LAA membership - mandatory for Permit a/c owners?

[John Dean]

The snag is, as I've already found out, the CAA don't want to deal directly with any type that they think should be looked after by either the LAA or BMAA.

The literature I saw from the CAA on the transfer of the Auster fleet gives the choice of either a permit through the LAA or one direct from the CAA.

See http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1594/LTO%202008-001.pdf

[Mike Cross]

I am disappointed that this thread is so popular, we are discussing this subject interminably for the second time.

The answer is simple then. Return to the position we were in before the rule change and return the promotion of group ownership to the Association's objectives. That way we'll all have something more interesting to discuss.

Or perhaps someone would enlighten us as to the economic benefits that have accrued to the Association as a result of the rule changes. That way we'd be able to make an informed judgement on whether the extra cash justifies the strife.

(Tin helmet on and duck below the parapet)

[Rod1]

John,

I contacted the CAA in December to see if it was theoretically possible to put my MCR on a CAA administered permit and what the costs might be and was told “with that aircraft you must stick with the PFA”.

Rod1

[Graham Newby]

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

[Jim Gale]

And, before the motion was put to the AGM, a vote was taken at a meeting of the NC, (who, one would hope, represents the membership on a broad basis), where it was unanimously agreed to accept the proposal.
The NC firmly believed at that time that the rule change was for the good of the members and the Association.
Jim.

[Pete]

In most associations rule changes need a significant percentage of members to vote for it.

How many of the 8000 members voted for this particular change ?

Was the proposed change ever published in the Mag ?

[Brian Hope]

Pete, the rule change would have been published in the mag, I am not going to trawl back through to find it but it is usual practice to publish rule changes prior to the AGM. I seem to remember it was also debated at length on the BB prior to the AGM.

It was accepted by a majority at the AGM, the usual and totally democratic method for making a change to the rules. If we insisted on a significant percentage of members turning up to vote on rule changes then nothing would ever get done because most members are simply not bothered enough to come to the AGM.
Every member had due notice of the proposal and the opportunity to attend the AGM to vote. Everything was above board and totally transparent. Of those so vehemently opposed to the rule on this thread I cannot remember more than perhaps one who actually attended that AGM.

Notice of the 2008 AGM will appear in Light Aviation within the next couple of months or so and will include information on the method and timescales to propose rule changes.

[steveneale]

For heaven's sake! The issue here is the draconian method of enforcement proposed not the rule in itself. Had withholding permits to force people to join the association been mentioned when the rule was proposed to NC or the AGM I think it would have been challenged then as it is now.

At least do CAA the courtesy of asking for their view before opening what could be a Pandora's box or we may find CAA in court speaking for the plaintiff.

[Pete]

I just asked a couple of simple questions!

How many folks voted for this piece of wisdom ?

I would say that as good citizens, to avoid irritating folks on the ground, we should never fly cross country at less than 1500 ft agl, but I would vigorously oppose any attempt to make it law. So common sense and good rules are sometimes at variance.

This membership rule is a similar issue, it seems to have been based on emotion rather than common sense.

Anybody advocating applying the rule is clearly making the same mistake.

[Nick Allen]

Would not a relatively simple alternative to forcing people to join the Association be to charge non-members more for the Association's services? Many organizations do this, and it seems a widely accepted pattern. Hence Mr Smith can run a Permit aircraft without being an LAA member, but his annual renewal will cost x × member price; and so on for mods. x (or perhaps y!) could also be applied for syndicates lacking complete Association membership.

[Rod1]

Pete

As we do not have an official number (yet) we could have some fun and guess!

I will go for less than 450, which is less than 5.5% of the members.

Rod1

[J.C.]

I am sure if lemmings had an AGM they would probably vote to still jump,but that don't make it a smart thing to do!

[Brian Hope]

The vote in question was taken at an AGM where there was certainly a quorum, I think three AGMs ago. It has been the last couple of years where there hasn't been sufficient members present for the meeting to go ahead without the rule that provides for the meeting to continue without a quorum being enacted.
I cannot say for certainty how many people voted in favour, and I am not sure whether actual numbers are recorded in the minutes. My guess is that there would have been around 100 members present and I know that there were very few against, so maybe 90 voted in favour. As I say, only a guess though. If somebody wants to check the minutes please do so, I have a life.
Regardless of whether ten or a thousand members voted on this issue, or any other, the AGM has been the traditional way in which motions have been voted on in the Association for decades. It is a system that is democratic, and it has served the association well over the years. If members wish to adopt an alternative system, and I do not doubt that with the internet there are ways it could be done, then it is up to them to put forward a properly structured case and seek a rule change to have it adopted.