Flyer topic on all LAA permit aircraft owners needing to be

mikehallam · Post by **mikehallam** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:28 pm

As a now a rank & file, but long term member with variously - no a/c, Permit a/c, CAA a/c - comment once more from my perspective.

Our democratic LAA association exists for the benefit of its members ONLY, which proven arrangement generates capacity to offer them breadth & depth of support whilst evolving to meet changing conditions. Historically the Permit system was won FOR US members by the efforts & time willingly given by dedicated amateurs and professionals within the PFA.

I suggested a financial equation which could perhaps solve the Gordian knot by allowing conscientous objectors to the LAA to buy into the bit they do approve of !
[Of course that's not in our rules yet, so just a proposal to mull over.]

SO WHY DO SOME PEOPLE DEMAND OUR CLUB RESOUCES ARE UTILISED FOR RANK OUTSIDERS JUST BECAUSE THEY SHARE AN A/C ? ------- And for only a fraction of the fee, purely for their personal pleasure neither contributing time nor subscriptions.

Surely a Member owning a % of a 'Permit' a/c isn't entitled to force the rest of us to give 'Permit' freebies to those choosing not to join the Club ? Instead they could explain to known dissenters what the LAA does for them: they may find it less of a task than trying to persuade our EC to change the rules to subsidize them again.

As for of turning 'Engineeering' into a stand alone service company, well again it's eventually up to the EC & 'we LAA owners', not those with nowt to do with the LAA. Shakespeare wrote of the dangers of that approach with Shylock in 'The Merchant of Venice'.
I am certainly not in favour of cutting my organisation into pieces.

Steve Brown · Post by **Steve Brown** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:23 pm

There is also the 'availability' issue. Engineering have to be there for when demand materialises and a particular non paying / non user but potentiol future user would presumably want engineering to be there for when he does use engineering.

So who would be expected to fund the latent presence of engineering until that user is ready to use & pay for their services?

Chopping LAA into financially stand alone bits ie Activity Based Costing so beloved by financial professionals - is not really appropriate for the LAA association 'mission' or an organisation of our size.

Thats not to say there couldnt be changes but the cost (money, time , effort, diversion of focus from core tasks - ala NHS/ Education!) ) must not exceed the benefit. A mix & match (bit like now!) seems appropriate.

Mike Cross · Post by **Mike Cross** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:14 pm

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

So the man with two Permit aircraft who currently pays half a membership fee and one permit fee per aircraft will be happy to stump up the 6 memberships plus one permit fee that a group of 6 are currently required to pay in order to get exactly the same Permit?

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

The ANO sets out what you can and can't do on your own signature. Since when has the LAA had the power to make that decision? It is entirely up to the inspector (or LAE in the case of a C of A a/c) what work he is prepared to sign off if it falls outside what you are allowed to sign off yourself. It's his neck on the block, not someone here or sat in an office who has not seen the work or aircraft and has no idea of the standard to which the work has been performed.

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

Why can I, as a member, pay for a Permit if I own the aircraft outright but have it refused simply because someone else is not a member if I pay the same fees but share it with someone who chooses not to join? Incidentally if it was based purely on the time spent issuing it that would be a bargain at 50 quid for 15 minutes, but then that's not what you pay for is it?

Come on Mike, you can do better than that surely?

What you guys stubbornly fail to admit is that I and the people who share my views support the LAA. We are happy to pay our way. We just object to the blackmail and arm twisting that this rule represents and the way that it is impossible to enforce it without penalising decent paid up members. You can call us all the names you like but at the end of the day it is you who are the bullies and it is the Permit applicant who accepts a subsidy from membership fees who is a freeloader.

Get real and accept that forcing people to join is not the way to make the organisation prosper.

Off from Gatwick at sparrows tomorrow so you'll be rid of me for a few more days.

Penguin · Post by **Penguin** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:35 am

This thread is really about being seen to have a friendly face, and so an organisation that non members want to join. Strong arm bully tactics do nothing for that friendly face. The permit fee covers the engineering time for issue (plus a whole load more, but thats a different subject), why do we need to use threats to extort more money from group members who do not feel the need to join LAA? I wish they would join, but this rule isn't going to make happy members. A group of 20 is not going to be happy to have to pay 20 memberships when before it was one. Why not charge permit fees based on numbers of owners? Do I get half fees as I own 2 permit aeroplanes? It would be as equitable as charging by weight.

We vote in the exec to run the association, I hope they use their foresight to realise that this rule is divisive and is not going to achieve what it set out to, and their exec power to quietly tell Eng that as long as one person in the group is a member then that's fine.

Pete

mikehallam · Post by **mikehallam** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:05 am

Changing the Rules to the detriment of current LAA members is also counterproductive. If outsiders like to use even a part of our product they ought to join & respect how hard won that privilege is !

[I realise it's inconvenient for those who in the past got free access to my Association's services, but not sufficient grounds for us to continue sine die.]

Once again, why should absolute & total non contributers to the LAA receive our largesse ?

flyin'dutch' · Post by **flyin'dutch'** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:11 am

Changing the Rules to the detriment of current LAA members is also counterproductive.

Mike that is exactly what has happened by the implementation of this rule!!

In a multiowner group you only need ONE dissenter and the whole of the group who are PAID UP LAA MEMBERS will not be be to fly their LAA PERMIT AEROPLANE because the permit will not be issued.

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:18 pm

I would like to thank the LAA for their rapid service. I have just received my certificate of validity by return of post, which is very commendable. My permit cost £135 plus my membership of £50 giving £185.

If I had sold 19 shares in the aircraft it would have cost a total of £1135 for what I am sure would have been the same rapid turnaround. Interestingly, the difference is the same as a year’s hangrage on the strip I fly from. Hangarage on the strip is of course not charged out on the basis of the size of the group owning the aircraft.

Rod1

mikehallam · Post by **mikehallam** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:06 pm

Responding with the above hypothetical responses to support non LAA members pockets is fallacious.

a) If one group member refuses to join the LAA, I suppose he could ground his a/c, but to spite whom ? One assumes all the others would have a chat to him & put him right, or ask him to leave the group if the LAA is so jolly obnoxious that he couldn't bear to join !

b) Hypothetically, of course, '19' is a big group, getting in 19 times 15 to 50 hours per head per year.
Each pilot at say 16 L/h and 40 hour/yr is prepared to pay over £600 for fuel alone.
So if one man is the mole who joins the LAA to get round the Rules (?) all his fellow flyers can have free access to the benefits of a cheap Permit. One permit fee divided by 19 in this example, say £ 6 to £9 per pilot and one LAA membership divvied up = another £2.50 each, total per capita ~£10.00 per year.
Whereas I pay full £100 Permit for a single seat microlight a/c plus £48 membership= £148 per head !
Or even if I owned two a/c as someone thought would be unfair, the LAA still get £124/plane !

You guys can play the sob stuff for all you like but the LAA exists & relies on all classes of member for its upkeep, not Hooray Henries prepared to take but never give.

mikehallam · Post by **mikehallam** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:42 pm

P.S. The respected BMAA have a similar regulation
- as do the MOC & the MEC.

No join no get !

J.C. · Post by **J.C.** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:56 am

Nothing wrong with your maths Mike,just the strong arm tactics that you support.
Presumably,as an inspector ,you would support me multiplying my expenses by the number of owners per group when I do an inspection????

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:11 pm

“If one group member refuses to join the LAA, I suppose he could ground his a/c, but to spite whom ? One assumes all the others would have a chat to him & put him right, or ask him to leave the group if the LAA is so jolly obnoxious that he couldn't bear to join”

If we applied the rule to new groups then no problem. If you apply it to existing groups then big problem. Existing group rules (and I have formed and been a member of a number of groups) will not have a clause specifying you have to be a member of the LAA. In most groups the number of LAA members is likely to be less than 50%. To change group rules you usually need a unanimous vote. Now the LAA members might be able to go round and beat the crap out of the non-members and force them to sell, but they will have no “right” to force them under the rules. I could not give a stuff about the non members, it is the paid up members in groups right now that will suffer.

The CAA will charge you about £360 for a permit, even if you have 20 owners.

BMAA do not have a similar rule, it was kicked out some time ago as it was considered illegal.

Rod1

mikehallam · Post by **mikehallam** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:34 pm

Thank you -- As a PFA/LAA Inspector you & your colleagues are the salt of the Earth as far as I'm concerned. Without your working within the aegis of the LAA we'd all be earthbound !

It is likely that you do it to give something back to 'flying' through the Association's fellowship. That'll be for a token contribution for your free time and petrol, neglecting the actual risk to all your assets when signing an LAA Permit Application. Should a Permit a/c be in a serious accident I believe the LAA umbrella may turn into your only shield.

From almost any angle the LAA as it has developed represents a good old British compromise for the needs of a whole range of Light a/c builders, owners, users and sheer enthusiasts.

If I were still a hopeful enthusiast, but not yet an a/c owner, I'd really be upset if a few vehemently [we understand] anti LAA folk could blackmail us into letting them cherry pick its services.

That would be way out of order.

Chris B · Post by **Chris B** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:24 pm

mikehallam wrote:
a few vehemently [we understand] anti LAA folk could blackmail us into letting them cherry pick its services.

That would be way out of order.

MikeH

"a few vehemently (we understand) anti LAA folk could blackmail us into letting them cherrypick its services"?

This makes me wonder if you have read and understood any of the issues related to the Group Rule raised in discussions on Flyer and here. I haven't seen any evidence to support this assertion.

Where did you discover these ...vehemently anti LAA folk...? It's way out of order (we believe) to make things like that up!

I can't take any more!

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I understand that the issue was discussed at the EC Meeting last Friday, so some clarity about the Rule and Exemptions should be available soon. Hopefully, sense will prevail.

Chris B

Gary M · Post by **Gary M** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:36 pm

Let's look at the total costs of flying that we pay the LAA, Inspectors and the government already.

Fuel carries duty and VAT at over 80% so using avgas at 25 liters an hour for 50 hours means that out of £1875 in fuel bills, £1530 goes to the Chancellor already. What do pilots get for that? Nought.

Add £180 for a permit, £40 for an inspection x 12 =480 during a build, £300 project registration fees, £53 membership fees, £40 test flight fee. and what do we get for that except a rubber stamp that other countries don't impose in the first place? Do you realise that many other countries have NONE of these chargesand yet have a much stronger representation and lobby than we do and an equally safe record in recent years?

Yes you can join the EAA if you want their advice from technical Counsellors but they wouldn't dare try to MAKE you join before allowing you to fly an Experimental type, or charge you for approving its design. I think if the LAA EC actually take legal opinion from a Barrister, they will find that you cannot force a single owner to be an LAA member, let alone multiple owners, as a condition of issuance of a Permit to Fly. So quit while you are ahead or you might find no one pays up at all.