LAA membership - mandatory for Permit a/c owners?

ffg · Post by **ffg** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:49 pm

This isn't supposed to be a rude question - just asking about the rules here.

Is the owner of a Permit type required to belong to the LAA? If it's a syndicate owned aircraft, does every member need to belong?

This is hypothetical, I am a member, I intend to continue. Just curious about the rules - can't find anything written down.

Thanks!

macconnacher · Post by **macconnacher** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:55 pm

See Rules
http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co. ... es2008.pdf

Rule 13b

ffg · Post by **ffg** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:58 pm

Thanks Stuart!

Couldn't find it for looking....

Ray Lewis · Post by **Ray Lewis** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:21 pm

How does this work if the registered (with CAA) owner is a company?

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:12 pm

Have a search on the old BB and you will find pages and pages of why this is a silly idea. The “group ownership” rule is not being enforced, so some common sense is being applied.

Rod1

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:08 pm

Don't want to get into another pointless debate on this issue. Let us just say that if you part own an LAA permit aeroplane and thus enjoy the benefits the association provides, I think you have a moral obligation to at least, to be a paid up member.

J.C. · Post by **J.C.** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:23 am

I wondered if you'd be able to refrain Brian!
Nicely put though and I agree with the sentiment(but not the rule).

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:17 pm

I am with JC on this, but life is too short to go round again and again on this.

Rod1

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:24 pm

I have received the following from the Engineering department today:

"I see you've been involved in this thread so thought I'd drop you a line regarding our current procedures as I notice 'Rod 1' has stated in his post that this rule is not being enforced - which is not true.

LAA Engineering IS now actively enforcing this rule along with the membership dept. In the past we have been unable to enforce the rule as we had no facility on the Engineering database to record co-owners with a link through to their membership status. In mid 2007 the design of the database was amended and we now have this facility and link. We are now able to enter co-owners names on the system and can see whether or not they are currently a member of LAA. We now record details of ALL co-owners that we become aware of.

I have also initiated better links with CAA Registration dept and they now send us a monthly report of all new Registration Certificates issued, Change of ownership details plus Aircraft De-registration details. This information provides us with details of a number of 'non-member' owners/co-owners of LAA aircraft.

If any owners/co-owners are not members, they are sent a polite letter by our membership dept requesting they join a.s.a.p. and Engineering will withhold issue of permits/mod approvals etc until they become members."

As I said earlier, I have no desire to revisit this subject but I am delighted that the association is now actively enforcing this perfectly reasonable rule.

J.C. · Post by **J.C.** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:15 pm

Thanks for that Brian,I think its just opened the floodgates,lets see how long it takes for the first legal case to come in!

Nick Allen · Post by **Nick Allen** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:35 pm

"we have all the info from the CAA. I wonder if the CAA should be sending this info to them"
Ron, I think you're forgetting that the LAA is acting under powers delegated to it by the CAA, so transmission of information between the organisations is hardly surprising, or in fact sinister.

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:06 am

Anonymous Engineer, please join the BB and make your contribution directly.

You could also contribute by answering questions posted on the Const & Maint forum.

solar · Post by **solar** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:59 am

Agree with Brian regarding the morality but intensely dislike the way this is going.
Can't see how it will benefit the LAA.
It should be an organisation people want to join not forced to under certain criteria.

I think Pete has a point as well.

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:24 am

First of all let me point out that this issue does not apply to me personally, I built my aircraft and I own it, my other half would probably clam ½ of it but that is another mater.

The LAA did not have any idea how many group owned aircraft were out there. The plan to get the data from the CAA will not provide all this info. Firstly there are a number of aircraft which are operated by company’s, and the CAA do not keep records (to the best of my knowledge) of the directors of the company. Secondly, 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.

In the case of an existing group, there will be nothing in the rules of the group about being a member of the LAA. I know of at least one group, a member of which posts regularly on BB’s, who will be unable to force all the members to join. This puts a lot of paid up members in an impossible position. If the rule is to be enforced (and it is not right now as there are many groups with owners who are not members of the LAA) then an item in the mag saying what we are doing may help to save some of the pain. This has the potential to be a PR disaster.

Rod1