UK Gyro Petition.

[Resasi]

The RotaryWing Forum is a dedicated forum for the discussion about Gyrocopter and Gyroplanes along with other rotocraft. It reaches out and touches pilots builders and enthusiasts around the world promoting, and helping any interested individuals understand all aspects of designing building and flying these machines safely.

It is because of it's reach that I would like to put this draft petition out for people to study. It does at present only concern those of us in the United Kingdom, however the implications apply to all of us in how our various regulatory and legislative bodies formulate and apply the rules that govern us and the sport.

This is a draft of what is presently being formulated and I urge all UK individuals who feel themselves effected, and would be willing to sign either this or something similar, to PM me and let me know how they can be contacted when we have it prepared for submission.
Thank you.


PETITION

The undersigned petition that:


(1) CAA Information Note 2012/041 (Gyroplane Training - Revised Training Requirements) be suspended for a period of 12 months.

(2) During that time, Standards Document 44 (Gyroplane Licencing) be opened for fair consultation to assess the full implications for the future of gyro flying, especially for the affordable, entry-level, homebuild aircraft.

SD44 has not been adequately consulted, especially with the homebuild community. It has been drafted by a small core within the BRA committee and kept very close hold. It favours the only two (foreign) manufacturers of factory-built gyros approved in the UK and hence has commercial interest to its advocates. It potentially damages the only UK manufacturer of gyros (Layzell). SD44 may lead to the demise of the affordable, single-seat /homebuild gyro. The loss of the affordable, entry-level, homebuild gyro may well ultimately cause the demise of gyro flying itself especially in hard economic times when a £70-100,000 factory machine is the only one available. There should be equal representation of both home-build and factory-build gyro communities.

[All_In]

Good on ya!!!
What is there reason for the change in policy?
Is it safely? Some REAL statistic based on flight hours could help if this is just an arbitrary decision.

In any case way to at lease try and take action!!!

I love this site and you people!

[ckurz7000]

Hi Leigh, I keep my fingers crossed. Not much more I can do from over here, I'm afraid.

-- Chris.

[SandL]

Leigh you know my views.
I second all that leigh says on this subject
If you plan to train on your own home built gyroplane in the UK the policys contained in this doccument, if implemented, will probably cost you over £100,000.
you will have to buy a new factory built gyro to go solo (factory machines are struggling with hull insurance so you will need your own to go solo). You will then need at least 40 hours training at about £100 plus per hour. Then you will need differences training and at last you will be able to fly your £10,000 single seat home built machine.
this will be a rich mans sport
Please sign the petition if your feel this is wrong

[Resasi]

I do and thank you Peter.

The problem we face was that the previous legislation which had functioned perfectly well for some considerable period of time was questioned by a group, or even just part of a group that purported to speak for the interests of the gyro movement in the UK. The BRA or Gyrocopter Experience is a network of instructors who in essence have formed a group that appears to wish to monopolize and control training in the UK.

They almost exclusively operate the new factory built two seat gyros from Europe. Their prices are very much higher than previous training was available for in kit built two seaters and the single seat gyros that have till recently been used. Most seem very unenthusiastic about single seat machines or providing training for them in any form despite the effect it will have on gyro flying in general in the UK.

Economic constraints are biting hard around the world and this sort of thing does need to be considered carefully. The CAA by their own definition has a broad role in aviation and whose primary objectives focus on:

* Enhancing aviation safety performance by pursuing targeted and
continuous improvements in systems, culture, processes and capability.

* Improving choice and value for aviation consumers now and in the future
by promoting competitive markets, contributing to consumers’ ability to
make informed decisions and protecting them where appropriate.

* Improving environmental performance through more efficient use of
airspace and making an efficient contribution to reducing the aviation
industry’s environmental impacts.

* Ensuring that the CAA is an efficient and effective organisation which
meets Better Regulation principles and gives value for money.

It was supposedly a consultative process between the CAA and BRA, (why the BRA many are asking) that on closer observations now begin to seem almost secretive. A number of interested parties not being consulted or involved at all, including the LAA and Britain's sole remaining single seat gyro manufacturer who will be very adversely effected and definitely seems to be failing to meet it's own stated objective in 'Improving choice and value for aviation consumers now and in the futureby promoting competitive markets, contributing to consumers’ ability to make informed decisions and protecting them where appropriate.'

There was mention of safety issues with single seat gyros however some statistics on the CAA and AIB accident list would seem to indicate to the contrary.

It is going to adversely effect the ability for many to enter or continue the sport and there are now a growing number of people who would like to question exactly how and why these steps were taken, and for some further consultations to be undertaken.

[wnwgj]

Hi all. In my capacity as the UK and Africa agent for Layzell Gyroplanes (which are undergoing something of a transformation - more of which later), I was horrified when I read this particular document which would pretty much finish off my investment and seriously damage Layzell Gyroplanes - not to say gyroplanes generally in the UK as the costs now for a two seater are quite a bit higher than a good modern three axis microlight.

The key issue for me is that the current document makes it impossible ever to get a rating on a single seater - so when the current crop of machine/pilot combinations ends, so will all single seat flying.

I can't work out whether this is a back door policy to end single seat flying or just a hopelessly inept piece of drafting. It is certainly written with only two seaters in mind. The former would be a v odd course of action considering that the AV18 Cricket remains the only UK CAA Section T accredited single seat gyroplane in the world and has an accident record very considerably better than the MT and arguably better than that paragon, the Magni. I don't think that most homebuilts here are now particularly known for crashing any more than anything else. But it is certainly true that there has been no meaningful public consultation on this with not many of the (relatively few) instructors being consulted or, if consulted, agreeing the final document.

Which is a long way of saying that I completely support this petition.

[EI-GYRO]

Purely my personal opinion, but it seems to me that the safety argument
in favour of two-seater training is somewhat over-stated.
A general overview of the accident record of two-seat machines in the UK over recent years would seem to suggest an inadequate level and depth of knowledge and understanding on the part of the student, particularly
in those areas best taught in a single-seater; most specifically, rotor management and the subtleties of the power curve.

These items seem to be regarded as small-ticket items in the high-power, pre-rotated two-seat community.

High-cost, and consequently high-intensity training courses do not lend themselves well to the absorption of skills to the level required for the
safe operation of a gyroplane.

While two-seat training is obviously beneficial (and probably necessary)
in the early stages, it seems to me that properly supervised single-seat training, with thorough debriefs, is possibly a better learning method,
after two-seat solo stage has been reached.

I wish you well with your petition, but would suggest less emphasis on
cost, and more on the more affordable acquisition of the skills necessary
to avoid the handling accidents currently prominent in recent AAIB
reports.

[EI-GYRO]

Purely my personal opinion, but it seems to me that the safety argument
in favour of two-seater training is somewhat over-stated.
A general overview of the accident record of two-seat machines in the UK over recent years would seem to suggest an inadequate level and depth of knowledge and understanding on the part of the student, particularly
in those areas best taught in a single-seater; most specifically, rotor management and the subtleties of the power curve.

These items seem to be regarded as small-ticket items in the high-power, pre-rotated two-seat community.

High-cost, and consequently high-intensity training courses do not lend themselves well to the absorption of skills to the level required for the
safe operation of a gyroplane.

While two-seat training is obviously beneficial (and probably necessary)
in the early stages, it seems to me that properly supervised single-seat training, with thorough debriefs, is possibly a better learning method,
after two-seat solo stage has been reached.

I wish you well with your petition, but would suggest less emphasis on
cost, and more on the more affordable acquisition of the skills necessary
to avoid the handling accidents currently prominent in recent AAIB
reports.

[Resasi]

Fergus thank you for a very valid point. It is discussion and input like this that helps formulate and bring together the best way forward, not only in a petition, but in forming the legislative process that is most effective safe and inclusive for all. It will be included.

I am in contact with other concerned parties and receiving help and advice and have been told that with regard to a formal appeal the best way is to have it on record. The procedure is legal and official.

To request a review, write or email the CAA official who has sent the decision or proposal in this case LTSApprovals@caa.co.uk

State clearly you wish the matter to be reviewed.

You will be contacted by a CAA lawyer who will be appointed to manage the review and who will be able to answer any queries about the process.

A suggested format is along the following lines.

Dear Sir
Please accept this as an appeal, in accordance with Section 6 of CAP393 for a review of Standards Document 44 and Information Note 2012/041 regarding changes to gyroplane training to take effect on 1July, for the following reasons:

In your reasons, which it would better to put in your own words there are some reasons that are presently thought worth putting forward.

Inadequate Time-frame

The IN was not published until 29February. The SD44 itself was not published until 11April but will come into force on 1July.
There was no active promulgation of these dates and documents by either the CAA or British Rotorcraft Association, and only now are many of those who will be affected, coming to understand the consequences.

Public Consultation

There was no public consultation. The first most ordinary gyro owners knew of these proposals was when the documents appeared on the CAA website.

Inadequate Consultation

It is only slowly becoming apparent that SD44 was developed with a small core within the BRA and without full consultation of even its own members, all of its instructors, and even some of its own committee members.

There was no consultation with the wider gyro ownership who had no need to be members of the BRA, in particular the home-build community.

There was no consultation with the UK’s only gyro manufacturer, nor the LAA of which all home-build owners are required to be members.

There is significant concern that knowledge of the development of this policy was kept secret.

Personal impact on those now wishing to do Gyro training

IN2012/041 policy terminates a long-standing concession that enabled a student to conduct part of the PPL(G) training on a single-seat gyro. An application to permit this had to be made for each student, but only after having completed a minimum number of dual hours and being considered suitable for release to supervised single seat training After 1July the CAA issued no more such permissions.

Group/Class Impact

There presently up to 15 students at the homebuild gyro centre at Little Rissington and others elsewhere undergoing this long established single-seat training route with the one instructor presently undertaking this form of training, but many of the new Instructors who are part of Gyro Experience and or BRA seem to be unwilling to undertake single seat training.

General and Future Impact

There is now growing general concern that this new CAA policy will result in the decline and eventual demise of affordable gyro flying as homebuilt /single-seat gyros instructors fade away though there are still some Gyro Pilots who wish to become Assistant Instructors and Instructors who would be willing to continue this method.

Gyro flying would become available only to those who could afford £70-100,00 for a German or Italian gyro, and not for someone who could afford £15,000 for a UK kit or 5-7,000 for a second hand single. With the economy even the BRA/Gyrocopter Experience's future is uncertain with sales and student numbers falling.

There are only 15 instructors countrywide and they are already finding it hard. The gyro community is not large enough, nor robust enough, to sustain a significant market for such expensive foreign machines.

The maintenance and active support from the CAA as stated in their charter objectives to the grass-roots homebuild aviation community is essential.

A petition movement has been started. The concerns and reasons are numerous and broad-ranging, but all stem from a lack of consultation, lack of openness and the rushed time frame. They are too numerous and varied to be addressed here or before 1July. They need airing if only to satisfy the wider gyro community that the direction, suitably modified, is acceptable.

In Regard to Safety.

The safety argument in favour of only two-seater training may perhaps have been somewhat over-stated, as a general overview of the accident record of two-seat machines in the UK over recent years would seem to suggest an inadequate level and depth of knowledge and understanding on the part of the student, particularly in those areas best taught in a single-seater; most specifically, rotor management and the subtleties of the power curve.

High-cost, and consequently high-intensity rapid training courses do not necessarily lend themselves well to the absorption of skills required for the safe operation of a gyroplane, over the previous more lengthy single seat training that has been the case.

While two-seat training is obviously beneficial and necessary
in the early stages, properly supervised professional single-seat training, can be a possibly better/safe alternative learning method, after two-seat solo stage has been reached.

The CAA has allowed further training to continue for those who were in the process, obviously feeling that it safe for them.

Requested Solution.

The solutions sought (as reflected in the circulating petition) are:

(1) A deferment of IN2012/041 for 12 months (to 1Jul2013) to provide more time for trainees to complete their dual hours.

(2) In that 12 months, open up SD44 for proper consultation such that its impact can be fully assessed and modified as necessary.

[All_In]

Hi Buddy!

I think you are on the correct path! Now we need to get the word out by having petitions posted at all airports and sent to all clubs even non flying clubs requesting signatures. Ask the clubs to batch email their members asking them for signatures.

Also:

1) I would setup a website to download the petition so folks could download, print, sign and mail it back to you. (I can help you with this if needed)

2) Then I'd contact Commander Wallis and discover if he is on your side of the issue.

If he is...

3) Then write a script for a little Neils flying VIDEO with Ken Wallis flying and explaining how this new law would have affected him and new students that will try and follow him.

4) Post video on uTube and send it to the press all over England and invite them to a press conference where Ken could fly again to get them to show up?

[luckyluciano]

Hi Leigh,

I am with you 100 per cent. I also think we should represent ourselves in Gatwick and talk to the instructors.
I will be requesting a review.

Regards.
Luciano.

Originally Posted by Resasi

Fergus thank you for a very valid point. It is discussion and input like this that helps formulate and bring together the best way forward, not only in a petition, but in forming the legislative process that is most effective safe and inclusive for all. It will be included.

I am in contact with other concerned parties and receiving help and advice and have been told that with regard to a formal appeal the best way is to have it on record. The procedure is legal and official.

To request a review, write or email the CAA official who has sent the decision or proposal in this case LTSApprovals@caa.co.uk

State clearly you wish the matter to be reviewed.

You will be contacted by a CAA lawyer who will be appointed to manage the review and who will be able to answer any queries about the process.

A suggested format is along the following lines.

Dear Sir
Please accept this as an appeal, in accordance with Section 6 of CAP393 for a review of Standards Document 44 and Information Note 2012/041 regarding changes to gyroplane training to take effect on 1July, for the following reasons:

In your reasons, which it would better to put in your own words there are some reasons that are presently thought worth putting forward.

Inadequate Time-frame

The IN was not published until 29February. The SD44 itself was not published until 11April but will come into force on 1July.
There was no active promulgation of these dates and documents by either the CAA or British Rotorcraft Association, and only now are many of those who will be affected, coming to understand the consequences.

Public Consultation

There was no public consultation. The first most ordinary gyro owners knew of these proposals was when the documents appeared on the CAA website.

Inadequate Consultation

It is only slowly becoming apparent that SD44 was developed with a small core within the BRA and without full consultation of even its own members, all of its instructors, and even some of its own committee members.

There was no consultation with the wider gyro ownership who had no need to be members of the BRA, in particular the home-build community.

There was no consultation with the UK’s only gyro manufacturer, nor the LAA of which all home-build owners are required to be members.

There is significant concern that knowledge of the development of this policy was kept secret.

Personal impact on those now wishing to do Gyro training

IN2012/041 policy terminates a long-standing concession that enabled a student to conduct part of the PPL(G) training on a single-seat gyro. An application to permit this had to be made for each student, but only after having completed a minimum number of dual hours and being considered suitable for release to supervised single seat training After 1July the CAA issued no more such permissions.

Group/Class Impact

There presently up to 15 students at the homebuild gyro centre at Little Rissington and others elsewhere undergoing this long established single-seat training route with the one instructor presently undertaking this form of training, but many of the new Instructors who are part of Gyro Experience and or BRA seem to be unwilling to undertake single seat training.

General and Future Impact

There is now growing general concern that this new CAA policy will result in the decline and eventual demise of affordable gyro flying as homebuilt /single-seat gyros instructors fade away though there are still some Gyro Pilots who wish to become Assistant Instructors and Instructors who would be willing to continue this method.

Gyro flying would become available only to those who could afford £70-100,00 for a German or Italian gyro, and not for someone who could afford £15,000 for a UK kit or 5-7,000 for a second hand single. With the economy even the BRA/Gyrocopter Experience's future is uncertain with sales and student numbers falling.

There are only 15 instructors countrywide and they are already finding it hard. The gyro community is not large enough, nor robust enough, to sustain a significant market for such expensive foreign machines.

The maintenance and active support from the CAA as stated in their charter objectives to the grass-roots homebuild aviation community is essential.

A petition movement has been started. The concerns and reasons are numerous and broad-ranging, but all stem from a lack of consultation, lack of openness and the rushed time frame. They are too numerous and varied to be addressed here or before 1July. They need airing if only to satisfy the wider gyro community that the direction, suitably modified, is acceptable.

In Regard to Safety.

The safety argument in favour of only two-seater training may perhaps have been somewhat over-stated, as a general overview of the accident record of two-seat machines in the UK over recent years would seem to suggest an inadequate level and depth of knowledge and understanding on the part of the student, particularly in those areas best taught in a single-seater; most specifically, rotor management and the subtleties of the power curve.

High-cost, and consequently high-intensity rapid training courses do not necessarily lend themselves well to the absorption of skills required for the safe operation of a gyroplane, over the previous more lengthy single seat training that has been the case.

While two-seat training is obviously beneficial and necessary
in the early stages, properly supervised professional single-seat training, can be a possibly better/safe alternative learning method, after two-seat solo stage has been reached.

The CAA has allowed further training to continue for those who were in the process, obviously feeling that it safe for them.

Requested Solution.

The solutions sought (as reflected in the circulating petition) are:

(1) A deferment of IN2012/041 for 12 months (to 1Jul2013) to provide more time for trainees to complete their dual hours.

(2) In that 12 months, open up SD44 for proper consultation such that its impact can be fully assessed and modified as necessary.

[SandL]

Hi
If you are a home built owner you need to read the CAA
Standards Document 44 (Gyroplane Licencing) it will affect you
If you do not yet have a licence and this propsal is implemented in July it will cost you tens of thousands of pounds more to gain a gyroplane licence. If nothing else join in the discussion and take action.
please PM me or Leigh. Send us your email address and we will keep you informed.
IT IS VITAL that you, yes you, take action, send emails and letters before it's too late. Someone is trying to end single seat gyro training here, we need your help and support. After July you will have to complete a full 40 hour course on a factory made 2 seat machine.
Please contact your gyro friends and email a link to this thread so we can organically grow support for retaining single seat training.
thanks sorry for the rant but I am passionate.

[Resasi]

Thank you Luciano.

Some, if not most of the Instructors are involved with Gyrocopter Experience, and are training in these European two seaters and may not be sympathetic to changing it back to allow single seat training during the PPL training phase. The changes favor them.

I would like to make one aspect of this petition very clear. Some of us tend to get quite emotional and worked up about something like this but the CAA tends more to quiet and matter of fact.

This is not about a conspiracy, although there have been undertones that certain people have tried to get an edge, and possibly nudge the amendments in a particular direction.

The fact is that there will be consequences with these new amendments and in order to try and get them changed, if we can, through a process that the CAA has in place for just such a situation.

What we want is as many of the concerned gyro aviation population in the UK to respond to this new legislation, and, if they agree with those who are petitioning against the changes as described above, to add their voice and contact the CAA as described above.

John as always good suggestions which I will pass on to our group. At the moment we will probably be concentrating on getting individuals to contact the CAA and submit their individual objections. It will be noted, and the due process does have to follow, but we do have to make logical valid points that the CAA will respond to.

[karlbamforth]

Originally Posted by Resasi

There is significant concern that knowledge of the development of this policy was kept secret.

Hiya Leigh,

Its looks good to me, I just wonder if this line looks a little conspiracy theorist.

Perhaps something like..

There is significant concern that knowledge of the development of this policy was not promulgated to all concerned.

Just nit picking really.

[All_In]

Good job Buddy!
I'm 100% behind your efforts.

My thinking is a little pressure on government officials in the form of public opinion seems to help them do the right thing?