What's going on at LAA

[Rod1]

Brian

That is a great shame. I apologize if my joke of a few weeks ago contributed to your decision. I hope that in a few weeks you will reconsider, as you have made a real effort to keep us informed and it is appreciated by most of us.

I think it was the BMAA that tried to get the credit for the removal of the over flight rules, not AOPA. In any case it was a big gain for all permit aircraft and the first step on the long road to IFR for suitable aircraft.

Rod1

[Peter Harvey]

Rod, thanks for your positive words on Brian's behalf.

I met Brian at Turweston on Saturday morning 8.30am to work on the ET workshop (that's you the member's workshop). Unpaid and in his own time. He'd rounded up a keen bunch of mates, also unpaid and in their own time to sort out the Portacabin and provide a resource for the good of all members. Not only that, Brian had taken the trouble to attend yet another EC until late on a Friday evening (unpaid and in his own time). Once again on behalf of the membership. It seems reasonable to describe his EC input as the constant voice of the core membership. Keeps us all honest.

We've tried politely in this and the anonymity thread to inform folks and help with the realisation of the power of their postings. People have feelings. There seems little reward in opening up.

The LAA team is doing a collosal amount on your behalf. Of course we're trying to do something to maintain the privileges of the 'orphan' aircraft. Why the implied assumption that we're doing nothing, rather than the implied assumption that we're bound to be doing something and simply to verify that? Can you imagine the challenge of moving the CAA to provide IFR/night privileges for Permit aircraft (that may be using un-certified parts). We're pushing as hard as we can in a number of channels.

As for the delays, we had piles of the paperwork complete and awaiting CAA approval, but encountered an internal block in the CAA systems. Seems an individual wasn't so keen on signing off the Permits, even though the CAA had approved the process and written to everyone some time previously. We didn't want to point the finger at the time, since we work closely with CAA and rely on mutual co-operation. The delay was unfortunate and we took it on the nose. It was a judgement call. We took the wrap, but some folks seem to assume we're at fault.

So please. Consider the power of your posts. Liek many, Brian sticks his neck out and works on your behalf within EC, in the magazine and within these forums. Cut him a bit of slack.

In this time of change for the LAA, we need your feedback and input more than ever Brian. Please reconsider mate.

[Donald Walker]

I think it was the BMAA that tried to get the credit for the removal of the over flight rules, not AOPA.

Rod,

The BMAA did not claim any credit for the removal of overflight rules. This is how it was announced on the BMAA forum.

"CAA have issued an exemption which allows overflight of congested areas
by Microlight Aircraft operating on a Permit to Fly. I have loaded a
copy to the file section for your information. Please READ it before
you make the first such flight.

Geoff Weighell
14th July 2008"

Donald

[Rod1]

"The BMAA did not claim any credit"

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co. ... .php?t=368

Rod1

[mikehallam]

Peter, Brian,

Pls. don't let the repetitive moans of the usual posters who always 'know' it's a conspiracy deter you from clear thinking.

If you count them up you'll note how few they are. Their freedom of free speech is mostly mis-used for knee jerk objections using hurtful condemnatory phraseology; rarely worthwhile remarks.

There's a giant majority of members, albeit mostly silent on these fora, who they don't represent & for whom the PFA/LAA is appreciated for more than pulling its weight.

[JonKil]

Over the past while this BB has assumed the role of "have a pop at the LAA" ..
maybe this BB being wound up & closed would be no bad thing.

[John Brady]

I have use the BB in the past to obtain views on issues and to let the inhabitants know about stuff I was dealing with. Having spent 3 days on LAA business (unpaid) last week I have been away on LAA business today since 0745, back this pm and dealing (unpaid) with a windfarm that will close an airfield if it goes ahead, with IFR privileges for orphans, with access to UK airspace for foreign aircraft and with a change to the definition of IMC to allow permit aeroplanes to fly in what would otherwise be IFR. I just logged on to see if there was anything interesting and came across this thread with its whinges about the LAA.

I have previously posted defenses against whingers on the BB but they don't go away. I am with Brian on this and will be deregistering from the BB now. If you want to know about some of the stuff I deal with go to the consultation pages on the website. The rest you may pick up from the magazine but you won't find reminders to action here any more.

I have a family to spend time with, an aeroplane in need of an annual and another to build. Life is too short to spend time with whingers when there are great people like Brian around

Goodbye,

John Brady

[flyin'dutch']

Not sure that I understand that for making some statements of facts and disagreeing with Brian Hope I deserve to be made out to be a whinger!

I said that there are people who now pay more under the permit regime than they used to when they have a CAA CofA that is just true.

When Brian Hope suggests that the alternative was to make it in a hangar ornament I think that is hardly the same as contributing to a meaningful discussion.

Maybe the LAA needs to look why it is more costly to operate as an orphan on an LAA permit than on a CAA CofA especially when it is cheap aviation that is promoted.

I can not see that any of those comments are unfounded or unreasonable but apparently they are 'good enough' for Brian to flounce and I now see that it also means that the BB users can not benefit from alerts on consultations on important matters from John Brady anymore!


Peter Harvey wrote:

As for the delays, we had piles of the paperwork complete and awaiting CAA approval, but encountered an internal block in the CAA systems. Seems an individual wasn't so keen on signing off the Permits, even though the CAA had approved the process and written to everyone some time previously. We didn't want to point the finger at the time, since we work closely with CAA and rely on mutual co-operation. The delay was unfortunate and we took it on the nose. It was a judgement call. We took the wrap, but some folks seem to assume we're at fault.

I only have a sample of 1 but the delay was clearly due to the LAA not processing the stuff in a timely manner.

I am very sorry if this sort of stuff is upsetting for the in crowd but that is the experience of members and the view shared by those exposed to it.

If the LAA wants to be THE organisation which represents GA and encompasses areas which traditionally were the domain of others (BMAA/AOPA) a good starting point would be to be willing to listen to those who have some comments to make rather than having a paddy if they do have views which at face value do not concord with your own.

[mikehallam]

Which people exactly Frank ?
Let's see fact, not more unsubstantiated comments !

As for Permit delay, you're ONE example only & can't speak for the rest of us.

Anyway you spoil your argument with too many pejoratives !

[flyin'dutch']

Which people exactly Frank ?
Let's see fact, not more unsubstantiated comments !

As for Permit delay, you're ONE example only & can't speak for the rest of us.

Anyway you spoil your argument with too many pejoratives !

Mike,

I am not going to descend into a competition who is here the tallest but from Peter Harvey's comment it is clear that the number of delayed aircraft was a bit larger than one.

I quote:

As for the delays, we had piles of the paperwork complete and awaiting CAA approval

In the case I am referring to the delay was at the LAA; others may have been at the hands of the CAA as Peter says. I don't know but if the LAA was aware of that internal block but did not do anything about it as Peter says so as not to cause ructions in the relationship with the CAA is hardly more palatable I reckon.

[Donald Walker]

Thanks for that link Rod. I must be suffering from selective memory.

Donald

[steveneale]

Mach2/Brian,

There are 500+ members of this BB. If you were in a meeting with 500 people and you didn't like what half a dozen said would you walk out of the meeting? Why then are you walking out of this one? Those 500 members are there for information. Information both of your departures will reduce which is hardly going to help.

Mach2 every time I fly and can draw a straight line on my chart I thank you but whoever is dripping poison into your and other EC ears about the BB does LAA no favours.

Brian, again I have met you on several occasions. You are incredibly positive and a nice bloke to chat to. I'm on record in previous posts about what you do for LAA. On fora though please accept that you can come across as combative and over protective of LAA. You punched out of the RVSQN BB too recently in similar circumstances but no one considers that a bear pit.

It's a continual problem with this medium that is is easy to take umbrage where non was intended or simply misunderstand the tenor of a post.

In Flyin Dutch's case he asked a commonly asked question about fees. A polite reply explaining the real savings was all that was warranted. Perhaps we should set up a FAQ section here to answer these quite reasonable questions.

Without both of your contributions here communication to members (even if it is a subset) will suffer and we don't want that.

Hope this helps calm things

Steve Neale
Bristol Coordinator
NC member

[J.C.]

post removed

[John Dean]

The moderator should remove sensless wingeing when it has this level of effect on people who are doing a good job.

I am always very reluctant to delete any post but members should appreciate that most of the very valuable work done by the LAA is done by volunteers as we have a very small permanent staff. These volunteers give their time, often a great deal of time, for the benefit of not only LAA members but the wider flying community. We cannot afford to de-motivate them as without them the regulators would make our flying lives much worse than they are now. Some of the comments on the forum in the last few days have been intemperant and unnecessary.

Please remember that the LAA is a democratic organisation, we vote for our EC members who run the Association on our behalf and if you feel they are not doing as you wish, then you have no need to vote for them when they come due for re-election. Also remember that there is another level of representation with the National Council on which sits a representative from each of the Struts and Squadrons which discuss matters and can make recommendations to the EC.

With that thought, the sun is shining and I'm off flying - thanks to the LAA!

[flyin'dutch']

John

In the 10+ years that I have been a PFA/LAA member I have made comments on these shores about 3 things:

1. The compulsion of all syndicate members to have to be PFA/LAA members before a Permit will be issued.

I said, as did others for whom this was acutely an issue, that this would potentially penalise paid up members if they have non compliers in their syndicate.

These paid up members have no way to enforce this rule upon their non-compliant syndicate members but would still not be able to fly their aeroplane if the LAA decided not to issue a Permit.

At that occasion we were told we were whingers defending the interests of free-loaders and no matter how we tried to explain it there seems an inability to understand that this an unfair penalty for paid up folks.

2. I suggested on the 'anonymity has to stop on the BB' that the suggested reason for this was inacurate as there is plenty of caselaw which makes it abundantly clear what the position of BB providers is.

I just note that you are not complying with this new rule on posting on the BB.



3. I presented the case of a mate who's transfer of his previous CofA to a permit was arduous and costly, costs many times greater than previously having a CofA CAA.

I suggest that this is maybe not the way to influence and win people over and demonstrate that the LAA is good value for money.

An eminent member of the LAA suggests that he could have made it into a hangar ornament.

Hardly a positive engagement in furthering this discussion. You demand that I substantiate this again reiterate that I am a whinger and suggest that the moderator should edit out posts by whingers.

Why stop there and not suggest that I should be booted out of the organisation?

John, if you think that the LAA is perfect and there is no room for improvement then you are naive.

People leveling criticism may well not add to the warm feeling you get about the LAA but if you think that the LAA can grow to become an encompassing organisation with whom a large part of the GA community can associate itself without being self critical and listen to those who have something to say, you may have to think again.