Flyer topic on all LAA permit aircraft owners needing to be

[merlin]

[quote="Nick Allen
We're an association: trying to separate out departments with their own budgets is not, I would suggest, a fruitful way to go.


Perhaps our treasurer could comment but I think this is the way things are budgetted/controlled at present..

[Mike Cross]

Cirrus

By "Tools" I meant that they have been given LAA branding to use in their communications and they have ready access through their membership of the NC to any promotional material they may require. I'm talking marketing not coercion. Some readers may not have noticed that there's another bit of Rule 13

13c. PFA Struts
Struts are semi-autonomous organisations which are affiliated to the Association for the purpose of supporting and furthering the objectives of the Association, advising the committee through the council, and providing a focus socially and for mutual support and exchange of information for members in a specific local area. They are to conduct themselves in accordance with strut regulations issued by the committee.
A strut shall consist of not less than ten members. Full strut members shall be members of the Association and shall elect one member to be the strut co-ordinator who will be responsible for all correspondence with the Association and for general enquiries, and one member, who may also be the strut co-ordinator to be the strut representative on the council. A Strut may admit its own associate members who are not members of the Association.

The system is a bit of a dog's breakfast really, where a member gets more representation on the NC if he is a strut member than if he isn't and where non-members also get represented.

Nick Allen
I respect your opinion but I'll continue to believe that I as a user of Engineering should not get a subsidy from non-flying members. If I choose to own an aircraft I should pay my own way.

It is absolutely 100% the job of the management to know where the money is coming from and where it is spent. The idea that it all goes into a central pot which people dip in to is not an option IMHO. The status of Engineering in the eyes of the CAA (and EASA in the future) demands that Engineering be run as a properly organised operation, not as a warm fuzzy club run by members.

There is certainly a case to be made for example for the Association as a whole (i.e. the members) to sponsor say the approval of a couple of new designs each year by means of a bursary of some other open system. With the flood of new commercial designs it is just not possible for us to subsidise every new application. I do not however agree that the members as a whole should subsidise my flying.

[Nick Allen]

Mike C, So what about the work that the LAA does on airspace issues, or negotiating with EASA? Doesn't happen for free: should "non-flying members" pay for this too? You can balkanise pretty much any organisation thusly, but not necessarily to its overall long-term benefit.

[mikehallam]

Mike Cross,

I think in your intensity to address the one issue that troubles you, you've gone off onto a tack which questions the whole ethos of the LAA and how it should be operated.

Apart from the fact that it's unlikely they would re-jig the whole organisation, such a revision could well antagonise the silent majority who remain satisfied with the way the PFA/LAA has evolved and for its undercover work on our behalf, which others have succintly expressed.

I think your promoting a web chat examination of the inequality you perceive in one corner of the envelope has been pretty well ventilated. My own suggestion dealt with it neatly and could be incorporated easily into the fee structure to remove much [but of course never all] of the unfairness.

[Mike Cross]

Not trying to balkanise the organisation, simply suggesting that the whole cost of work done by Engineering to the benefit of a particular member should be recovered in the fees charged. Work done by the Association to the benefit of all members is something that should properly be paid out of general funds, and I'd include EASA representation in that.

Sitting on our backsides and thinking we can carry on as we have in the past is unfortunately not an option. The environment around us has changed markedly over recent years and the pace is accellerating. We have more factory-built aircraft being added to the fleet, not only orphaned vintage types but increasingly microlights and LSA types. This is going to increase membership but also hugely increase the workload on Engineering.

I didn't start this discussion, I'm just a participant. As MikeH rightly says my views have been pretty well ventilated so I'll try to sit quiet for a while and give the rest of you a chance.

[Rob Swain]

Sigh!

I gave up reading the bickering about 2 pages ago, so if I'm "off topic" now I apologise.

I'll reiterate my opinion from the old PFA bulletin board:

£50 is really not a lot to pay for what we get (i.e. affordable flying). Many of us will burn more than that in fuel for an afternoon's bimble around the local area.
If there are people who can't afford this then should they really be flying at all? What else are they scrimping on? Maintenance?

Penalising the aircraft, and therefore the whole group, is the only realistic sanction our Association has. This is just the way the situation is. Get over it!
The easiest way to address this within a group (in my opinion) is to have all the memberships administered (i.e. paid) by the group 'secretary' (for want of a better word) out of the aircraft account. OK so the monthly sub goes up by a fiver (less actually) per person per month but it avoids any unpleasantness (like a permit-less aircraft).

And, for what it's worth, I'm a net loser in this as my other half co-owns the aircraft and is on the registration but doesn't fly at all. I'll have to get a joint membership for us. Slightly irritating, but I'm a grown up. I can take it!

In this world of enforced Mode S, ever expanding controlled airspace and a regulatory body that really wishes we weren't here at all should we really be bickering amongst ourselves or trying to squeeze the very association that helps protect us and makes our hobby possible?

It's a long way down off this soap box!

[mikehallam]

BUT costs they 'save' are still paid for, not by them, but by the full membership to sustain our comprehensive organisation.

[I believe the ULAA was set up by enthusiasts and over the years funded by these folk so that we are now able benefit from all their many inputs of time, brains, struggles and fellowship. It was not intended to be a shop counter for casual passing customers to switch on when it suits them].

[Rob Swain]

[Sorry, but even for that sort of spend, the group would have to approve

I still find it hard to understand why a 4-5 man group needs to pay proportionally more than a sole owner. What are the extra costs?

They have the choice over the payment from aircraft funds : agree it or have an aircraft that goes out of permit. Simple really.

The membership "per capita" cost covers the magazine and membership of the association. Being a member of the LAA is NOT about operating a permit aircraft - it's about supporting the LAA permit aircraft system. It is only fair that if these people want to make use of that system to operate and fly a permit aircraft they should support the organisation that makes that possible. If they don't then maybe they should request their aircraft be moved onto a CAA permit. I think that will cost them more than 50 quid extra a year.

The annual cost to the aircraft itself levied by the LAA is only applied once: the permit renewal cost is on a per aircraft basis.

I am very grateful to those members who support the LAA without actually using the system themselves by owning/operating a permit aircraft, not just for the financial support but because numbers are what counts when dealing with the regulatory bodies.

I'm assuming as you are posting here that you are an LAA member and from your arguments that your associates are not. Just as a matter of interest, why are you defending the freeloaders?

I'm decending into bickering myself now (for which I apologise) so I'll try and refrain from posting on this topic again!

[Rod1]

“Being a member of the LAA is NOT about operating a permit aircraft - it's about supporting the LAA permit aircraft system.”

Really? I was a member for many years (10+) before I built my aircraft. I supported the organization because of its lobbying (which I helped with).

“It is only fair that if these people want to make use of that system to operate and fly a permit aircraft they should support the organization that makes that possible. “

I think we all agree on this, as you would know if you had bothered to read the other comments!


“If they don't then maybe they should request their aircraft be moved onto a CAA permit. I think that will cost them more than 50 quid extra a year. “

Interesting comment, do you have any hard evidence to back it up? My research so far indicates that not all LAA aircraft can be transferred to CAA permits, but when it is possible the brake even is permit + just under 4 memberships. Most of the groups around my area are 6 – 8 owners so perhaps non of them need to be members (about ½ seem to be at the moment

“I am very grateful to those members who support the LAA without actually using the system themselves by owning/operating a permit aircraft, not just for the financial support but because numbers are what counts when dealing with the regulatory bodies. “

I agree 100%, so why support a flawed rule which may drive people away?

“I'm assuming as you are posting here that you are an LAA member and from your arguments that your associates are not. Just as a matter of interest, why are you defending the freeloaders?”

I am a sole owner, but along with a very sizable number of other members I think this rule, which was brought in for the best of intentions, was not though through and will damage the association we all hold dear.

There are many reasons the rule is not a good one. If you were a fully paid up member of a group of say 8 people, along with three of your co owners, you would be more than a bit upset if you could not get a permit.

Rod1

[jangiolini]

If you use the facilities then pay for them if you dont like it them find something else! Too many people want something for nothing! Its not as if its expensive and if they are group members then their maintainance costs are reduced for the aircraft so membership is not a big deal!
I am fed up with all the whinging about the money, the LAA gives us good service may not be perfect but it gives us a great reduction in our flying costs!
If you havent experience the cost of C of A type aircraft then try it you will gladly pay the membership!

[Rod1]

This can only go one of two ways (assuming sanity does not prevail)

1 We get headlines ” LAA grounds its own paid up members” “Fully airworthy aircraft refused permit” along with pissed off members promising retribution.

2 We get headlines “I refused to pay and the LAA caved in” after which nobody will take us seriously.

Life is such an interesting tapestry.

Rod1

[mikehallam]

OR POSSIBLY :

"Freeloaders no longer want to be cross subsidised by LAA membership"

"Non LAA group members fail to show acceptable responsibility for the LAA to risk them doing their own Permit work"

"CAA work out that direct Permit work costs >£200 per hour, whilst carefully calculating and aggressively independent group owners threaten to join the LAA"

I mean you guys can only guess on behalf of those other non LAA folk {thus not writing to this forum} what they really want & fight for their 'rights' .
To be honest these maligned unnumbered folk allegedly refusing to pay their whack can't have had the whole story. Only a real tight wad would decide to avoid paying what the rest of us do as a matter of course !

If it's principle not money involved then let them offer to pay £53 per head contribution to the LAA instead at Permit time, it might do the trick ?

[flyin'dutch']

If you use the facilities then pay for them

Does that mean that non-Permit-owner members can look forward to a bit of discount since they don't benefit from engineering and that those people benefitting from it should pay their way?

Just asking...

Seems that some of the protagonists of this rule find it difficult to see their reasoning to its logical conclusion.

If the holy grail is that people should pay for the services they use then that should start at the beginning ie work out what the true cost is for having the permit system and divide that up by the permit aeroplane pool.

That cost should be charged to every Permit application. It is then up to the operators/owners of the aeroplane to stump up the money if they want to keep their bird in the air.

Stops the cheapskate, freeloading permit holders from sponging off the non-owner members.

Innit?

[Chris B]

Stops the cheapskate, freeloading permit holders from sponging off the non-owner members.

Ouch! - but you have hit the nail on the head there, Frank. To be fair, I suspect that the vast majority of Permit Holders don't appreciate this fact.

I have written to Roger Hopkinson regarding the Group Ownership rule, though.

The EC is the only part of the Association that has access to the information needed to resolve this issue. I think that it is time to take stock and either stand up and justify the current Rule implementation with robust justification or review the Rule and its application so that it is fair to all and specify clearly the Exemptions. Clarity is the word.

An announcement from Roger or the CEO would be welcome on the Flyer and LAA Forums. It would show that that the new organisation is indeed listening to concerns and acting on them.


Chris B