In all fairness, there's no longer a significant (if any) subsidy to PtF aircraft owners, with the two tier membership.
I have a share in a 4-seat CofA aircraft, and I reckon belonging to the LAA makes more sense for the average fun pilot than AOPA. I pay by DD which knocks a few more quid off. Even though there are quite a few pages each month on homebuilts in the magazine, I'm on Brian's side with the comments about the technical and safety articles being of interest to more than just the PtF owners.
I do wonder if the several pages on LAA shop items are needed every month, if space issues are stopping articles for other sections of our membership being printed.
A subscription to other aviation mags is not much short of an LAA sub., and other mags have tests of helicopters and Bizjets filling some of their pages pretty regularly.
To answer Welshman's concerns about chld and vulnerable adult protection issues, the new Vetting and Barring scheme only applies for frequent contact with the same individuals. The activities done at the moment do not come within the definition requiring registration.
The scouts do not require a CRB check for pilots for similar reasons, but if involved more frequently would come into a different category of helper. I'm just becoming a County Skills Adviser, which includes a CRB check, so I can also help with cub and scout visits to the aero museum.
No system can be completely watertight, but the scouts take a realistic approach to managing risks. Even schools are becoming less risk-averse these days!
What is the L.A.A. becoming
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
It should be noted that Dave's view is just that, his view. The official line is that LAA is still looking into the Vetting and Barring situation and has yet to make a final pronouncement on it.
I sometimes wonder how on earth I ever managed to reach adulthood with so many dreadful things going on around me. With four kids, mum and dad could never have afforded all the cottonwool that's required for today's little darlings.
I sometimes wonder how on earth I ever managed to reach adulthood with so many dreadful things going on around me. With four kids, mum and dad could never have afforded all the cottonwool that's required for today's little darlings.
-
Mike Cross
- Site Admin
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:24 am
I echo that Brian. I used to do air experience flights for the Scouts some 35 years ago. I wasn't CRB checked and I had under a hundred hours as PIC. As a parascending instructor I also used to haul them up into the air behind a Land Rover and because I was in the Army I used to take them orienteering, canoeing, on the assault course. Perhaps the thing they enjoyed most was being taken on to the ranges at Winchester and doing live firing with a General Purpose Machine Gun. 
We never damaged any of them.
Sadly today's kids don't get the fun we had. I have a sneaking suspicion that the cotton-wool culture actually makes them less aware of danger and therefore more susceptible to injury or accident. As children we knew and understood the dangers, I'm not sure that today's kids do.
In Alex Henshaw's autobiography he talks about going on a canoeing trip on the Broads at the age IIRC of around 11 years. They slept under a tarpaulin and for supper he shot a rabbit with his .410 so I suppose the nanny culture was under way even in our youth.
We never damaged any of them.
Sadly today's kids don't get the fun we had. I have a sneaking suspicion that the cotton-wool culture actually makes them less aware of danger and therefore more susceptible to injury or accident. As children we knew and understood the dangers, I'm not sure that today's kids do.
In Alex Henshaw's autobiography he talks about going on a canoeing trip on the Broads at the age IIRC of around 11 years. They slept under a tarpaulin and for supper he shot a rabbit with his .410 so I suppose the nanny culture was under way even in our youth.
030881
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Dave, your quote was:
To answer Welshman's concerns about chld and vulnerable adult protection issues, the new Vetting and Barring scheme only applies for frequent contact with the same individuals. The activities done at the moment do not come within the definition requiring registration.
And that as I read it is a statement about LAA youth activities. I certainly do not feel the need to re-invent the wheel, but it is a fact that officially LAA has yet to make a decision on Vetting and Barring.
Don't shoot the messenger mate.
To answer Welshman's concerns about chld and vulnerable adult protection issues, the new Vetting and Barring scheme only applies for frequent contact with the same individuals. The activities done at the moment do not come within the definition requiring registration.
And that as I read it is a statement about LAA youth activities. I certainly do not feel the need to re-invent the wheel, but it is a fact that officially LAA has yet to make a decision on Vetting and Barring.
Don't shoot the messenger mate.
-
ChampChump
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:12 am
- Location: Hellfire Corner
As far as the name change went, I don't see it did anything much, especially as Popular Flying would have seemed to encompass quite a chunk of GA.
However, as there is potential for the organisation to grow (intransitive verb, please note, as I'm an oldie), the PR aspect seems to be more important. The LAA flag appears at many events; the LAA isn't ignored by the main journals and we all (I hope) do what we can, when we can, just doing 'show and tell'. There must be a finite amount of money for this and I can't make any suggestions here except that volunteers could try to raise a presence at larger fly-ins.
The website may be the first official contact for prospective members and I think one could argue for a brighter affair, at least on the home pages. Does the spamcanner feel enticed? Is there something there to persuade him or her to join? Perhaps some suggestion of the social side that strut-type members enjoy would offer something to those who trained at the sort of places many of us may not want to visit, for whatever reason. Looking at the home page, there's little colour and no graphics. It's not a deal-killer, but it's the sort of welcome that suggests one needs to be a bit keen to continue. Follow the link to the joining page. Hmmm. Yes, it's all there, but one has to click another link to see 'why join'. Still no pictures, whether of fly-ins or home-building or anything at all. All a bit dreary and in need of a bit of a make-over.
I joined the PFA before I owned a Permit aeroplane, but what I flew was clearly in this camp. One felt the need to pay dues to one club or another who would represent me. I didn't then live much on-line, probably because I didn't have a computer. If I was doing the same now, I would go straight to the website. I wouldn't be deterred because I had already decided to join, but for those just looking, this isn't quite there. I hesitate to be this critical, because I don't generally respond to fancy websites and I fear I am in danger of calling for a sexed-up/jazzed-up/choose your phrase appearance. I don't think it needs too much, but I'm not an IT professional or even a competent amateur.
Once in, it's good to know there is a vast amount of information behind the menus and when we are looking for a form, dull-but-practical is as good a format as any.
The magazine will never satisfy everyone. Some months I find the technical content heavy, others seem to devote too much space to the latest spamkit. That's just my opinion, sometimes. The quality is often better than others, especially now proof-reading seems to be a lost art. Brian does a good job and just as the BBC only needs to worry when no one accuses it of bias, he can be comforted that the huge variety of aircraft in the LAA remit should ensure balance whatever else is in the magazine.
Does the lobbying, hugely important, not benefit all? Do spamcanners really feel excluded (if I interpret the complaint correctly)? I own a 64 year old tail-dragger, fly another oldie and borrow a nosewheel aeroplane sometimes. If some sort of legislative bomb stopped me flying anything but a 172, I'd be appalled but I'd still be able to fly and I'd still need the support of the LAA. Surely we are all pilots or enthusiasts of the more affordable end of aviation. AOPA does good work and were I less mean I'd join it too, even though only for its lobbying ability. As it is John Brady and the LAA fight on my behalf and the fee is worth it for that alone.
Just my opinion, even if not useful to the debate.
However, as there is potential for the organisation to grow (intransitive verb, please note, as I'm an oldie), the PR aspect seems to be more important. The LAA flag appears at many events; the LAA isn't ignored by the main journals and we all (I hope) do what we can, when we can, just doing 'show and tell'. There must be a finite amount of money for this and I can't make any suggestions here except that volunteers could try to raise a presence at larger fly-ins.
The website may be the first official contact for prospective members and I think one could argue for a brighter affair, at least on the home pages. Does the spamcanner feel enticed? Is there something there to persuade him or her to join? Perhaps some suggestion of the social side that strut-type members enjoy would offer something to those who trained at the sort of places many of us may not want to visit, for whatever reason. Looking at the home page, there's little colour and no graphics. It's not a deal-killer, but it's the sort of welcome that suggests one needs to be a bit keen to continue. Follow the link to the joining page. Hmmm. Yes, it's all there, but one has to click another link to see 'why join'. Still no pictures, whether of fly-ins or home-building or anything at all. All a bit dreary and in need of a bit of a make-over.
I joined the PFA before I owned a Permit aeroplane, but what I flew was clearly in this camp. One felt the need to pay dues to one club or another who would represent me. I didn't then live much on-line, probably because I didn't have a computer. If I was doing the same now, I would go straight to the website. I wouldn't be deterred because I had already decided to join, but for those just looking, this isn't quite there. I hesitate to be this critical, because I don't generally respond to fancy websites and I fear I am in danger of calling for a sexed-up/jazzed-up/choose your phrase appearance. I don't think it needs too much, but I'm not an IT professional or even a competent amateur.
Once in, it's good to know there is a vast amount of information behind the menus and when we are looking for a form, dull-but-practical is as good a format as any.
The magazine will never satisfy everyone. Some months I find the technical content heavy, others seem to devote too much space to the latest spamkit. That's just my opinion, sometimes. The quality is often better than others, especially now proof-reading seems to be a lost art. Brian does a good job and just as the BBC only needs to worry when no one accuses it of bias, he can be comforted that the huge variety of aircraft in the LAA remit should ensure balance whatever else is in the magazine.
Does the lobbying, hugely important, not benefit all? Do spamcanners really feel excluded (if I interpret the complaint correctly)? I own a 64 year old tail-dragger, fly another oldie and borrow a nosewheel aeroplane sometimes. If some sort of legislative bomb stopped me flying anything but a 172, I'd be appalled but I'd still be able to fly and I'd still need the support of the LAA. Surely we are all pilots or enthusiasts of the more affordable end of aviation. AOPA does good work and were I less mean I'd join it too, even though only for its lobbying ability. As it is John Brady and the LAA fight on my behalf and the fee is worth it for that alone.
Just my opinion, even if not useful to the debate.
Nic Orchard
031626
031626
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Hi Nic, my thoughts entirely, other than the bit about joining AOPA! The website was re-organised about three years ago in order that it could be updated easily in house, and Penny does a good job trying to keep it current with very little support. It wasn't ever set up as a marketing tool, it is there primarily for as a member resource of easily got at information, hence the no frills look.
Some of us have tried to move it along a bit and get a brighter, more appealing presentation, and I am told that this is going to happen quite soon. Will it mean we see a dramatic surge in membership, I'm certainly not convinced that it will make a he'peth of difference, but it'll make us look like we're a bit more 'with it' I suppose.
Some of us have tried to move it along a bit and get a brighter, more appealing presentation, and I am told that this is going to happen quite soon. Will it mean we see a dramatic surge in membership, I'm certainly not convinced that it will make a he'peth of difference, but it'll make us look like we're a bit more 'with it' I suppose.
-
ChampChump
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:12 am
- Location: Hellfire Corner
Hi Brian
One wouldn't want to discourage anyone from joining AOPA if that's what they think is a good thing. I think it tends to support a slightly different aviation tribe (as Richard puts it). All the while the tribes can't agree we weaken our standing, but at least there seems to be concensus on the big things.
My own opinion is as stated - I'd join only for their lobbying abilities this side of the pond. (In the USA, I would suggest joining is something one ought to do by the time one has ones Certificate. I did belong for some years, in part because they worked hard to get people back flying after 9/11 and I flew many happy hours over there. Fewer now, alas)
Agreed the website provides the tools very efficiently. It may not have been set up as a marketing tool, but even I can see that there's a case for a better book jacket. You are probably right and it may not increase membership, but if there's something that can be done without great expense, I'd hope it could be tried.
Meanwhile, let's go fly. Sun's out.
One wouldn't want to discourage anyone from joining AOPA if that's what they think is a good thing. I think it tends to support a slightly different aviation tribe (as Richard puts it). All the while the tribes can't agree we weaken our standing, but at least there seems to be concensus on the big things.
My own opinion is as stated - I'd join only for their lobbying abilities this side of the pond. (In the USA, I would suggest joining is something one ought to do by the time one has ones Certificate. I did belong for some years, in part because they worked hard to get people back flying after 9/11 and I flew many happy hours over there. Fewer now, alas)
Agreed the website provides the tools very efficiently. It may not have been set up as a marketing tool, but even I can see that there's a case for a better book jacket. You are probably right and it may not increase membership, but if there's something that can be done without great expense, I'd hope it could be tried.
Meanwhile, let's go fly. Sun's out.
Nic Orchard
031626
031626
-
John Brady
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:39 pm
Nick,
on the name change it has actually made a hugh difference in the way we are seen by authorities. As the PFA we were largely ignored but with the new name and the work that went with it in networking into government departments and quangos, we are taken seriously and can influence policy. Nowadays the LAA can phone very senior civil servants or the likes of the chair of the CAA and raise an issue which is taken seriously and acted on. We have drafted parliamentary questions which have made it to debate in the Commons. The CAA seeks our view on matters and seems to value our analysis and opinion.
The name change has been the biggest factor in allowing us to support members even if they are not greatly moved by it.
John
on the name change it has actually made a hugh difference in the way we are seen by authorities. As the PFA we were largely ignored but with the new name and the work that went with it in networking into government departments and quangos, we are taken seriously and can influence policy. Nowadays the LAA can phone very senior civil servants or the likes of the chair of the CAA and raise an issue which is taken seriously and acted on. We have drafted parliamentary questions which have made it to debate in the Commons. The CAA seeks our view on matters and seems to value our analysis and opinion.
The name change has been the biggest factor in allowing us to support members even if they are not greatly moved by it.
John
-
Mike Cross
- Site Admin
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:24 am
-
ChampChump
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:12 am
- Location: Hellfire Corner
I bow to superior knowledge, but suspect that Mike's comment is right.
Whilst I liked the old name, you could call it the Spamcan Appreciation Society if you like and I'd still pay my dues. Probably. The important thing is what you do, what we are, what we do...and if the organisation has the ear of the CAA (and beyond?) I'm delighted.
Why would 'they' start listening to exactly the same organisation with a new name? Surely it was the work that went with it, as you said - and especially your contributions, as Mike has highlighted.
Whilst I liked the old name, you could call it the Spamcan Appreciation Society if you like and I'd still pay my dues. Probably. The important thing is what you do, what we are, what we do...and if the organisation has the ear of the CAA (and beyond?) I'm delighted.
Why would 'they' start listening to exactly the same organisation with a new name? Surely it was the work that went with it, as you said - and especially your contributions, as Mike has highlighted.
Nic Orchard
031626
031626