Flyer topic on all LAA permit aircraft owners needing to be

[Mike Cross]

Nicely put Grampy.

All I can see this rule generating is a lot of ill-will.

If you become a member you are entitled to the benefits:-

1. Full Members
Full members shall have all the rights and privileges that the Association shall grant, which will include a free copy of the house magazine, services of the engineering department, the right to vote at general meetings.

It doesn't include "the right to join a group operating an aeroplane administered by the LAA"

The easiest way to deal with this is simply to scrap the rule, no-one's yet been able to demonstrate to me that it brings any worthwhile benefit.

I've suggested before that if it was envisioned that some of the additional income from the press-ganged membership provided an additional revenue stream to support Engineering then the right way to deal with the problem was to charge more for the Permit so that the charges made by Engineering are sufficient to meet their needs. I for one would have no problem with that.

If that is indeed the justification then the freeloaders are not the co-owners who are not members, they are the members who are sole-owners of Permit aircraft who are taking a subsidy from those members who do not fly Permit aircraft or who are co-owners!

The privileges of membership include the services of the Engineering Dept. This already means someone who is not a member can't submit an application. Personally I'd have no problem with a non-member's rate that is equal to the normal cost plus the cost of a year's membership. That way we'd satisfy those who want Permits but not membership and still get the money without the expense of sending out the magazine and without him having a vote!

[Bill McCarthy]

What are the implications of non member co-owners doing maintenance / tinkering about with the shared aircraft. They could conceivably say "I'm not a member so sod the LAA inspector checking out my work". I'm sure there must be a legal issue in there somehow. What would an insurance underwriter say about it. I'm sure they could use the fact that a non member of the LAA was involved in any accident scenario, to deny a payout.

[Ian Melville]

I'm in the camp that think this rule should not have been introduced, I would have liked to see all co-owners as LAA members, because that want to be and can see value in it. ie not press ganged.

Ian

[Mike Cross]

What are the implications of non member co-owners doing maintenance / tinkering about with the shared aircraft. They could conceivably say "I'm not a member so sod the LAA inspector checking out my work".

You mean like sod the CAA, I'm not going to bother with getting a LAE to sign it off if it was on a C of A you mean?

[Bill McCarthy]

OK, will someone give one GOOD reason why any co-owner would not want to be a member of our association apart from a trivial principle and stumping up what is a reasonable membership fee.

[Brian Hope]

I really would like to live in this world where everybody is warm and cuddly, there are no rules because everybody has a heart of gold and does the 'right' thing, there are no policemen because there are no laws, no need for laws of course because everybody is so good. Where do I join?
Reality guys please. Fact is there are all too many people who will not join the LAA or anything else if they can get away with it. How many cars are there still out there untaxed and uninsured? Mine is and I do not doubt yours are, but plenty of people wont stump up the cash.
Incidentaly Rod et al, I did not call anybody a skinflint in my post on this thread, just stated my view. I know all the posters here are paid up members and, like me are just expressing their views. Do I think these non payers are skinflints - most certainly I do - and no Rod I wont be changing my mind in a hurry. This thread has rumbled on and on and I have yet to read an argument that even comes close to making me change my mind.

There is an opportunity to put a case for having non members in a group, maybe a non flying member has fallen on hard times, or the illness case that Rod mentions. LAA is not some jackbooted uncaring regulator and is more than willing to accommmodate special circumstances.
Also, as has been said before, if members do not like this rule there is a mechanism to have it overturned at an AGM. Rest assured though, I will be there arguing vociferously for its retention.

[Mike Cross]

Brian

I don't think any of us are arguing for one moment that group members should not be members. The problem is one of enforcement. No one (including you) has yet come up with a way of enforcing this rule that does not entail unfairly penalising the other group members who are fully paid up and loyal supporters of the Association.

If you can't come up with a fair and equitable method of enforcement then it is better not to have the rule at all and just to concentrate your efforts on good marketing and peaceful persuasion. The ill will this generates is out of all proportion to any possible financial benefit, we have more important battles to fight than this one.

[Chris B]

Brian,

In order to understand more fully the rationale behind the rule change, please could we locate the Minutes of the AGM where the rule change was proposed, discussed and agreed and reproduce the relevant paragraphs here?

Regards,

Chris B.

[merlin]

I lean towards democracy and wonder when a nationwide leisure organisation such as the LAA will allow members the "luxury" of postal votes for agm resolutions.

The rule change that is being discussed here was probably passed by a tiny minority of the overall membership.

[Alan Crutcher]

There is an opportunity to put a case for having non members in a group

What is this opportunity?

I don't recall the rule having such provision.

[John Dean]

Does not the words in bold below give such a provision?

13b. Owners Of Permit Aircraft
All owners and co-owners of operational permit to fly aircraft administered by the Association shall be full members of the Association. In exceptional circumstances, the Association may at its sole discretion waive this requirement.

[merlin]

"the Association may at its sole discretion waive this requirement"

and the quidelines for this exemption are ?

[Chris B]

...and I presume that "Association" in this case means the EC.

So, it would seem possible for the EC to review this rule and issue a blanket exemption until rules can be changed to be fairer to all members.

I feel that this is a fairly serious issue and worthy of attention by EC given the negative PR that may be generated - when most of us are doing our best to convince others to join. Genuine support is better than coercion. Far better to encourage existing members to find, say, three new members a year to increase membership revenue.

How do we get it in front of them?

Chris B

[Dave Hall]

There is some support for a series of membership levels, or service charges that try to make subscription payments match more closely the services actually being supplied to a member.

When the enthusiasts' security card was being proposed, I suggested it should be issued free - since they don't in general make use of the engineering services or their overheads. "Not free" came the reply.

If LAA is to expand into the wider light aviation community, it seems to me it has to allow for different levels of membership, depending on the services required.

It may be this is under discussion at the moment - but who knows? Certainly not the average member.

Unfortunately 'running an idea past the members' doesn't seem to figure very high on the list of management strategies at the moment.

[JohnMead]

A possible reason for the original rule , could lie in the original delegation to the PFA ( pre CAA so the Authority could have been MTCA, MoA, ARB).
It could be that Permit Holders had to be members, in order that the Association have jurisdiction over them. Just a thought, anyone go back that far ?