what Brian says seems very sensible. Personally I dont know the full story, but it seems to me peope are mixing two things up, although maybe they are related due to the insurance issue.
Flying of Young Aviators, or Scouts etc, is one strut activity, for many struts it is maybe one event in the year which contains many other events. It will be a shame if it has to stop under the LAA banner, but that doesnt stop people doing it individually. The big Young Aviator/Young Eagle events may attract the publicity and the idea of flying a group of school kids or even like we did some times at the Bristol Strut when I was involved some years ago flying a group of kids with terminal illness, is a great idea, but this is not the main point of the Young Eagles/Young Aviators idea.
The real purpose it to give ride to a kid that might be interested in aviation and might want to take it further, you can just as easy do this on a one off basis, it doesnt need to be an organised event. Why not just ask that kid at the fence if they want a ride and if its not a teenage kid but someone a bit older, then still ask them. There are still lots of people who turn up at airfields at the weekend, looking at the aircraft, looking over the fence who would love to fly. SOme might be enthusiasts/spotters, others just interested. Why not take them for a ride. They guys at Royal Berkshire strut do a great job at their events, but if you go to White Waltham, you go into the car park and are faced with a gate which says "members only" so you often see many people sitting in their cars or on the outside at the fence looking in. Why not invite them in and offer them a look around or a flight, it doesnt have to be an organised event, just go and do it on a sunny weekend afternoon.
Personally I think this would be more worthwhile than an organised event taking a group of kids, many who just go along because they have nothing else to do but no particular interest. (granted some organised events get peope to write about why they are interested and pick the best, but others dont)
But all of this not flying kids etc, doesnt mean the end for struts, struts can just continue as they did before young eagles was invented, there were some great struts and very interesting meetings then and after all much of the reason for going is to see your mates, so that can continue.
For me I dont see any need to change the strut system at all whether the flying kids events continue or not.
The Future of Struts
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
Nigel, with respect this matter is not just about flying youngsters, YAs or Scouts. This is about the present ban on all third party flying at an LAA (could be Strut) event. The reason for that ban, introduced at the meeting on the 26th Feb and then extended at the Board mtg on 24th March, was given as the perceived/possible risk to the LAA’s core activities of engineering, amateur aircraft building and permits to fly authorisation, should there be a string of successful punitive claims laid on the Assn. Apparently, we’re told, these could be so onerous that they could cause our insurers to decline cover, leaving the LAA no alternative but to fold.
In order to lessen this exposure it was reasoned (?) that flying young people in particular and adults in general by invitation at a Strut (deemed LAA) event was a risk the LAA could no longer expose itself to. There are several of us that hold the view that if 3rd party flying is a risk too far then so it will come to be that the risks involved in any flying LAA event will also be a risk too far. This is pooh poohed by some but do we really think that the legal beagles are not going to attack the LAA should, God forbid, an LAA aircraft crash (or any other aircraft, come to that) at an LAA event, taking out several people?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to see the end of LAA events that I’ve supported for the past 25 years but I just can’t see, with the current advice the LAA seems to be getting over insurance matters, how the LAA can enjoy the freedoms the old PFA used to have.
I’m sorry to say that if the LAA is to continue as a light aircraft permitting organisation then how can it any longer be a members association?
I hope and trust that I can be proved wrong, but I’m sceptical, too say the least.
Regards, Jim.
In order to lessen this exposure it was reasoned (?) that flying young people in particular and adults in general by invitation at a Strut (deemed LAA) event was a risk the LAA could no longer expose itself to. There are several of us that hold the view that if 3rd party flying is a risk too far then so it will come to be that the risks involved in any flying LAA event will also be a risk too far. This is pooh poohed by some but do we really think that the legal beagles are not going to attack the LAA should, God forbid, an LAA aircraft crash (or any other aircraft, come to that) at an LAA event, taking out several people?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to see the end of LAA events that I’ve supported for the past 25 years but I just can’t see, with the current advice the LAA seems to be getting over insurance matters, how the LAA can enjoy the freedoms the old PFA used to have.
I’m sorry to say that if the LAA is to continue as a light aircraft permitting organisation then how can it any longer be a members association?
I hope and trust that I can be proved wrong, but I’m sceptical, too say the least.
Regards, Jim.
016693
-
Tom Sheppard
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:47 pm
Options: carry our own insurance.
Seek sponsorship from the industry to insure the YA or YES activities.
Divide into Permits to Fly Limited and a Popular Flying Association, one side to keep the permit system going, the other as an independent social link for operators of permit aircraft. Neither would have struts at all but social members could have access to the facilities of the organisation TO ORGANISE THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT EVENTS. Third party cover is mandatory and is the owner's responsibility so the LAA does not need to be involved.
The industry has much to gain from YA and YES activities: charitable tax breaks and recruitment opportunities, not to mention advertising. If we are unable to underwrite it, perhaps this is a way forward?
Seek sponsorship from the industry to insure the YA or YES activities.
Divide into Permits to Fly Limited and a Popular Flying Association, one side to keep the permit system going, the other as an independent social link for operators of permit aircraft. Neither would have struts at all but social members could have access to the facilities of the organisation TO ORGANISE THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT EVENTS. Third party cover is mandatory and is the owner's responsibility so the LAA does not need to be involved.
The industry has much to gain from YA and YES activities: charitable tax breaks and recruitment opportunities, not to mention advertising. If we are unable to underwrite it, perhaps this is a way forward?
Hi Everyone,
Since Jim has mentioned me, I'll risk joining in. I just survived a tornado in Florida last week, so I'm probably qualified to face an internet Forum.
The February meeting at Turweston was a little strange. Over a period of hours it emerged that HQ was in a panic over the liability and insurance aspects of passenger flying events and was proposing to solve this by stopping such events. We were invited to form a working party to make recommendations for the Board meeting on 24th March.
I put in fairly detailed response. I won't go through it all here, but the gist was that the LAA had to either support the Struts fully and insure them for passenger flying or to give up completely and stick to engineering and certification - ie., be a branch of the CAA. However I tried to work the analysis, I couldn't see any middle path working; it always came out as a dangerous fudge that achieved neither the objective of protecting the LAA against litigation or the objective of promoting aviation.
Jim seems to have come to a similar conclusion, and it sounds like a number of others have too, including the OP of this thread.
I don't know what happened at the Board meeting on 24th March; I haven't seen an official report. But the delay in reporting is ominous. From what has leaked out, it sounds like they are doing two things.
1) Frantically trying to fudge a middle way
2) Debating minor details instead of the real issue.
I'd love to be proved wrong. But as I said, the delay in reporting the outcome of the Board meeting is worrying. It makes it look as if they haven't been able to reach a decision.
Nick
Co-ordinator
The Organisation Currently Known As The Wessex Strut
Since Jim has mentioned me, I'll risk joining in. I just survived a tornado in Florida last week, so I'm probably qualified to face an internet Forum.
The February meeting at Turweston was a little strange. Over a period of hours it emerged that HQ was in a panic over the liability and insurance aspects of passenger flying events and was proposing to solve this by stopping such events. We were invited to form a working party to make recommendations for the Board meeting on 24th March.
I put in fairly detailed response. I won't go through it all here, but the gist was that the LAA had to either support the Struts fully and insure them for passenger flying or to give up completely and stick to engineering and certification - ie., be a branch of the CAA. However I tried to work the analysis, I couldn't see any middle path working; it always came out as a dangerous fudge that achieved neither the objective of protecting the LAA against litigation or the objective of promoting aviation.
Jim seems to have come to a similar conclusion, and it sounds like a number of others have too, including the OP of this thread.
I don't know what happened at the Board meeting on 24th March; I haven't seen an official report. But the delay in reporting is ominous. From what has leaked out, it sounds like they are doing two things.
1) Frantically trying to fudge a middle way
2) Debating minor details instead of the real issue.
I'd love to be proved wrong. But as I said, the delay in reporting the outcome of the Board meeting is worrying. It makes it look as if they haven't been able to reach a decision.
Nick
Co-ordinator
The Organisation Currently Known As The Wessex Strut
Jim Gale wrote:I have been slightly involved in this latest episode of the LAA's troubled journey having attended the 28th Feb mtg and had direct communication with Peter H, Roger H and Nick Long (who offered to investigate the matter and report back to the Board, which he has done.)
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Hi Brian,
Not sure how to respond to that, except to say I certainly don't want to fall out with you. You at least are on here regularly, trying to keep members informed; and you have said it hasn't been handled very well, which I appreciate. You seem to have become the unofficial liaison route between the membership and the board.
Nick
Not sure how to respond to that, except to say I certainly don't want to fall out with you. You at least are on here regularly, trying to keep members informed; and you have said it hasn't been handled very well, which I appreciate. You seem to have become the unofficial liaison route between the membership and the board.
Nick
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Hi Nick, I think the trouble is that some people are too quick to think there's some kind of conspiracy going on by the board. YA was flagged up as a potential problem and we are looking at ways to mitigate that risk, and I am hopeful that we may yet find a route that allows events to continue. The easy thing would have been to simply say let's stop doing it, but the guys on the board are no different to the rest of the membership, we are enthusiastic pilots and aviation participants who want to enjoy our hobby. John Brady and I have proposed ideas, and there is a plan to discuss options with an aviation insurance solicitor, hardly faffing around on the fringes or scurrying around trying to fudge a middle ground.
Accepting liabilty for certain types of event is an inevitability in what we do, and I see no valid argument in stopping LAA Strut Fly-ins. They are a fundamental activity, part of who and why we are and as I have said already, the board has not suggested in any way that these events are being considered for the chop or for drachonian operational stipulations to be applied.
The board would be irresponsible if it did not review the Association's activities and seek to ensure that we are taking all reasonable precautions to ensure best practice is adopted, but that does not mean we limit risk by terminating all activity with attendant risk. If we take that route we might as well pack it all in now and take up tiddly-winks - wearing suitable eye protection of course.
Accepting liabilty for certain types of event is an inevitability in what we do, and I see no valid argument in stopping LAA Strut Fly-ins. They are a fundamental activity, part of who and why we are and as I have said already, the board has not suggested in any way that these events are being considered for the chop or for drachonian operational stipulations to be applied.
The board would be irresponsible if it did not review the Association's activities and seek to ensure that we are taking all reasonable precautions to ensure best practice is adopted, but that does not mean we limit risk by terminating all activity with attendant risk. If we take that route we might as well pack it all in now and take up tiddly-winks - wearing suitable eye protection of course.
-
Nigel Hitchman
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:10 pm
- Location: Hinton in the hedges
Jim,
I hope you are wrong! What Brian is saying would suggest that at least currently you are, in that LAA flying events such as fly-ins can continue and are insured, but third party flying is not. I can see your point that loss of one could eventually see us loosing the other, but I hope not.
I wonder if we cant do what Tom suggests in seperating the core engineering activity into a different company. Im sure this has been looked at and no doubt if you ask two different lawyers they will tell you two different answers, while charging you lots of money, after all this is what this really about, the continuing gravey train for the parasite lawyers.
Every week you hear of dodgy businesses going bust leaving their creditors with no money, but the directors dont loose anything and next week they start up the same thing again under another name (or even the same name if we think of a certain magazine publisher!)
If they can do this with impunity, they why cant say the YES strut become YES strut ltd and responsible body of all young avaitors and such events and the company taking out the insurance. Yes if there are too many claims no one will insure them any more and it would have to stop, but hopefully it wouldnt get to that and in the meantime, it would be seperate from LAA's other insurance.
Im sure it not all that simple!
I hope you are wrong! What Brian is saying would suggest that at least currently you are, in that LAA flying events such as fly-ins can continue and are insured, but third party flying is not. I can see your point that loss of one could eventually see us loosing the other, but I hope not.
I wonder if we cant do what Tom suggests in seperating the core engineering activity into a different company. Im sure this has been looked at and no doubt if you ask two different lawyers they will tell you two different answers, while charging you lots of money, after all this is what this really about, the continuing gravey train for the parasite lawyers.
Every week you hear of dodgy businesses going bust leaving their creditors with no money, but the directors dont loose anything and next week they start up the same thing again under another name (or even the same name if we think of a certain magazine publisher!)
If they can do this with impunity, they why cant say the YES strut become YES strut ltd and responsible body of all young avaitors and such events and the company taking out the insurance. Yes if there are too many claims no one will insure them any more and it would have to stop, but hopefully it wouldnt get to that and in the meantime, it would be seperate from LAA's other insurance.
Im sure it not all that simple!
-
Tom Sheppard
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:47 pm
The bottom line is not that the reptilian lawyers get rich but that in the event of a tragedy which we all know will happen someday because bad things happen, we would all be grounded because the LAA would go bust and nobody would take over. The CAA would do what they could for us through political pressure but then God help us!
Perhaps we should consider releasing YES into the wild as a stand alone organisation, (registered charity, perhaps?) with the LAA taking on a mentoring role as a supporter / contributor / fundraiser and not as an organiser. YES to organise their own events and "Beg flights" from their friends who happen to be members of the LAA, as well as the RAC, AOPA, BMAA, KGB and Corgi Toy collectors clubs as well? It might just work.
Perhaps we should consider releasing YES into the wild as a stand alone organisation, (registered charity, perhaps?) with the LAA taking on a mentoring role as a supporter / contributor / fundraiser and not as an organiser. YES to organise their own events and "Beg flights" from their friends who happen to be members of the LAA, as well as the RAC, AOPA, BMAA, KGB and Corgi Toy collectors clubs as well? It might just work.
Hang on a minute. This isn’t just about YES or flying YA's. This is about ANY 3rd party flying at LAA organised events and that includes events organised by Struts. The Board have put a ban on ANY 3rd party flying. YA and YES are being mentioned so much, erroneously, that you guys are beginning to believe it. It's not just flying youngsters that exposes the LAA to risk and it's a terrible claim that any of you make that it is.
Dave Hall’s response to Brian on the NC forum yesterday puts truth to it:-
Brian Hope stated:-
YA was recognised as a problem and efforts are being made to mitigate that risk.
Dave Hall replied:-
I object to that statement, Brian. Where is the proof for that view? There hasn't been an accident in the past, largely because they are run to far tighter operating conditions than a normal fly-in. Minimum weather conditions are stipulated, and only pilots whose competence is known by definition are invited to help out with the flying. For the navigation flights for scouts, the aircraft fly to an agreed route, and departures are phased to ensure they are not close together. The flying is under the control of an experienced pilot - who is actively supervising it, not running around the site or in the bar. All participants in the airpark are escorted and part of the duties includes checking they are properly strapped in.
I was RH seat on a visit to Popham for one of their fly-ins, and there was a guy dragging in on long finals at about 200 feet being overtaken by some of the many in the widening circuit. We had to go around, but during the circuit another aircraft cut in front on base. It was mayhem - and no one had control of it. That's where the risk lies, not in well-regulated 'passenger' flying.
As they say, never let the facts get in the way....
I see the government announced a review of the no win, no fee situation, just the day after the Youth Aviation lobby of MPs - coincidence maybe, but it would be good to think they are responding to public concerns.
Anyway Tom, YES or any other Strut could go it alone and fly thousands of passengers in LAA and CAA aircraft. Where does that get the LAA? Any clearer of litigation? I don’t think so. End.
So please, all of you, stop blaming flying youngsters on the present problems in the LAA and see if you can help our Board out of this very real threat to our traditional way of life - flying for fun and taking passengers flying for the love of it.
Jim.
Dave Hall’s response to Brian on the NC forum yesterday puts truth to it:-
Brian Hope stated:-
YA was recognised as a problem and efforts are being made to mitigate that risk.
Dave Hall replied:-
I object to that statement, Brian. Where is the proof for that view? There hasn't been an accident in the past, largely because they are run to far tighter operating conditions than a normal fly-in. Minimum weather conditions are stipulated, and only pilots whose competence is known by definition are invited to help out with the flying. For the navigation flights for scouts, the aircraft fly to an agreed route, and departures are phased to ensure they are not close together. The flying is under the control of an experienced pilot - who is actively supervising it, not running around the site or in the bar. All participants in the airpark are escorted and part of the duties includes checking they are properly strapped in.
I was RH seat on a visit to Popham for one of their fly-ins, and there was a guy dragging in on long finals at about 200 feet being overtaken by some of the many in the widening circuit. We had to go around, but during the circuit another aircraft cut in front on base. It was mayhem - and no one had control of it. That's where the risk lies, not in well-regulated 'passenger' flying.
As they say, never let the facts get in the way....
I see the government announced a review of the no win, no fee situation, just the day after the Youth Aviation lobby of MPs - coincidence maybe, but it would be good to think they are responding to public concerns.
Anyway Tom, YES or any other Strut could go it alone and fly thousands of passengers in LAA and CAA aircraft. Where does that get the LAA? Any clearer of litigation? I don’t think so. End.
So please, all of you, stop blaming flying youngsters on the present problems in the LAA and see if you can help our Board out of this very real threat to our traditional way of life - flying for fun and taking passengers flying for the love of it.
Jim.
016693
-
Tom Sheppard
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:47 pm
"I don't think so. End"
Well, that makes all the difference, doesn't it. The debate is over because you don't think so.
Attempting to provide a solution that protects, amongst those of others, your interests and the reaction is : "I don't think so. End."
Did I blame (interesting choice of word,) youngsters for the LAA's problem? (Maybe the lawyers are getting younger?)
I thought that I was trying to find a way to assist them and the LAA.
I and others have made a number of suggestions to help the board.
What have you brought to the table, Jim?
"I don't think so. End."
Not helpful.
Well, that makes all the difference, doesn't it. The debate is over because you don't think so.
Attempting to provide a solution that protects, amongst those of others, your interests and the reaction is : "I don't think so. End."
Did I blame (interesting choice of word,) youngsters for the LAA's problem? (Maybe the lawyers are getting younger?)
I thought that I was trying to find a way to assist them and the LAA.
I and others have made a number of suggestions to help the board.
What have you brought to the table, Jim?
"I don't think so. End."
Not helpful.
Tom, Sorry if my lack of computer savvy shows in not being able to separate Dave's message. The word "End" was meant to show the end of his text, not "The End" (of the problem). And I wasn't blaming you; it was Brian Hope's quote.
I'm all for finding a solution, after all I've put 25 good years into this Association and often fought for it tooth and nail with my back to the wall. However enough is enough. There have been too many misrepresentations on this BB and it's about time true facts were quoted instead of the rubbish trotted out by people that should know better.
I’m off line for the next 72 hrs, so by the time I’m back, I hope that the matter has moved to a better resolution for the membership.
Cheers, Jim.
I'm all for finding a solution, after all I've put 25 good years into this Association and often fought for it tooth and nail with my back to the wall. However enough is enough. There have been too many misrepresentations on this BB and it's about time true facts were quoted instead of the rubbish trotted out by people that should know better.
I’m off line for the next 72 hrs, so by the time I’m back, I hope that the matter has moved to a better resolution for the membership.
Cheers, Jim.
016693
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Maybe you'll have time to reflect during those 72 hours Jim because I just do not understand where you are coming from. If telling the members that it is only events like YA, when members of the public are invited to fly in an aircraft, that is the issue concerning the board, and other non organised passenger carrying is not under threat is trotting out rubbish then I plead guilty. But that's the way it is no matter how many times you or anybody else wants to say different. If I am misrepresenting the facts that is effectively calling me a liar Jim, so please tell me and the world what I am lying about because I do not know. Maybe I'm just plain stupid, but better that than a liar.
I have a lot of sympathy for Jim's situation. Until a month ago they had several events being organised, including an aviation camp, a young aviators day, flying CHIPS participants, as well as the numbers of Devon Strut fly-ins. Now any involving flying the public are suspended, and they don't know when or if these will be able to take place.
As far as Tom's suggestions are concerned, the youth aviation side of things could go off and set up a separate organisation, and we are investigating that avenue in case it is the only possible way, but it's likely to be fraught with pitfalls of its own, and I don't think it's a service to anyone to 'jump out of the frying pan' if there's any other way. It's a loss to the LAA and what it stands for, and there are considerable numbers of loyal members who have given much to the LAA, and are now unsure of their situation.
I'm very pleased to hear there is some possibility that things are not as black as they might be, and do thank those on the board trying to resolve the dilemma.
As far as Tom's suggestions are concerned, the youth aviation side of things could go off and set up a separate organisation, and we are investigating that avenue in case it is the only possible way, but it's likely to be fraught with pitfalls of its own, and I don't think it's a service to anyone to 'jump out of the frying pan' if there's any other way. It's a loss to the LAA and what it stands for, and there are considerable numbers of loyal members who have given much to the LAA, and are now unsure of their situation.
I'm very pleased to hear there is some possibility that things are not as black as they might be, and do thank those on the board trying to resolve the dilemma.
032505
-
RogerCDawe
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 8:30 pm
The future of Struts
As I started this thread I feel obliged to post a further contribution as I seem to have promoted some 'hotness under the collar' amongst a few members.
To bring you up to date, the Royal Berkshire Strut continues, albeit under new management - we wish them well and will continue, for the moment, to support them as members. The handover was very amicable and a separate newly formed club, based at and supported by WLAC and the airfield management will continue the same winter lecture programme and social activities as before. This new club has no links to the LAA and as such is free of the requirements of membership constitution or having to submit data and accounts to the LAA. We will continue with ground based Young Aviator activities and continue our dialog with local Scout groups. We are hoping to facilitate Scout flying officially through the support of WLAC, though the costs for this will need to be borne by the Scout groups themselves.
Finally, perhaps with the resignation of Peter Harvey as CEO, there is rather more going on at Turweston than we realise. As an LAA member I will be interested to see just how the current issues are resolved when the dust finally settles.
To bring you up to date, the Royal Berkshire Strut continues, albeit under new management - we wish them well and will continue, for the moment, to support them as members. The handover was very amicable and a separate newly formed club, based at and supported by WLAC and the airfield management will continue the same winter lecture programme and social activities as before. This new club has no links to the LAA and as such is free of the requirements of membership constitution or having to submit data and accounts to the LAA. We will continue with ground based Young Aviator activities and continue our dialog with local Scout groups. We are hoping to facilitate Scout flying officially through the support of WLAC, though the costs for this will need to be borne by the Scout groups themselves.
Finally, perhaps with the resignation of Peter Harvey as CEO, there is rather more going on at Turweston than we realise. As an LAA member I will be interested to see just how the current issues are resolved when the dust finally settles.