Brian Hope wrote:My understanding is that it is for everybody, not just LAA members. At an LAA run event (which of course the Revival isn't), I would hope that airside access would be for LAA members only.
Presumably this would mean you'd ban me from carrying a passenger who was not a member (e.g. my daughter, a fellow pilot or a friend who I was trying to introduce to the LAA)? I would not wish to support an event that introduced that restriction.
Perhaps we should have banned you and John from Oaksey earlier this month on the grounds that you weren't members of the European Luscombes?
I do wish the LAA was an organisation that extended the hand of friendship to fellow aviators and made them want to join it rather than one that said you can't play with us unless you become a member.
Maybe the solution is to have an entirely closed event which those members who desire exclusivity can attend, secure in the knowledge that they won't be disturbed by interlopers.
We should allow the old PFA/EAA ruling. LAA members and other eqivilent overseas organisations such as RSA etc and anyone with a pilots licence. Thus it covers our members and anyone who flies who would be useful to have in membership. Remeber we LAA members get access at the RSA rally etc.
PS Is this the longest string of comments to the BB yet?
Mike, all I'm suggesting is that we go back to the way we operated when we held PFA Rallies. If you came in by air you, and your passengers, regardles of whether any of you were members, received passes to come and go airside as you wished. If you came by road and were a member, you could also go airside.
Non members could pay extra for an airside pass, or become a member at the rally.
I think that is a perfectly reasonable system for a number of reasons. Firstly it provides members with an additional benefit, and we should be in the business of giving our members a good deal. Secondly, the PFA paid a substantial additional insurance premium for the potential risks associated with the rally, it paid for marshallers (via donations to the clubs they came from), and it paid various other costs to establish a safe airside operation. Those costs were paid for out of our of membership funds. So, why should non members not subscribe to those costs if they want to benefit from them?
I know there are those on here that think we should provide engineering services to non members for free, and by so doing they will all of a sudden gain a conscience and join, and no doubt the argument for allowing all and sundry airside goes the same way. Well I'm afraid I'm a realist and human nature being what it is, there are too many people who will happily take, take, take, all the time you are mug enough to let them get away with it. At the last count there were nearly 80 people with permit aircraft whose memberships had run out and despite repeated reminders, have not renewed. Some of them plan their membership so they can get two permits out of one year, and thus only join every other year. Lovely people. You and I are subsidising them, no doubt if they could find a way to get us to pay their permit fee as well, they would. Personally, I'd just tell the deliberate cheats that we didn't want them as members any more and thus would not be able to re-permit their aircraft, but fortunately perhaps, it isn't up to me. We are incidentally about to invoke an existing rule that will prevent them from doing this in the future, but it just goes to show that however much you try to help some people, they'll **** on you from a great height given half a chance.
I suppose I should add that this is my personal view and in no way necessarily reflects LAA policy or thinking. And I, at least, believe I am entitled to a personal view.
Brian, am I being simplistic here? With regard to a/c owning members, why don't we simply insist on perpetual membership for a/c owning members, i.e. auto renewal by direct debit as part of the priviledge of permit a/c ownership? Personally I wouldn't object. I've shot from the hip here so haven't thought the process through, but I'm sure we could work something out. DVLA have it sorted with car ownership/tax - perhaps we could have some sort of S.O.A.N. Statutory Out of Air Notice for permit expired machines with no access to Engineering etc without current membership.
By the way, when someone currently phones up for engineering advice, are they actually checked to see if they are actually members?
Brian Hope wrote:Mike, all I'm suggesting is that we go back to the way we operated when we held PFA Rallies. If you came in by air you, and your passengers, regardles of whether any of you were members, received passes to come and go airside as you wished. If you came by road and were a member, you could also go airside.
Obviously before my time Brian. If a member turned up by road with his family/passengers were they able to accompany him airside?
On the rest of the previous two posts, I think LAA would be on a sticky wicket if anyone ever challenged LAA's refusal to issue a permit on a serviceable aircraft without being a member. I think we would get stuffed by any good barrister. That is why I voted against it at the AGM a couple of years back.
However there is nothing that says we can't charge what ever we like as a one off fee for renewal/engineering services where a member lapsed membership during the previous 12 months. If that fee were twice the annual membership fee your problem would go away. No barrister could challenge that as we are not refusing a service just charging more for it like the CAA do. BTW this is not a new idea and similar has been suggested before.
Steve, Nigel, I'm not talking groups here, don't want to open up that issue again, these are sole owners of aircraft. Many will renew eventually, but a hardcore will resist all efforts to get them to renew until they have to get a new permit. But as I said, we have a plan to put a stop to it once and for all.
I agree with your revised "rally airside entry requirements" in your second post, ie like it used to be done years ago.
One minor comment, we never paid anything to the actual aircraft marshallers, those were volunteers just like the rest of the volunteers/workers helping to put on the event. The ones we paid for were the ATC cadets who helped out, via something to their organisation and also providing infrastructure for their campsite I believe.
Brian, I wasn't referring to the groups issue, (never thought we could win that one), however, the idea of charging extra for a lapsed member's permit renewal is spot on I think, that would certainly ensure timely renewals! (as long as we don't offer a renewal at that time instead, like half price parking fines).
My suggestion in the past has been that we could have a member's rate and a non-member's rate for services. By some strange coincidence the non-members rate for Permit Renewal could be the same rate as for members plus ummmmmmmm.......... the cost of a year's membership?
I reckon you'd get more new members by allowing the public airside than by barring them. How about a compromise where you have a "no props turning" period of a couple of hours where the public are allowed into the airpark with arrivals going into a separate holding area? Members could be encouraged to be by their aircraft during this period to answer questions.
A better way of signing up new members would be the one the National Trust use. "Join today and get your admission fee refunded".
