What's going on at LAA

[Rod1]

Andy Aiken

Good post, hope you win

Peter, if you think the BMAA BB and ours should be run along similar lines then I am very much for it. They allow non members to post

The safety comment does not work as one member of any group must be a in the LAA, it is then up to them to disseminate which has worked for years with no problem. The debate on non members owning a share in an LAA aircraft was long and very heated. If we are going to go 30 rounds again could we separate it onto a different thread. Mike, are you going to attempt to reverse the decision at the AGM? If not is it worth going through this a third time?

Rod1

[merlin]

There could be a significant safety issue with "non members" flying a permit aircraft. If there is one member with say, six others in the group, should the member not take action over an urgent mandatory modification, this would put the others at risk. If they all were members, they would each receive notification. Indeed, on the other hand, the non members could conceivably make a change to the aircraft without it being signed off. I know that there could be a similar situation with Cof A aircraft, but the whole thing does not ring true.

The CAA send out safety info, as I presume would LAA and anyone else, only to the trustee in any group as detailed on G-info.

Much safety info is not sent to many pilots esp NPPL.

Therefore I assume that the authorities see no safety issue indeed possibly just the opposite.

[Bill McCarthy]

OK Roger, if there are no safety implications could you please put me right on this issue. As an owner/pilot I receive the GASIL safety publications distributed by the CAA. I always flip through the small booklet listing all accidents/incidents which are in alphabetical order to check if there has been anything reported on my aircraft. To my horror, I found that there had been a fatality on my type which was non pilot error. This was the first I heard of it. Now, if this had been a shared aircraft and I was still serving in the forces, gone abroad for a couple of months, the other party could have been exposed to danger. My wife could have seen the publication as "junk mail" and disposed of it in the meantime, then both of us could have been at risk.

[Mike Cross]

Bill

Not an issue of bad manners, an issue of fact. No problem with presenting an argument, here it is. Safety is a matter of risk management and ultimately it is the operator's responsibility to manage that risk. The situations you postulate simply point up the risks of a failure of the duty of care of one person towards the other users. Those risks are the same whatever the airworthiness regime under which the aircraft operates. In the scenario where your wife chucks out important safety information do you not think that perhaps the blame would be deservedly laid at your door for abdicating your responsibilities? The same blame would attach if for example if you had a C of A aircraft that you leased to a flying group and you failed to pass on information, or for that matter if any pilot found a dangerous defect on an aircraft and failed to take steps to ensure that it was not flown until it had been rectified.

Rod

I have no wish to open this can of worms again. I only posted because others had started talking about the Rule. My personal view is that the Rule is misconceived and unenforcable and for that reason it would be better were it not there.

[J.C.]

Mike ,excellent posts,concise and precise.I wish all posts on here were as factual.
John COOK

[Bill McCarthy]

I am not going to yield yet. What are the chain of actions set in motion by the CAA and the LAA when it is proven that a mechanican failure led to the loss of a permit aircraft, to inform owners of the type to take remedial actions ?

[J.C.]

post removed

[mikehallam]

As you've re-opend this sub theme:-

My Personal View is;

If it's difficult for joint group a/c owner members of the LAA to get all the others into the LAA, then have a two tier Permit charge.
Constucted to insure against the risk and for the use of intellectual assetts garnered through generations of PFA/LAA.

There used to be joint owners quite happy for the LAA to carry the legal responsibility for their Permit renewal for one members fee only, contributing zilch else to the organisation. Cross subsidised by our non a/c owners.

Example costs for LAA microlight, Permit @£100, plus membership £50 & £60 for inspector.
i) Single owner pays out £210.
ii) Four in an a/c group pay £90 each
iii) Under the obsolete LAA rules, £40 each to them if 3 remained non LAA members.
Either way substantially less than the sole owner, & peanuts compared to fuel & insurance.
QED

[Bill McCarthy]

JC - yes, I am acutely aware of those and am an avid checker and maintainer of paperwork relevant to my aircraft whilst it is in my care. I will put my Quality Assurance records up against anyones.

[flyin'dutch']

OK Roger, if there are no safety implications could you please put me right on this issue. As an owner/pilot I receive the GASIL safety publications distributed by the CAA. I always flip through the small booklet listing all accidents/incidents which are in alphabetical order to check if there has been anything reported on my aircraft. To my horror, I found that there had been a fatality on my type which was non pilot error. This was the first I heard of it. Now, if this had been a shared aircraft and I was still serving in the forces, gone abroad for a couple of months, the other party could have been exposed to danger. My wife could have seen the publication as "junk mail" and disposed of it in the meantime, then both of us could have been at risk.

ADs get sent by the CAA to the owner/trustee it is up to them to disseminate the information as appropriate.

GASIL is just for general aviation interest and learning generic lessons not to deal with ADs.

Rather than coming up with yet another non-argument for people to be brought to heel forcebly the LAA should concentrate on encouraging people to join because it is a worthwhile club with which people can associate themselves with for perceived value for money and representation as I did when I first joined 10 years ago, even if they don't own a permit aeroplane.

Rod, no need to bring this subject back to the AGM, I read a few months ago that there was a party going to look into this rule and the consequences of having it on the statute book and enforcing it. No doubt the EC itself will propose to scrap it.

[Rod1]

“No doubt the EC itself will propose to scrap it.”

I would be very pleased if this happened, but I will not hold my breath. My understanding is that there has been an attempt to enforce the rule. I think Shortfilad had his permit withheld until his non flying Wife (his aircraft was a single seat) had joined. I suspect the precise ownership of some aircraft has now become somewhat flexible.

Rod1

[Steve Brown]

Ref the objection to this due to the lack of ability of a LAA member of a group to force his non LAA group members to join (due to the rules of the group not stipulating this).

Surely 'all' the LAA member needs to do is to leave the LAA temporarily by not renewing. This would thus make the group a/c unflyable immeadiately or at most at the next permit renewal until all the group members agree to a group rule change requiring all members to be LAA members and then a mass join / re-join of the LAA of all members sorts everything doesn't it?.

Wouldn't that fix it & stop the free loaders?

Perhaps the LAA could consider extending the current Joint Membership category or introduce a group membership category (much like a family membership) as a sweetener?

Regards
Steve

[pillpoppinpilot]

Blimey, and this started as such a positive post !!! I hope that non LAA ers don't read this as it would certainly put many prospectives off.

Guys (and Gals) lighten up!!! People at LAA HQ you're taking critisism far too much to heart, you're in a position of power and as such you will receive critisism because you're not perfect and can't please everybody all the time. Take it on the chin and dismiss the chaff from the wheat.
Members of the LAA, stop having a whinge and a pop for the hell of it (contructive critisism excepted). It doesn't make good reading for anyone.
You just had to look at the new style BB when it first came out for that.

For what it's worth.

Tony

[pillpoppinpilot]

Brian and John

I hope that in the light of day, when things have calmed a little and rational thought can make a comeback - that you will reconsider visiting the BB again. I for one will miss your valuable input. Brian we all need your wisdom and John I personally need reminding of consultations and to take action when it's needed - no the mag is not enough, I need several reminders!

The pair of you, please do not desert the BB users who do not whinge (or even adversly comment) but just lurk and absorb the valuable information that you kindly disseminate.

Tony

[IanTadd]

As a new member (1 year), who recently returned to the UK after having had to deal with an aviation authority who neither had the resources or the inclination to allow home-build aircraft or microlights to even fly. I think it is worth remembering how much has been achieved by the LAA/PFA and sister organisations like the BMAA and AOPA for recreational flying and that none of this has been achieved without the persistent efforts of a few that have benefited the rest of us.

Europe has changed everything in particular the workload for the few in dealing with many issues that the new European regulator (who is inevitably focusing on commercial aviation) probably see as a nuisance. The imperative of having one organisation to present 'one voice' to the EASA has inevitably thrown up problems in creating such an organisation. There is a legal issue that will at some point be finalised, the unhelpful blame game and accusations that followed have inevitably damaged the goodwill that existed and inevitably sapped the motivation of those who will have to go back to the table. An additional strain on human resources at the LAA has been the ‘orphan’ aircraft. This problem was not caused by the LAA, however the LAA took on the responsibility and I would remind those who may have lost some privileges or experienced delays, the CAA set the rules for a permit and without the efforts of the LAA these aircraft would not be flying at all.

I think it is very important to remember how much extra work is being placed on 'the few' who are prepared to do the work and that it is inevitable that priority of effort and compromises will have to accepted and that a series of one off costs are involved. None of the decisions made will be perfect but they are allowing us to fly even if with a few delays or restrictions, which is far better than not flying at all.

I think the membership fee, when put in the context of what is achieved and compared to other costs (such as the £60 it now takes to fill a cars petrol tank, get a passport etc) let alone typical aviation costs is tiny for what it achieves. Clearly with the currant work load being able to afford more staff would be highly beneficial but that would require a higher membership fee.

One of the basic principles of a permit is that a substantial amount of the responsibility is passed to the owner/pilot/group. It defeats the object of cost reduction and devolution of responsibility if permit holders expect the LAA to provide everything down to a micro level.

All this talk of 'who did what where and to who' both within organisations and between organisations is completely unproductive and inevitably undermines the motivation of those doing the thankless work.

Lets remind ourselves of the real difficulties, a completely new regulator and new euro wide regulations, tax on fuel, local councils who have no understanding of airfields and GA etc

I think it is imperative that even making constructive criticism is carefully thought about in these rapidly changing circumstances, let alone when the language chosen becomes personal. People have feelings and modern societies love affair with the blame-game has a down side. No one doing this work at the LAA, BMAA and AOPA is getting rich and an occasional thank you to Brian and the others would not go amiss.



Ian Tadd (Previously a member of the silent majority)