LAA membership - mandatory for Permit a/c owners?

[Dragcurve]

FACT like it or not the CAA allow the LAA to administer permits
FACT the permit system is not in dispute - it benefits all.
FACT the charges for permit are reasonable
FACT the annual membership fees help to 'subsidise' costs such as permits
FACT the more members the better for all concerned
FACT the membership fee provide more benefits than just permits.
FACT it is morally and legally wrong to insist on membership fees to control permit issue.
FACT it is morally right to support the system of membership that is designed to reduce costs for permit.
FACT if you issue differential pricing for membership Owner rate (must be one per aircraft) then an associate for all other members the rate the permit fees will go up.....unless associate rate attracts all those currently flying permitted aircraft who are not members.
FACT its cheaper to attract them than it is to police them.

[jangiolini]

I dont think its an issue of coercion but rather an issue of why should members of a group be exempt from paying a membership which as said before is a rather small sum. I can see the need for a group rate for a permit and this, I would hope, would sort the problem!
Certainly if I chose to share my aircraft, I would insist on the partners being members of the LAA.

[Mike Cross]

Hooray! I can now post on this BBS, I was beginning to get paranoid.

While I agree with Brian that those who fly Permit aircraft should support LAA by being members I have problems with some of the other issues:-

1. I do not think a paid-up member and supporter of LFA should be punished because another member of his syndicate is not a member. (apart from anything else collective punishment is outlawed by the Geneva Convention! )
2. I don't think it's morally right that there should be a cross-subsidy from membership fees to Permit Issue costs. It costs the same for the LAA to issue a Permit irrespective of the number of owners.

Why not charge a fee for Permit Issue that covers Engineering's costs, then we don't have to scrabble around desperately forcing people into membership in order to find some revenue for Engineering. It would also lower the membership fee and thereby attract more members.

Members who have two aircraft on Permits would then be paying their way, as would members of large groups. (Then again LAA no longer supports Group Ownership since it removed it as one of their objectives)

If LAA is NOT going to support group ownership and it has a de facto monopoly perhaps it should take a look at its own morals and offer an alternative to groups. Non-members pay a Permit Fee equal to the members' rate plus the cost of a year's subscription. However they don't get any of the benefits of membership. That way they are not forced into membership of an Association that acts against their interests and LAA gets the revenue.

[Dragcurve]

Mike,

I think it is a case of infrastucture support; The LAA engineering function needs to be robust and stable - it needs the financial stability that membership income offers - If our friendly accountants (God bless'em) start to regulate the engineering function based on fees that may or may not come in, (let alone the huge temptation of owner operaters to 'avoid' such costs), will degrade safety and ruin all privilages of the permit for us all.

OK I take your points regarding the number of owners to aircraft and number of aircrafts to an owner...

I like the idea of one full membership per aircraft and an associate member fee for subsequent owners (limited benefits). And a subsequent fees for more than one registered aircraft (minimal but reflective).

And yes, A slightly inflated (true cost) of permit inspection and renewal for those who for whatever reason feel they do not what to be a member but want to fly there aircraft under a permit - they should indeed be legally entitled to do so - It would be, and should always have been the LAA's responsibility to attract membership.

I am at the shoestring end of flying so cost is always the battle and many a time a perfectly flyable aircraft is grounded because I can't afford the Permit renewal fee, (blumin kids music lessons!), but I think the LAA have the balance is about right at the moment with fees as long as core activities are maintained and not diluted by diversification desires (hint,hint).

I think the above would suit all parties concerned.

[John Brady]

Could I offer a different slant on the owner/member debate leaving aside the moral and fairness issues.

The LAA has a duty to supervise the continued airworthiness of aircraft under its jurisdiction. It does this through a range of regulations and procedures that sit under The Rules of the LAA. Members are obliged to comply with The Rules (and hence regulations and procedures). Non-members are not.

So a non-member/owner could do something stupid to their LAA aircraft leading to accident, injury, loss and death and the LAA has absolutely no way of stopping them. Only members are governed by The Rules.

So I submit M'lud that in order to satisfy the Regulator and to protect pilots and the public, the LAA must require all owners to be members so as to bring them within its regulatory control.

I rest my case.

[Steve Brown]

Again leaving morality/fairness etc aside, surely the rules of the LAA are not primarily to control aviation safety etc. We have the ANO for that.

I accept the LAA have defined processes to regulate safety under delegation from the CAA but I suspect that ultimately the CAA has the power to withdraw the permit to fly if they feel it necessary regardless whether all group members are LAA members.

I am not a lawyer but I suspect the only sanction that a person (as owner, part owner or pilot) is subject to is a criminal prosecution for breaking the law under (most probably) the Air Naviagtion Order.

So guess if the LAA felt it necessary (eg to safeguard the LAA reputation, public safety etc) there may be a possibility of them considering sending a formal report to the CAA of any person - member or not - for a possible investigation into whether a prosecution should be commenced.

Apart of course from a civil action taken by any person who has suffered loss damage etc etc.

Regards
Steve

[Rod1]

Mach2

”The LAA has a duty to supervise the continued airworthiness of aircraft under its jurisdiction. It does this through a range of regulations and procedures that sit under The Rules of the LAA. Members are obliged to comply with The Rules (and hence regulations and procedures). Non-members are not.”

This is why the old rule is at least one member per aircraft.

“So a non-member/owner could do something stupid to their LAA aircraft leading to accident, injury, loss and death and the LAA has absolutely no way of stopping them. Only members are governed by The Rules.”

Any PILOT flying the aircraft could do this. We are not saying that every pilot in command of an LAA permit aircraft must be a member so your argument is invalid.

Rod1

[Bill McCarthy]

If, say, for whatever reason the one LAA member of a group dropped out of the association, does the LAA have the right to reject the membership application of the next group member. The "rebel" group owners could end up being lumbered with a non permitted aircraft and have difficulty in selling it on.

[J.C.]

Well said Welshman.
The LAA mission states "To provide engineering support to all aircraft in the LAAspectrum." It does not mention ownership. This is the basis on which they publicly tender for your membership in law and I think they would be in a sticky position if they refuse a permit on membership grounds.I also think that the CAA would take a dim view if the LAA get picky as it undermines the status quo and also opens doors to competitors to provide this service. None of this is helpfull to the LAA or its members.

This is entirely seperate to, and divorced from, the moral argument for all group members to be members of the LAA, which I support wholeheartedly.

[Alan George]

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

Meanwhile, probably in the Czech republic, someone is designing the next generation of high performance, efficient light aircraft; whilst the UK falls ever further behind.

I had hoped the LAA would be more interesting, Alan.