Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
By cockney steve
#1719674
^^^^^^^ OK, except it smacks of the "secret handshake" societies such as Freemasons, Buffaloes,Toc H, Rotary...... etc. Surely, the objective should be to make the "General Public" comfortable with Recreational Aviation.

Blokes in dark uniform, gold rings on the sleeves, scrambled egg on the hat.....yep' that's elitist and rightly-so.

Bloke in cotton shirt and jeans (loafers optional) flying a small aircraft for pleasure, not pay, is an amateur.....just like the bloke fishing on the bank with his Carbon pole and R/C bait- dumper boat-thing.

or the dinghy-sailor who spent anything from a hundred ,up to tens of thousands....yep! they're proud to be amateurs as well! So, What's with the snobbery of trying to hide the fact that ,
"you, too, could be flying an aeroplane like this, Mr/Mrs Joe/ Josie Public"

I know the "elitism" is entirely unconscious, but it's there and apparent. ...An amalgamated organisation needs to reflect a broad appeal in it's name and, more importantly, in it's PR.

I know the BMAA has invested in a mobile display-trailer and is visiting country-fairs etc. with it....a step to be applauded,-reaching out to a new audience, rather than the same ageing, jaded and shrinking aficionado-scene of the current practitioners and enthusiasts of GA.
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1719687
@cockney steve it has nothing to do with what the members think, but a huge amount to do with how the general public and to some extent those in positions of authority perceive us.

I completely agree that words like amateur should get nowhere near the association name.

I'm with @ThePipster if LAA is acceptable to BMAA members, just do it.

I'm an LAA member that flies LAA administered 3-axis microlights. Both can be transferred to SSEA. I call them aeroplanes, (unless there is a price break on landing fees then they are microlights) which is what they are on paper.

It's the flex-wing boys that might need convincing that they aren't going to get shoved in a corner, they'd need to be accepted as equals along with their inspectors, Start calling them flex-wing aeroplanes. We need strength in numbers to fight the numerous issues against all of us.

The odd bit is, if your aircraft is administered by BMAA or LAA, you have to be a member, thereby supporting an association that supports you. Whereas a recreational pilot that either doesn't own an LAA/BMAA aircraft or share, or flies an EASA type does not have to join an association so doesn't add to the numbers. We need to encourage them to join as well to give the association even more clout.

Maybe LAPA, Light Aircraft and Pilots Association.
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1719693
So moving a variety of types from Cs of A to Ps to F should owners prefer, would seem like a good idea membership wise too?

Apart from Stinsons, there's all the other older tube 'n rag makes and the anomalous Luscombes and the like left off the list for no engineering reason.

Now that Yaks may transfer it seems like a bright future for a merged association.
By patowalker
#1719708
cockney steve wrote:I know the BMAA has invested in a mobile display-trailer and is visiting country-fairs etc. with it....a step to be applauded,-reaching out to a new audience, rather than the same ageing, jaded and shrinking aficionado-scene of the current practitioners and enthusiasts of GA.


Do you also know that, in spite of all their efforts, they have been unsuccessful in increasing membership?

I have been a member for almost 30 years, and only had a BMAA aircraft for 8 of those, a long time ago. There are many more like me who happily support both associations and don't recognise any sign of the elitism you carry on about.
User avatar
By rf3flyer
#1719711
I've been a PFA/LAA member for more than 4 decades and rather agree with Cockney Steve's remarks (post #1719619) about the PFA's name change to LAA. And if that had not happened there would now be the opportunity to merge the PFA and the BMAA and call it LAA which would fit very well and probably suit everyone. Now I suspect that BMAA members will not want a merged organisation to have that name as it could be seen as having been taken over rather than merged.

@CloudHound Not just tube and rag. There're wood and fabric too, like mine, a half century+ old classic which cannot presently be transferred due to petty bureaucratic European meddling. (FTAOD that's not a B****t allusion so please, nobody go there!)
Paul_Sengupta liked this
User avatar
By Grelly
#1719713
I'm a member of both, simply to get the magazines. My little mind wandered down the "who gets to keep their job and who doesn't" route.
User avatar
By ChampChump
#1719717
The information from the LAA stated that no jobs would be lost in any merger, each organisation already being run by a small staff working in complementary fields (OWTTE).
User avatar
By tomshep
#1719726
The lack of growth in membership comes up quite regularly. Flying takes money and committment.
There is a fairly small group with both of those and the desire to do it.
They are all doing it so the group never expands yet new aircraft get built, new students fill the dead men's shoes and the wheel goes round.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8