LAA membership for group owned aircraft????
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: norfolk
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAA membership for group owned aircraft????
A little help please guys and gals, 8 of us have shares in a LAA permit aircraft and have just been informed that individually we each have to be a LAA member, is this right? It is news to some of us and if it is a condition, when was it brought in? Some of us are LAA members already but none of them recall it ever being announced it was a condition that all owners had to be members. I look forward to you ideas and thoughts, cheers, Sicobra
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, quite true.
You can't get your Permit unless you are members (paying the higher rate membership)
It was passed at an AGM about 2 years ago and the LAA are being very careful to look for avoidance.
As you will expect, it was the subject of some discussion, often heated, at the time
You can't get your Permit unless you are members (paying the higher rate membership)
It was passed at an AGM about 2 years ago and the LAA are being very careful to look for avoidance.
As you will expect, it was the subject of some discussion, often heated, at the time
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Bristol'ish
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One has to be at the higher member plus rate.
From LAA rules:
"9b. Owners and builders of LAA Aircraft
All co-owners of jointly-owned aircraft administered by the LAA shall be Full Members of the LAA. All owners, current builders and at least one co-owner of aircraft administered by the LAA shall be a Full Plus Member. In exceptional circumstances, the Board may at its sole discretion waive these requirements."
From LAA rules:
"9b. Owners and builders of LAA Aircraft
All co-owners of jointly-owned aircraft administered by the LAA shall be Full Members of the LAA. All owners, current builders and at least one co-owner of aircraft administered by the LAA shall be a Full Plus Member. In exceptional circumstances, the Board may at its sole discretion waive these requirements."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: norfolk
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys, very interesting and something our group will have to look into very soon as this is news to most of us. I wonder what the legal implications could be in the case of a non memeber flying the a/c, especially in the case of an accident? While I support the idea in principle how can it/would it be binding in a legal situation where non LAA member part owner has not been informed of the rule change and is involved in an incident?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Bristol'ish
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sicobra,
Every year when your permit to fly is renewed someone in your group signs a PTF application form. The second sentence on page 1 of that application says:
"Registered owners and co-owners must be current members of the LAA"
So they have for the last two years been confirming to LAA you are all already members.
Steve
Every year when your permit to fly is renewed someone in your group signs a PTF application form. The second sentence on page 1 of that application says:
"Registered owners and co-owners must be current members of the LAA"
So they have for the last two years been confirming to LAA you are all already members.
Steve
BMAA changed to a similar rule recently and it was just as controversial.
I've heard numerous arguments against but, ultimately we rely upon the work of these organizations for our cheap, safe flying - and they do need paying members to work.
G
I've heard numerous arguments against but, ultimately we rely upon the work of these organizations for our cheap, safe flying - and they do need paying members to work.
G
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Wessex
Age: 55
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't think the BMAA had actually changed to the all group members had to be in the BMAA. It was a very contentious issue and a couple of members tried to force the BMAAs hand but due to procedural errors it got dropped. I believe the council are looking into doing it properly.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rule has been there for some years, since about the time they removed the encouragement of group flying from the objects (which have now become a mission statement).
Personally I believe it's daft, inequitable, and smacks of desperation. If one of your 8 group members does not renew his membership do they refuse to renew the Permit, thereby penalising the seven loyal paid-up members? Collective punishment has long been outlawed under the Geneva Convention, maybe no-one's told them
.
Personally I believe it's daft, inequitable, and smacks of desperation. If one of your 8 group members does not renew his membership do they refuse to renew the Permit, thereby penalising the seven loyal paid-up members? Collective punishment has long been outlawed under the Geneva Convention, maybe no-one's told them
.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BMAA did not introduce the rule. The LAA did and it is not popular. I am a sole owner, but many groups have “dogged” the rule by having “blurred” ownership. It was supposed to be being reviewed, but I have not followed up on if this did happen or not.
Rod1
Rod1
O. K. Mike Cross,
If you're talking of "fairness"; how about this scenario ? (ref. a current insurance thread on LAA web forum).
A Group - say 5 fellows - owned 3 or 4 seat a/c of value £20k goes to LAA event to fly young people for free. LAA must stump up what's said to be an extra £5,000 to extend insurance for these greater than standard 2 seat a/c attending.
But only one man in the Group is an LAA member ! Ergo the LAA membership subsidises the ins. for all five men. And their Permit too if you had your way.
I own an a/c, worth £2k, it costs me the full amount of LAA fees etc. each year. I think it's good value....BUT Why should I pay an aggregate 5 times more than the group's folk ?
mike hallam.
If you're talking of "fairness"; how about this scenario ? (ref. a current insurance thread on LAA web forum).
A Group - say 5 fellows - owned 3 or 4 seat a/c of value £20k goes to LAA event to fly young people for free. LAA must stump up what's said to be an extra £5,000 to extend insurance for these greater than standard 2 seat a/c attending.
But only one man in the Group is an LAA member ! Ergo the LAA membership subsidises the ins. for all five men. And their Permit too if you had your way.
I own an a/c, worth £2k, it costs me the full amount of LAA fees etc. each year. I think it's good value....BUT Why should I pay an aggregate 5 times more than the group's folk ?
mike hallam.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 68
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a member of the LAA, you're able to do your Biennial flight review in your permit Aircraft. If you ain't.....you can't. At a cost of at least £100 an hour and instructor on a C of A plane compared to LAA membership and an hour in your own machine it starts to look a bit more of a bargain. There is also the monthly magazine and the pressure that a large section of the aviation community can exert for the benefit of us all.
If you have a share in an LAA aircraft, but don't like the idea of actually paying to be a member of the LAA, why not sell your share and get into a PA 28/Cessna 150?
For the price of a night out, you would think the LAA were Enron the way some carry on.
Alan
If you have a share in an LAA aircraft, but don't like the idea of actually paying to be a member of the LAA, why not sell your share and get into a PA 28/Cessna 150?
For the price of a night out, you would think the LAA were Enron the way some carry on.
Alan
For the price of a night out, you would think the LAA were Enron the way some carry on.
My biggest whinge is that I rarely seem to have the time to read both magazines properly.
G
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O. K. Mike Cross,
If you're talking of "fairness"; how about this scenario ? (ref. a current insurance thread on LAA web forum).
A Group - say 5 fellows - owned 3 or 4 seat a/c of value £20k goes to LAA event to fly young people for free. LAA must stump up what's said to be an extra £5,000 to extend insurance for these greater than standard 2 seat a/c attending.
But only one man in the Group is an LAA member ! Ergo the LAA membership subsidises the ins. for all five men. And their Permit too if you had your way.
I own an a/c, worth £2k, it costs me the full amount of LAA fees etc. each year. I think it's good value....BUT Why should I pay an aggregate 5 times more than the group's folk ?
If you're talking of "fairness"; how about this scenario ? (ref. a current insurance thread on LAA web forum).
A Group - say 5 fellows - owned 3 or 4 seat a/c of value £20k goes to LAA event to fly young people for free. LAA must stump up what's said to be an extra £5,000 to extend insurance for these greater than standard 2 seat a/c attending.
But only one man in the Group is an LAA member ! Ergo the LAA membership subsidises the ins. for all five men. And their Permit too if you had your way.
I own an a/c, worth £2k, it costs me the full amount of LAA fees etc. each year. I think it's good value....BUT Why should I pay an aggregate 5 times more than the group's folk ?
That is a convoluted argument that isn't quite correct.
The £5k uplift in insurance for all of the YA events because of the 3/4 seaters is a top up which still gives a £2m payout but only if the owners insurance fails to meet the bill.
It is not automatic that the LAA insurance would pay out at all.
What is arguable is that a solely-owned permit aircraft pays £60+ membership. A 5 man group pays around £260 or so for the same service. Why? What is the extra work that justifies that? What is the point of all members of the group getting copies of the magazine?
In fact, I agree that group members should be members of the LAA, but that is a question of ethical behaviour, and, if one or more refuse because they are selfish b*st*rds, then why should the honest ones be penalised.
To get round the question why not add £5 to the group's monthly charge and pay it that way.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike's traditionally a tad aggressive when there's no need to be.
Quite how he links the additional cost of LAA insurance for 3 or 4 seat aircraft when used for passenger flights at LAA events to group ownership is a bit beyond me. Three and four seat aircraft are no more the preserve of groups than single or two seat aircraft are, as evidenced by our esteemed Chairman's sole ownership of G-RVIO. The risk when you can have three times as many passengers as in a two seater results in a higher premium QED.
What's more of interest to me is why event organisers and/or LAA should feel that compliance with the requirements of The Civil Aviation (Insurance) Regulations 2005 is insufficient.
Quite how he links the additional cost of LAA insurance for 3 or 4 seat aircraft when used for passenger flights at LAA events to group ownership is a bit beyond me. Three and four seat aircraft are no more the preserve of groups than single or two seat aircraft are, as evidenced by our esteemed Chairman's sole ownership of G-RVIO. The risk when you can have three times as many passengers as in a two seater results in a higher premium QED.
What's more of interest to me is why event organisers and/or LAA should feel that compliance with the requirements of The Civil Aviation (Insurance) Regulations 2005 is insufficient.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: kent
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's more of interest to me is why event organisers and/or LAA should feel that compliance with the requirements of The Civil Aviation (Insurance) Regulations 2005 is insufficient.
The statutory limit for passenger liability is 100,000 SDR's per passenger. At the current exchange rate that's just a little more than £100,000.
Fortunately most brokers will insist on a combined Third Party/Passenger liability which gives a more realistic figure but I would contend that even that is insufficient in the modern litigious society.
Thank you Robin,
Actually on the example we used of 5 (say) group members.
Each currently pays ~£48 plus one fifth of Permit fee, another ~£27 for their (say) £4,000 personal investment in the a/c. Say a total per capita of under £80. I suppose one group 'Engineer' pays £69.
I am pleased to pay a Permit fee of £100+£69 for my £2,000 steed.
There's no reason why I, or those many members who don't or can't afford to fly, should contribute more than their fair share to the costs of running the LAA. Which is undoubtedly why the LAA have this ruling.
If a Group has some members unable to pay their way, perhaps it's their Group colleagues who should help them out, rather than the whole LAA membership.
mike
Actually on the example we used of 5 (say) group members.
Each currently pays ~£48 plus one fifth of Permit fee, another ~£27 for their (say) £4,000 personal investment in the a/c. Say a total per capita of under £80. I suppose one group 'Engineer' pays £69.
I am pleased to pay a Permit fee of £100+£69 for my £2,000 steed.
There's no reason why I, or those many members who don't or can't afford to fly, should contribute more than their fair share to the costs of running the LAA. Which is undoubtedly why the LAA have this ruling.
If a Group has some members unable to pay their way, perhaps it's their Group colleagues who should help them out, rather than the whole LAA membership.
mike
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
We can kick this one round for ever. I wholeheartedly agree that people who benefit from LAA services should support LAA. I also agree that you should be a member in order to use LAA services. However I don't support the idea that a member should be penalised because someone else is not a member.
We can kick this one round for ever. I wholeheartedly agree that people who benefit from LAA services should support LAA. I also agree that you should be a member in order to use LAA services. However I don't support the idea that a member should be penalised because someone else is not a member.