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

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

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."

The Full Plus membership gives access to engineering support etc, so in our group we have agreed to subsidise the membership of our engineering officer to make things fair.

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?

If you google that question and look on the LAA BB you'll see long and involved threads addressing that very point.

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

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 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.

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;).

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

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.

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

Indeed. I maintain BMAA and LAA membership, irrespective of what I'm flying or owning at the time - they are the organisations that put enormous efforts into maintain our rights and abilities to fly little aeroplanes cheaply. The two memberships annually add up to less than an hour with an instructor.

My biggest whinge is that I rarely seem to have the time to read both magazines properly.

G

Mike

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.

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.

Anyone who thinks the minimum limits of indemnity required by the legislation is sufficient is poorly advised.

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.

Understood - thanks

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

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.

Why should anyone be penalised? Presumably it is a group condition of being an owner that they are an LAA member? Not keep membership up to date, forfeit ownership share :ok:

NoD

Biennial flight review - not in a group owned aircraft
 

AIC W071/2009 specifically excludes LAA members with a group owned aircraft from engaing a paid instructor to conduct the biennial flight review in the permit aircraft. OK if the instructor does it for free (hard on the instructor as most don't earn much and this is work for them) but otherwise it is forbidden. However, if you are a sole owner you are allowed to engage an instuctor.

As far as members of a group not all being members of the LAA, if it is a condition of the permit that all members should belong then it is up to all the members to ensure that they do. It is not the LAA's place to police this. It could be interesting in the event of an accident if the insurance company finds that a pilot is flying outside the conditions of the permit, but it is certainly a situation where the other members of the group should put pressure on the non member to play fair.The LAA provides good value in its permit system and those of us operating a permit aircraft should be aware of our responsibilities in return.

“Presumably it is a group condition of being an owner that they are an LAA member? Not keep membership up to date, forfeit ownership share ”

NO.

In the case of an existing group there would be no such clause. Remember that the LAA used to support groups and advertised the only one member required as a sign of this. Most group rules also require a unanimous agreement to mod the rules. Add this together and one member from an 8 man group can cause a lot of problems for the fully paid up 7. This did happen!

“that a pilot is flying outside the conditions of the permit”

There is no requirement to be a member to fly an LAA aircraft, only for owners to be members. In some cases this includes your wife…

There is no problem with one member owning 100 aircraft and loaning them out to 1000 non members to fly… Or running the group as a company, or having a side letter agreement or any one of a 1000 other dodges.

If you want the full arguments have a look at the PFA BB, as we did many many pages and it is far too boring to do it all over again.

Rod1

Post#22 "AIC W071/2009 specifically excludes LAA members with a group owned aircraft from engaing a paid instructor to conduct the biennial flight review in the permit aircraft."
I searched " AIC W071/2009 ", and the suggested "AICW071/2009" on the CAA site, and nothing was found. I know of LAA group members who have done their PPL biennialflight with an instructor in a group permit aircraft. Neither instructor nor examiner appeared to have heard of this. (I thought a group aircraft could not be used for instruction, for a qualification, unless on a public C of A, but this is not instruction.)

AIC white 71 is Here.

I think there is an exemption for PFA coaches (mostly CRIs) but best check with them. Letting people do their revalidation in their own aircraft seems eminently sensible. Pity the powers that be aren't more enlightened.

Nowt wrong with doing your revalidation in a group owned aircraft providing the instructor is not paid for it.

It's in similar vein to the nonsense that says that you can be taught to fly by a PPL FI with a Class 2 medical. However the exchange of spondulicks renders it a much more dangerous practice, requiring a CPL and a Class 1 (presumably to ensure the instructor does not have a heart attack while carrying the dosh to the bank). At least that one is being addressed.

FWIW LAA does not set the Permit Conditions, CAA does. CAA is the regulator, LAA is an approved organisation.

Mike

While I agree that if you want to fly a permit aircraft it's only right that you should be a member I'm not sure about forcing it on everyone in a group owned aircraft, as far as implying that it's the CAA who sets the requirements for the permit that may be so to some extent but I understand that it's the LAA that have the group/member requirement.

I know it's been done to death on other forums but isn't that the point of forums.

Thanks Mark 1. The situation is clearly as I believed. Revalidation is O.K. I've copied the CAA statement below.
"3.3 This means that it is not possible to conduct training towards the grant of a licence or rating in a jointly owned aircraft but it is possible
to renew or revalidate existing licences and ratings or to undertake differences, familiarisation and refresher training."

Recently clarified by CAA so all ok now:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4_784.pdf

Steve

Biennial review in group owned LAA permit aircraft
 

Thanks Steve for that link. It appears to say that group owners of aircraft licenced under EASA (which I think includes those with a Permit to Fly issued by the LAA) can pay for instruction in their own aircraft provided they have a licence to do so and the instruction is for the purposes of certification, renewal etc. This contradicts the table at the end of AIC W071/2009 which quite clearly says they cannot. (For the folk who found this AIC difficult to locate, it is easily traced with Google). Since this exemption to the ANO presumably outranks a mere AIC, we ought to be thankful for an outbreak of common sense at the CAA.

An LAA Permit is NOT an EASA Permit to Fly. It is a National Permit to Fly.

From the ANO, readily accessible and not Rocket Science.

One purpose of the EASA PtF is to allow an aircraft that is required to have a C of A but which does not have a valid one (e.g. due to damage) to be ferried.


Incidentally, in respect of the original question that started this thread I think LAA would be on a very sticky wicket if they tried to refuse Permit issue on grounds other than the CAA requirements. Art 21 of the ANO reproduced above mandates that the CAA SHALL issue a Permit to a qualifying aircraft. LAA is an Approved Organisation and issues the Permit on behalf of the CAA, not on its own account. As I hope I've made clear, I'm all in favour of owners of LAA Permit Aircraft being members but I think it's daft to have a rule that you cannot enforce.

Mike Cross I applaud your detailed knowledge of various national & international aviation Quango bodies' regulations & your help in providing answers here to difficult questions as to their interpretation.

However I wouldn't accept your proposition that LAA rules which can, or are broken & difficult to enforce, should not be in place. That's a poor reason: criminals also manage to elude the full power of our Kindom's Law, but we don't repeal the respective Acts.

Mike, can't you please accept that the LAA is a mutual organisation, run for its members by its members, after much consideration we have ruled that all folk benefitting from their Permit services must be ordinary members & pay accordingly.

Why do you keep banging on about hypothetical or potential recalcitrant Group owners not contributing ? Is it that you know of a single unresolved example, or do you just like controversy? ..............................

mikehallam.

Why is it unenforcable?.........The inspector could ask for all relevant paperwork before issuing a recommendation for permit. Any pilot who wishes to do his/her Biennial in a permit a/c must be a member of the LAA and a part owner.

Or according to some obscure annexe "have 'free' access to a permit a/c"

I am starting to get concussion with all the why's and wherefores of this.

If you fly an LAA machine you should be a member of the LAA. If you aren't......then sell your share and go easa or C of A. If you don't like the rules.......get out of the Club. :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

I think it's time for a clarification by the LAA on this. It seems a lot of people are reading the rules their own way. EASA Permit isn't LAA Permit. Nor are the rules governing Private and Public cat a/c

Hi Mike

I didn't start this thread and have simply put my view, which is one I'm entitled to. You disagree with me, which you are equally entitled to do.

My concern is that the reputation of our Association is good and that it operates in an equitable manner. Rules should be adhered to and enforced, otherwise they become counter-productive. When I tell my child "If you do xxxx you won't go to the party on Saturday" I have to be prepared to stop her going to the party if she transgresses. Otherwise she'll have no respect for me and take no notice of what I say. If the police did not enforce the drink-driving Law then drunken drivers would have no respect for that Law. If our Association has a rule but does not have the ability to enforce it then people will lose respect for the rule, which is the danger here.

You ended with three questions for me. Above is the answer to the first one. The answer to your second question is yes. As for your third question, no I don't stir the pot simply for the sake of it but because I hold a view that I'm prepared to explain and defend.

“If you fly an LAA machine you should be a member of the LAA.”

This has never been put forward as a rule. I would like all qualified pilots to be a member, but that is not a rule either.:ugh:

Rod1

I meant own or part own Rod. I also said should which means that it's my opinion and not a statement of fact:ugh:

ak7274

But it is the pilots that get the benefit. I could loan my aircraft to my son every other weekend and he would have lots of benefit but would not own a share. On the other hand my wife probably thinks she owns ½ but is not a pilot and gets limited benefit.

I think we should encourage people to join because we are good, not compel them into thinking of us as a “tax”.

Rod1

I have had my say on the LAA BB. This has been done to death.
Why have a controversial rule ( there was a move to stop it becoming a rule at one of the agm,s) that cannot be enforced? all it will ever do is encourage discontent.

For my part I have decided to forget it. It doesn't affect me as a sole owner, however if I were a member of a group and I was stopped from flying by this rule , as much as I support the LAA on every opportunity that I get , I would not hesitate to take legal action.

I am saddened that the LAA have put themselves in this vulnerable position.

Relationships in groups can get very fraught, as I've observed (and experienced) over many years.

I'm no longer a member of the LAA/PFA, and don't need to be as my a/c is on CofA. But when I was and flew a Permit aircraft as part of a group, the leader used to borrow someone else's membership to fly in at a discount to the rallies.

He used to get us to do the test flights for Permit renewal, so that that a membership mumber could be written on the form.

I was young and innocent then, but there are people who will and do continue to take this line.

I think it's called freeloading.

G