benefit to performing it.
