What's going on at LAA

[Bill McCarthy]

If there is one good reason for holding a LAA rally, this is it. A high proportion of the membership would once again attend a general meeting (with the employment of a "whipper in" this time) to give these grievances a proper airing and to get a more representative vote on the issues.

[flyin'dutch']

Hear hear.

It would also give GA an annual focus.

There clearly is an appetite for these events and with its membership being a captive audience the LAA would have a headstart.

Not sure why the LAA can not have a successful annual international Rally when commercial operators seem to manage OK.

[J.C.]

post removed

[flyin'dutch']

John

The comment about not signing the post was firmly tongue in cheek! Hence the smiley!

Here is another one in case you missed it:



I know you were against the rule re enforced membership and the recent contribution you made about the anonymity thread the line up of the three issues was there to illustrate that those who have something to say are not necessarily whingers for whinging sake as you clearly demonstrated yourself.

However there are those on here who think that anyone who has a comment to make is a whinger!

[Peter Harvey]

I'm planning to post a synopsis of the last EC on the website in the next couple of days.

We've been discussing the AGM for months and how we can attract more members. Contrary to the implication in a previous posting, we actively want more AGM involvement and have been discussing ways to achieve it. If more members attend AGMs, we'll have a better representation and can garner more feedback - the more, the merrier. Of course, we did have Mike Barnard's member's survey which furnished considerable input into the association to align our objectives and workload with member's viewpoint. You'll remember the results were published in the magazine.
Re 2008 AGM: We'd love to have had this at a Rally, or a 'conference' type event like the BGA. However, we're governed by The Rules and had to make it sooner this year than these things could be organised (please also remember we were working towards an amalgamation vote /discussion at the AGM too, so delayed until the latest within the rules to accomodate this). If there's a Rally next year (I'm sure you know that's being worked on too) then I'm pretty sure we'll have the AGM then. But it's not my decision of course.
The more members that attend the AGM, the more chance we'll have some volunteers stepping forward to help.

As far as my 'taster' only leaving a lot of spaces... one is entitled to one's opinion, but having spent an hour of my Sunday morning providing this forum with some requested feedback, how does one think that makes me feel? Of course there're spaces, it's work in progress. If you want to know what's currently being worked on, then there are spaces. Please don't complain about that. If you want a complete, 'filled' statement, then it'll be what happened. The past.

I've persevered with this forum the last few days to hopefully reassure folks that there's no conspiracy theories, no clandestine agendas, nothing to hide, to make it a largely positive shop window for our prospective members. I've been flying since 1976 and have found pilots around the world, whatever they fly to share a kindred spirit, a knowing, a friendliness and mutual respect, an assumption that you're a decent person, doing the 'right thing' (at least until proven otherwise). It seems these sentiments are sometimes a sad distance from some words on this forum. Like others, my resilience to inform here is wearing thin.

If someone's got a real gripe, why not contact me direct? You know the office number.

I am checking, but believe the CAA mandated pilots of Permit aircraft overseen by the LAA (PFA), be members of the LAA. It's to do with information cascade pertinent to Permit aircraft, privileges and insurance. When (if) I find more details I'll make this known. On the face of it, it seems a reasonable position, but that's only my opinion. In the meantime, it's the Association rule (13b, to be a member if you fly a permit aircraft). Members are free to propose changes in the normal way.

As a point of order, John Brady was the one who canvassed me for the exception for members to maintain an anonymity when job, etc forbade posting. It no longer affected him, but he thought it might be useful to certain forum members.

Only a personal view, but 'smileys' are often missed. This is a public forum. Please say what you mean, be polite.

Please sign your postings, or request the moderator to change your user name to real name (or contact me to request using a discretionary exception, with reasons).

Pete Harvey

[mikehallam]

BUT Frank,

Your costs claims remain hearsay.

[Though I'm pleased to note you're polite underneath all the bluster !]

[Rod1]

“last year we lost Jeremy Harris and Keith Negal both seemed to have been forced out for various reasons”

Jeremy is still active on the flyer site. I too found his input very useful.

Peter

“I am checking, but believe the CAA mandated pilots of Permit aircraft overseen by the LAA (PFA), be members of the LAA. It's to do with information cascade pertinent to Permit aircraft, privileges and insurance. When (if) I find more details I'll make this known. On the face of it, it seems a reasonable position, but that's only my opinion. In the meantime, it's the Association rule (13b, to be a member if you fly a permit aircraft). Members are free to propose changes in the normal way.”

Firstly, I think you will find that this was an LAA instigated move. The BMAA do not require this (yet) but the CAA are quite happy with one member per aircraft. Secondly, I hope you are wrong that you have to be a member to fly an LAA aircraft; I thought you only had to be a member if you owned part of an LAA aircraft? If your statement that you have to be a member to fly an aircraft is true then we have an even bigger can of worms than I thought…

Rod1

[mikehallam]

a) Would the above 'Rod 1' name a cover for a Rod Smith whose inputs are seen on the BMAA site ?
And Rod 1 if you are such a keen contibuter all round why withhold your given name ?

b) ref a). Could our moderator kindly indicate a time plan for sorting out this alias cover so, frequently misused ?

c) The BMAA are now actively blocking BB posters with false names. They presently have to write a p.m. to the moderator to sort it out if they have a genuine issue.

d) The BMAA almost certainly are about to follow us & mandate that all BMAA Permit a/c owners should be members.
As ever their BB attracts a regular trade from vociferous (read 'rude') dissenters.

[Peter Harvey]

Thanks Rod. A subtle, but significant point. I'll ensure that's included in the investigation.

As you mentioned BMAA, I note they too are currently discussing and want to implement all part owners of BMAA aircraft being members of BMAA.

I also note they require all forum users to use real names.

Similar pressures, similar conclusions.

Pete Harvey

[flyin'dutch']

BUT Frank,

Your costs claims remain hearsay.

[Though I'm pleased to note you're polite underneath all the bluster !]

That is unless you can believe what someone writes in good faith....

Mike and Peter, I am always polite but that does not stop people from saying I am a whinger, and posts from whingers should be moderated according to some.

Peter,

The Rule had nothing to do with the CAA. It was proposed by the late Cliff Piper to stop people enjoying the benefits of co-owning a permit aeroplane without being a member.

A worthy sentiment but alas with undesired side-effects.

A synopsis of EC meetings would be welcome that initiative was taken before but never got further than one or two occasions. To rekindle this would be good.

[Bill McCarthy]

There could be a significant safety issue with "non members" flying a permit aircraft. If there is one member with say, six others in the group, should the member not take action over an urgent mandatory modification, this would put the others at risk. If they all were members, they would each receive notification. Indeed, on the other hand, the non members could conceivably make a change to the aircraft without it being signed off. I know that there could be a similar situation with Cof A aircraft, but the whole thing does not ring true.

[Andy Aiken]

This is first time I have felt moved to post to this forum after lurking for a long time. however I believe that I need to correct a statement made in an earlier post by Mike Hallam


d) The BMAA almost certainly are about to follow us & mandate that all BMAA Permit a/c owners should be members.
As ever their BB attracts a regular trade from vociferous (read 'rude')
dissenters.


two points
1) the BMAA are not almost certainly going to follow the LAA. the current situation is this, a co-opted committee member has suggested on a yahoo forum that he believes the BMAA should adopt this policy, a debate has followed, somebody did some quick stats 74 posts 56 disagreeing with the proposal and a small number neutral and an even smaller number for. So a long long way to go before this makes it to the BMAA rule book.

2) I was a vociferious dissenter, I was not however in anyway rude I made a logical and I think compelling argument against. In my experience dissenters do not in any way have the monopoly on rudeness

Andy Aiken
LAA 037197
BMAA 5417

[Mike Cross]

Rule 13b reads

13b. Owners Of Permit Aircraft
All owners and co-owners of operational permit to fly aircraft administered by the Association shall be full members of the Association. In exceptional circumstances, the Association may at its sole discretion waive this requirement.

For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the argument, Frank and I object to this rule because it is unenforceable without penalising paid up and loyal members of the Association.

The Association cannot impose any sanction against anyone who is not a member. The only sanction that might be imposed is the witholding or the revocation of a Permit. In the case of a jointly owned aircraft where not all of the owners are members this would penalise those owners who are paid up members of the Association.

I question whether the Association has the power to revoke a Permit. Certainly the CAA can revoke one.

From where I sit, threatening someone with a sanction for the actions or omissions of someone he has no control over looks to fall within the legal definition of blackmail.

21. Blackmail

(1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief-
(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and

(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

(2) The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

(3) A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

I am not aware of any attempt to enforce this rule, which is probably just as well. In the case of a C of A aircraft any notices are sent to the registered owner, the same should apply to a Permit aircraft. The argument that there is some kind of safety case behind this rule is poppycock.

I do feel for Peter in the context of this thread. Being involved in work on behalf of fellow aviatiors myself I am very much aware that requests for information when you are in the midst of negotiations are often difficult if not impossible to fulfil. Negotiations by their very nature are fluid, the various stakeholders will all be jockeying for position, new ideas will be floated, concessions may be requested or offered at any time. Usually you find the reason why you're not getting what you want is not because what you want is unreasonable but objections are raised because it will adversely affect something else. You need to discover what is behind the objection and deal with it, and you need to have the trust of the other side. All of this is well nigh impossible if blow by blow accounts are made publicly available.

It is unfortunately very common for people to jump to conclusions when they haven't taken the trouble to understand the problems and issues.

[Bill McCarthy]

Mike, you might be guilty of bad manners for dismissing the safety case suggestion as "poppycock" without offering an arguement against my statement.