Flyer topic on all LAA permit aircraft owners needing to be

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:08 pm

Gentlemen, you elect an EC to run the Association, can you really believe that every issue should be 'passed by the members' before a decision is taken? When policy decisions are being considered they are often discussed at NC level, where feedback is received, and do not forget that EC members are just members of the Association like everybody else. Are we to stand accused of not having the best interests of the members at heart? If so, I and my fellow EC members certainly have busy enough lives to stop ballsing things up on your behalf and will let you get on with it instead if you like
Think for a moment though. The current EC under the chairmanship of Roger Hopkinson, has dramatically turned round the fortunes of the Association. For the past two years we have made a healthy surplus, following rather too many years of trading losses.
The Association's standing with CAA and Government departments has never been better, and in Europe many countries look to the LAA for a lead in EASA discussion and debate.
There is still a lot to do, of that the EC is in no doubt, but it is getting done and the next year will see significant progress.
I have already mentioned that LAA will look at individual cases re group membership, and I have already said that a member can propose a rule change. To be honest I think that is good enough, I am not going to spend my time debating the modus operandi, or searching through past AGM minutes etc to review how the rule was originally proposed. You are perfectly at liberty to contact the office and ask for past AGM minutes. The EC has considered this rule and overwhelmingly supported it, I see no reason to reconsider it yet again. The 'Bad PR' argument is yet another red herring in my view, I have sought the views of a good many members over the years and almost to a man they cannot see what all the fuss is about.
The dates and means of proposing a rule change will appear in Light Aviation in the next month or two, an opportunity for somebody to stick their head above the parapet perhaps.

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:22 pm

Hi Brian,

Is there any opportunity to hold the AGM later after the major part of flying season is over. I missed the last two because they clashed with St Omer. Unlike some people I'm not intrepid enough to do both. October would be better and not make me feel quite so guilty as i guzzle me mussels in garlic butter.

J.C. · Post by **J.C.** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:37 pm

Steve,most people would say that going to the AGM is more important than missing one fly in,but St.Omer is dfferent!If I couldn't go I would give up flying!
Besides,the gnomes would rovoltif they didn't get their holiday and Claud (the french one that came home with me last year) is getting homesick!

Mike Cross · Post by **Mike Cross** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:58 pm

John, the rule change doesn't go back that far.

All that has happened from what I can see is that a decision was made with the best of intentions but without thinking it through. There was nothing wrong with the process by which the rules were changed.

All we need do is recognise that it is not possible to enforce this rule without unfairly penalising loyal members and quietly do away with it at the next AGM.

mikehallam · Post by **mikehallam** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:50 am

I'M 100 % ON BRIAN'S SIDE THIS TIME !

Why should non members benefit from my organisation's investment, planning, acquisition of know-how, its name, responsibility etc. etc.

Maybe a conscientous objector rule could help, when folk with an aversion to joining could provide an ex gratia sum to the LAA instead [At least equal to or perhaps more for the additional office time to the current fees].
As others have expressed, compared with any section of one's flying costs it's actually a small figure. How much does even one hour's flying cost ?
It appears those members with group a/c on a Permit have the freedom to choose another supplier [the CAA direct]. If some do & some don't then it's not my fault nor the LAA's, but the democratic decision of contrary owners. The LAA is nor a charity, if 'plane owners are that near poverty then take up cycling or tiddley winks: don't expect me to happily accept their playing old Harry.

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:05 am

Hi Steve, the clash with St Omer has been unfortunate, but funnily enough my flight from Hucknall to St Omer last year goes down as one of the most memorable of the year for me. This year I'm pretty sure they wont be clahing, though I do agree we should have the AGM farther into the off season, rather like the BMAA do at their indoor show. When we had the annual rally I thought it was a mistake to move the AGM away from it, holding an AGM in conjunction with an event has the possibility of getting more members to attend, again as with BMAA. The number attending our AGMs has been very disappointing of late, but I firmly believe it remains a wholly democratic system.

Bill McCarthy · Post by **Bill McCarthy** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:37 am

Mike Cross wants to quietly sweep a democratic vote under the carpet. It seems that no matter how overwhelming the decision to accept the rule, some would try to wriggle out of it and cry foul. If it was to be brought up at an AGM again I would drive the 1400 mile round trip, even hitch a lift, to ensure that I had my vote to retain the rule.

Mike Mold · Post by **Mike Mold** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:01 am

"we should have the AGM farther into the off season, rather like the BMAA do at their indoor show."

Gents, I've suggested several times (at the past 2 AGMs and at NC meetings) that the AGM should be moved to later in the year and have had confirmation that the financial reporting requirements would allow this. Is there more support for this proposal?

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:37 am

Bill

That is a little harsh. Just because 50 people voted at an AGM does not necessarily indicate majority support from 8000 members. I think everyone who flys an LAA aircraft should be a member, but this is a bad rule. Lots of people have come out and said this in the last few years and there has been a heated debate on what has been a very divisive issue.

I have repeatedly asked what the business case was for the change and it appears there never was one. I have (since before Christmas) been trying to find out what it would cost to put my aircraft on a CAA permit. The CAA has told me it is not possible, but I am still trying to question this. One thing which has come to light is that if you run a factory constructed Jodel (which you can put on a CAA permit) and you have 4 or more in the group it would be cheaper to get a CAA permit than an LAA one and 4 memberships. If this turns out to be true how much damage do you think the lost memberships and lost permit revenue will do to the Association?

Rod1

Mike Cross · Post by **Mike Cross** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:48 am

Mike Cross wants to quietly sweep a democratic vote under the carpet.

Not so Bill. As I said in my post:-

There was nothing wrong with the process by which the rules were changed.

All we need do is recognise that it is not possible to enforce this rule without unfairly penalising loyal members and quietly do away with it at the next AGM.

I don't see how voting it down at the next AGM is any less democratic than the vote that put it there in the first place.

You and everyone else who suppports this rule continue to studiously avoid the question of how you would enforce it without unfairly penalising loyal paid-up members. Answer the question please.

Bill McCarthy · Post by **Bill McCarthy** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 10:20 am

Rod, Mike,
I certainly didn't intend or mean to be harsh and if you felt I was, then I apologise. However, I feel very strongly about it nevertheless. Perhaps we can set an associate membership rate (group rate) to make the whole thing feel acceptable to full paid up members.
My thoughts are with a fellow aviator at present who seems to have gone missing in the Avimore area. He was on a flight from Carlisle to my home airport at Wick. There was a howling blizzard up here last night and I hope he is found safe.

Mike Cross · Post by **Mike Cross** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 10:52 am

Bill

I'm sorry to hear that the missing pilot is a friend of yours. Unfortunately the chances of a good outcome look slim at the moment.

I know people have strong views that those who fly Permit aircraft should support the LAA by becoming members and I hold the same view. I simply do not think the rule is sensible. Having a rule that's not enforced is worse than having no rule at all. It makes a mockery of the authority of the person making the rule. I don't see any fair way of enforcing this and feel we would be better off using persuasion on the disssenters, e.g. by enclosing a letter and membership application(s) with renewed Permits when it is known that one or more of the co-owners is not a member.

The same could be done with Struts for example, where it's possible to be a Strut member without being a LAA member. Strut co-ordinators have the tools to persuade their members to join LAA and the same tools could be put in the hands of the member who applies for a Permit for a group owned aircraft.

Groups pay the same fee for the same work as individual owners, which is how it should be.

The rule sends out the wrong message. For example:- Charles Strasser of AOPA UK worked long and hard to get airfields across the UK to waive landing fees for genuine weather diversions. How would people feel if they were told "you can only get it waived if you're an AOPA member" or if the results of David Roberts' huge efforts on behalf of all of us were restricted to members of clubs affilliated to the BGA?

mikehallam · Post by **mikehallam** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 11:51 am

Choosing to own a part of a 'plane is not an emergency, Mike Cross is falling back on weak arguments. it's a poor sign.

What nonsense to try and discuss purely the Permit fee out of context. The Fee is per plane, so groups individuals becoming members doesn't increase that single fee. Remember one has to consider the complete organisation and costs infrastructure as a whole.

Surely if you belong to any other sort of mutual club invited guests may certainly attend, but not regular consumers all the year round. I can't believe the specious red herring arguments apologists on this forum wring out, to help those poor disenfranchised souls avoid a few quid.

I ran a CAA a/c for 20 years at my cost outside the Permit system but my fly-ins were mostly to PFA inspired or supported events, I never cried then about cross subsidising other members.
I'LL BET THERE'S LOADS OF MEMBERS WHO GENUINELY CAN'T AFFORD TO FLY, YET REMAIN ENTHUSIASTIC & PAID UP.
So once again why do you lot bang on about it, it's my club and I think folk who are long term users of its facilities should join up or shut up.

I propose a simpler alternative to my previous suggestion of 'a get out of membership fee' for those anonymous objectors to the LAA [yet apparently still prepared to suck at its bosom].
Restructure Permit fees to take account of all the members of a group owned a/c. Naturally for full members the contribution would be discounted by an equal sum.

Now surely that's fair to all ?

Mike Cross · Post by **Mike Cross** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:17 pm

Mike

I ask you the same question I asked Bill

You and everyone else who suppports this rule continue to studiously avoid the question of how you would enforce it without unfairly penalising loyal paid-up members. Answer the question please.

mikehallam · Post by **mikehallam** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 4:52 pm

Mike,

I did try [above] to give you a fair solution to your odd question.

"...........propose a simpler alternative to my previous suggestion of 'a get out of membership fee' for those anonymous objectors to the LAA [yet apparently still prepared to suck at its bosom].
Restructure Permit fees to take account of all the members of a group owned a/c. Naturally for full members the contribution would be discounted by an equal sum.

Now surely that's fair to all ?"