LAA membership - mandatory for Permit a/c owners?

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:38 am

It will only take one litigious syndicate to take a pop at LAA and we will be stumping up more money for lawyers and probably the syndicates legal fees too when the floor is wiped with LAA in court. How many extra memberships would be needed to pay for that! If the direct CAA permit option was there perhaps but I've been told CAA won't deal direct for PFA aircraft. I'm afraid the same case might even throw up the question of mandatory membership for anyone at all. You don't have to join the CAA to get a permit from them. Some stones are best unturned and IMHO this is one of them.

jangiolini · Post by **jangiolini** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:54 am

I think it is only fair that if you enjoy the benefits of a Permit aircraft then you should pay for the pleasure! I also cant understand why, when you save so much money with either a share or just the fact of not paying exorbitant fees to a certified facility for maintenance, that the individual member moans about the small amount that LAA membership cost!!! I am quite annoyed by the attitude of some people when they want the benefits for nothing!
Simply if you own/fly a permit aircraft you contribute!!!

Nick Allen · Post by **Nick Allen** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:03 am

Rod, "the aircraft can be registered to two people, but the group could be 20, and I do not think the CAA keep details of all the owners, beyond the registered two." I think you're supposed to notify the CAA of all syndicate members, so the CAA would have complete ownership information.
Rod, I think your analogy with your business is flawed: people buy and sell shares in aircraft (and own shares in more than) much more frequently than your business partners change (I would hope!). (I also hope you have a contingency plan for when the partner with the crucial licence drops dead/falls into a macerator

)
Let's say that only one person in a group has to be a member: he/she sells his/her share, and buys a share in another aircraft. Someone else in the old group needs to join the LAA; the new group ends up with two members. Complex, messy (let's not forget some people belong to more than one syndicate).
Let's say there's no compulsion at all to be an LAA member to own/fly a Permit aircraft. Result: a number of people leave (sooo tempting to insert the phrase "miserable tightwads" hereabouts...). Consequence: the costs of Permits, Mods, etc., goes up to cover the shortfall. So how is that an improvement to the situation?
Come on people, this is mountain/molehill territory!

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:48 pm

For aircraft which are group ownd the arangment used to be you register two owners formaly, and send an informal note on the rest which was stored on paper file. If the system is the same I do not expect this second data is readily available to the LAA.

In the case of company ABCD which owns aircraft G-ABCD, the directors of ABCD can change without CAA involvement. I have not run a group this way, but lots of people do as it limits liability. This LAA rule does not take this into account.

I completely agree there is a moral obligation, but I this goes way beyond this and has been the subject of heated debate. If one member in a 20 man group refuses to join, you are saying to 19 paid up members that there aircraft cannot have a permit, despite it being fully safe and up to date. There will probably be no rule in the group rules to force membership so you have an impasse with 19 full members getting very fed up with the LAA. Trust me there will be a lot of pain for the LAA in this and the LAA has no idea how many groups or the average number of group members. The BMAA have no similar system. The CAA will not deal with aircraft which are currently looked after by the LAA, I phoned and asked in December last year.

Rod1

Post by **John Dean** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:17 pm

As I see it the LAA is not a commercial organisation. It is an association or club where subscriptions and other payments are used for the good of ALL members.

I understand that when I pay my annual subs, some of it will go to pay for some things which I have no interest in and I am comfortable with that. I know that a large chunk of my permit fee goes on matters unrelated to the expense of renewing my permit and I am comfortable with that also.

I am uncomfortable with those who take advantage of the system and refuse to contribute.

Frank Parker · Post by **Frank Parker** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:25 pm

I am not sure what are the current rules regarding groups, but would it not make sense to ask a group for a subscription that would include all group members as associate or group members of the LAA? No magazine for the individual group members, just one for the group. An alternate class of membership with limited membership benefits. But the name of the group members would then appear on the membership lists of the L.A.A.

Nick Allen · Post by **Nick Allen** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:33 pm

Rod, "If one member in a 20 man group refuses to join, you are saying to 19 paid up members that there aircraft cannot have a permit, despite it being fully safe and up to date. There will probably be no rule in the group rules to force membership..." Interesting point, and probably worth syndicates inserting a relevant clause into their rules. However, I would argue that there's a de facto obligation to join the LAA ('cos that's what the rules say!), and if one syndicate member refuses to join, the other members would have grounds for voting him/her out of the syndicate. Harsh but plausible! Hopefully common sense would prevail before that point was reached...

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:49 pm

Another misunderstanding is the “benefit” argument. The people who benefit from the LAA are the people who fly the aircraft, not the owners. I know of several “sole owned” aircraft which are flown more by friends of the owner than the owner himself. My other 1/2 thinks she owns ½ my aircraft but does not fly, (and is not an LAA member)

I am now losing the will to live. If you want more look at the pages and pages of well argued points on the old BB.

Rod1

Phil Burgess · Post by **Phil Burgess** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:09 pm

So why is there only one "monopolies commission"?

J.C. · Post by **J.C.** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:04 pm

hmmm...yes Brian I think its opening......

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:47 pm

As far as I can see you don't have to get a permit via the LAA, folks can always apply direct to the CAA for a permit - much like the folks will be doing to get Concorde flying again.

So those who feel strongly that they don't want to be members can always go that route.

I suspect it will cost them more than the combined cost of a years subs and a new LAA issued permit.

Wherever you go in life you meet people who never stand their round, borrow and then knacker your tools and think it's clever.

Personally I think people with so little self respect are sad.