Flyer topic on all LAA permit aircraft owners needing to be

[Rod1]

Flyer topic on all LAA permit aircraft owners needing to be Members

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=42715

There is also one on PPRUNE

Rod1

[flyin'dutch']

I'll nail my colours to the mast once more on this subject.

Is non membership amongst LAA Permit Flying Aeroplane Pilots a problem? How common is it?

Is there anyone in the LAA hierarchy who can clarify how this is going to be enforced now it is a requirement for permit renewal?

What is going to happen in groups if there are a few dissenters and the rest has paid up? What percentage dissenters is going to be allowed? Will the Permit be witheld if there are any dissenters effectively punishing those that comply in the group for something over which they have NO control?

If this rule is there to stop people benefiting without contributing their fair share, what is the LAA going to do about the contributions to engineering for folks that apply for mods.

I understand that it is possible to have a mod for an autopilot approved for £22-50 which may well be excellent value for that case but obviously is heavily subsidised by the rest of the membership.

The Rally died an untimely death because it could not sustain itself. Is engineering going to go the same way?

One of the founding statutes for the LAA is to further the case of light aviation, I contend that the Rally is a bigger contributor to that case than the approval of an autopilot.

[Nick Allen]

Is there anyone in the LAA hierarchy who can clarify how this is going to be enforced now it is a requirement for permit renewal?

This was covered in the (lengthy!) discussion on the old BB: if I recall right, the LAA now has access, via the CAA, to the names of all members of a syndicate (this was information it didn't have previously), so can cross-check these against its membership list when a Permit renewal is submitted. And not issue the Permit if its conditions are not met.
Is it really too complex a variant to stipulate that, say, two-thirds of a syndicate should belong to the LAA? That would give some flexibility for syndicates in which someone won't join/has forgotten to renew his/her subscription.

[John Dean]

Some of the questions on group ownership may be answered in the thread here
Certainly the subject has been well aired both on this forum and its predecessor.

Remember that any member who feels this rule is unjust can put forward a motion to the AGM (in accordance with the rules) to have it deleted in the same way that an ordinary member proposed its inclusion in the first place.

As far as engineering charges are concerned, I remember a sub committee being formed to look at this subject only a year or so ago and there are a number of threads on the old board about it. As I recall you can either have a capitalist charging scheme where everyone pays for the use they make of engineering or a socialist scheme where the total cost of running engineering is divided equally between all members.

The former would mean that no new aircraft would be put through the system as no-one could afford the expense. The latter would mean losing many of our non aircraft owning members. The solution the committee came up with was a continuance of the existing hybrid charging scheme.

[John Dean]

I suspect your letter will be very similar to those the Auster owners received which is available at
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1594/LTO%202008-001.pdf .

You may well have the same choice they did.

[Brian Hope]

Cirrus, this argument has been mentioned before, as though it is LAA's fault or problem. Truth is the airworthiness situation of your aircraft has been changed by the CAA and you will likely get the opportunity to go to an LAA permit, or a CAA permit. Your co-owners are part of that decision making process, and if they feel for some reason that to join LAA is an imposition, then they will outvote you and go for a CAA permit. Fact is that will be more expensive, both in inspection and permit charges but hey, it's a free country. Personally I have no desire to subsidise your 'mates', or anybody else prepared to take benefit from our Association without being a member. I'm not interested in 'legal' arguments, red herrings and all the rest of the rubbish that the barrackroom lawyers put on here to say how unfair it is that they are expected to actually pay for something they use. It's a simple case of morality; we as members pay to keep this association afloat, and the membership fee is minimal when it comes to the overall cost of running an aircraft, so the answer is thay they pay up or ship out.

[flyin'dutch']

Thanks for the link John.

In that thread is a post by Brian which contains a message from engineering:

"I see you've been involved in this thread so thought I'd drop you a line regarding our current procedures as I notice 'Rod 1' has stated in his post that this rule is not being enforced - which is not true.

LAA Engineering IS now actively enforcing this rule along with the membership dept. In the past we have been unable to enforce the rule as we had no facility on the Engineering database to record co-owners with a link through to their membership status. In mid 2007 the design of the database was amended and we now have this facility and link. We are now able to enter co-owners names on the system and can see whether or not they are currently a member of LAA. We now record details of ALL co-owners that we become aware of.

I have also initiated better links with CAA Registration dept and they now send us a monthly report of all new Registration Certificates issued, Change of ownership details plus Aircraft De-registration details. This information provides us with details of a number of 'non-member' owners/co-owners of LAA aircraft.

If any owners/co-owners are not members, they are sent a polite letter by our membership dept requesting they join a.s.a.p. and Engineering will withhold issue of permits/mod approvals etc until they become members."

So the scenario that several on the BB have predicted to occur will soon have to be dealt with i.e. the multi owner group with a few dissenters.

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

The sad thing is that there are tons of folks berating those who raise this matter as an issue and spout about 'tightwads' 'moral obligation' etc.

Maybe before hitting the send button they can consider that anyone on here who has raised this issue is per definition a paid up member of the LAA, not the skinflints that you are all so worried about sponging off.

Personally I have no desire to subsidise your 'mates', or anybody else prepared to take benefit from our Association without being a member. I'm not interested in 'legal' arguments, red herrings and all the rest of the rubbish that the barrackroom lawyers put on here to say how unfair it is that they are expected to actually pay for something they use. It's a simple case of morality; we as members pay to keep this association afloat, and the membership fee is minimal when it comes to the overall cost of running an aircraft, so the answer is thay they pay up or ship out.

Maybe, Brian, you should re-read and take in what has been written on here, previous threads and the old BB before.

There are folks who own group aeroplanes and have done so forever in groups where membership of the PFA/LAA is not mandatory. The folks on here who are members can not force those folks to join the LAA much as they might like to, the LAA is now saying that these paid up members can not fly their permit aeroplanes on account of the dissenters.

That is what this is about.

You and I may think that the LAA is the best thing since sliced bread, some folks don't for whatever reason is valid to them, not necessarily so because of money either.

Enforcement of this rule is damaging members' interest directly if they are in a group as mentioned above, and the Association indirectly by doing so.

Gents
Again taking the moral rights and wrongs of the argument out of the equation, please remember that this rule change was proposed by a then PFA member and approved by vote at an AGM. In order to discuss and perhaps change the rule it will need a motion put forward at the 2008 AGM.

Graham

Maybe it does although it would not have hurt the hierarchy to take the lead and pro-actively manage this issue as it is clearly a rule that potentially damages current members' interest.

Maybe one of the owners potentially affected can propose a motion to go to the AGM if so I, and am sure a few others, would be happy to second it.

And before others get too hot under the collar, the idea is NOT to encourage folks to fly permit aeroplanes whilst not contributing to the Association, it is about making for a workable situation AND encouraging people to sign up.

[Rod1]

“I'm not interested in 'legal' arguments, red herrings and all the rest of the rubbish that the barrackroom lawyers put on here to say how unfair it is that they are expected to actually pay for something they use. It's a simple case of morality; we as members pay to keep this association afloat, and the membership fee is minimal when it comes to the overall cost of running an aircraft, so the answer is thay they pay up or ship out.”

Brian,

The above is almost an admission that you are not prepared to listen to the other side of the argument! As an elected member of our association I am sure there must be some mistake!

The inference that all who disagree with you are skinflints is very insulting. There are people out there who have been members for 20 years +, flying permit aircraft with the same non member co owners. You are now going to deny that loyal, long standing member a permit just because he cannot bully his co-owners into joining? My personal view is that this will not happen. I think that every time a group contacts the LAA saying there is a problem the LAA will cave in. This will of course bring the association into disrepute and encourage people to take on other rules, but hay we asked for it…

And before you start throwing skinflint insults about, I and all the other MEMBERS on this board have paid.

Rod1
PS see you all at Shobdon on the 19th for the LAA Forum fly in – landing fee is ½ price.

[Bill McCarthy]

I am with Brian on this issue. I have also been a member of the Association for over twenty years and have only been the owner of a permit aircraft for about five. I also belong to the BMAA where I share a three axis X'Air and all co owners are full members of that Association. They have absolutely no beef about that. The sticking point for the LAA is just about paying a membership fee, which for many is just an hours flying.
Any body or association that I have ever joined, I have joined for what I can put INTO it, not for what I can get OUT of it.

[flyin'dutch']

Bill,

The issue is that some people don't want to join the LAA for some reason and that if people are in a group where the rest has joint up the people who are members, as all are who post on this forum making this point, will be punished by the LAA for not getting a permit.

Some people have a beef about joining the LAA and not just for the money involved.

[Joe Iszard]

Just had a telephone call from Maxine regarding the issue of the permit to fly of my (our) aeroplane, her first words were; "Afraid there's a problem with the issue of your permit" Oh, 'bloody hell' thought I!

Seems, as my wife is on the registration document as joint owner she must also be a member of the LAA before the permit is issued, She is part owner as the aircraft forms part of our estate, she does not fly so why should she have to join the LAA, if she did pilot the aircraft, I agree, she should be a member.

'Luck would have it' for my wife to become a joint member is only an extra £10.

So, my view - for what its worth - with a syndicated aeroplane, ie, all members are pilots, they all should be LAA members. with a jointly owned plane only the pilot need be a member. Joe

[Chris B]

I would support the removal or amendment of this rule.

Maintaining it without any real competition in the Permit marketplace (monopoly) is blackmail, which can't be good for reputation around flying clubs. You have to ask yourself why some group members don't want to join the Association.

The Engineering Department issues Permits for planes, not people. So the costs do not increase directly with the number of group members.

As I understand it, the obligation to confirm ownership detail/changes lies with an aircrafts owner(s) and the CAA Aircraft Registration Section using form CA1, which costs £60 a go.

If the CAA has tasked the LAA to verify this information, then perhaps the CAA should cover any additional admin costs in collection.

I do not feel that any one proposing member or seconder has enough knowledge to make a sound judgement or counter proposal over this issue.

I suggest that the EC is the only part of the organisation able to look at this issue in a fair and rational manner, being owner of the current business plan and strategy.

Chris B

[Dave Hall]

Unless there are legal aspects of member to member liability, I can't see a good reason for the rule apart from bringing in more cash to the LAA.

I admit to paying £10 a year for my wife to belong, initially just for the reduced rally entry, and having no LAA plane myself my sub is not strictly necessary. I'm not alone in flying CAA types - was it about a 1/4 of membership who do?

So there are quite a number belonging because we want to support the organisation - I'm surprised anyone flying a permit aircraft doesn't feel they should support the LAA.

[Alan Crutcher]

Everybody who benefits through aircraft operation as a result of the LAA should be a member of the LAA, and I have no time for the financial arguments. The cost of the permit is the same regardless of the number of owners - and the membership cost is the same for all.

However this rule should never have been introduced as:
1/ It penalises or own valuable members.
2/ It forces those with a/c ownership but no interest in operations to pay. This group includes, for example, the terminally ill who may have been members for decades but simply don't have the interest to sell their shares.

I was a member of the PFA for at least a decade before I had any ownership interest and I have been a sole owner for many years, so I have no gripe about this other than to support what I think is right.