[Spooky]

Had an email this evening regarding the possible merger of the LAA and BMAA with requests to vote on whether members are for or against.

Positives I see are better sharing of technical information, reduced costs for running the organisations, increased numbers of inspectors to aid builds/annual checks.

Negatives I see are reduced numbers of groups to campaign for light aviation as they’d be pooled into one. As much as I like the BMAA they don’t seem as builder friendly as the LAA and the inspectors I’ve met reflect that, so wonder how they’d be brought to a level standard? Quite like receiving both magazines and possibly prefer the BMAA version so curious to see what would happen there! As one organisation, would it lose the drive to improve light aviation as at the moment the two sort of compete?

I’m quite happy with them as separate organisations to be honest, not sure a merger is required?

[tomshep]

If the arrangement strips rather than adds gold plate, I would welcome it.

[JAFO]

It has been quite obvious to me for many years that they need to merge to be one strong body looking after the lighter end of general aviation in the UK. I am certain that it will be possible to draw on the strengths of both organisations to create something which can take us into a very exciting future.

[Lockhaven]

Why is the BGA not being merged as well ?

[G-JWTP]

The Light and Microlight Aircraft Association.

It does have a sort of ring about it.

G-JWTP

[riverrock]

I assume that inspectors would continue to be type rated.
As microlights are banned at the airport I'm based at I have no real interaction with the BMAA. LAA is (rightly) builder and maintenance focused. I hope that wouldn't be lost.

[mikeblyth]

The term microlight conveys a sort of lower class aeroplane when in fact many out perform
GA types, so remove term Microlight. Could call them aeroplanes. Just saying

[Chris Martyr]

As microlights are banned at the airport I'm based at .

Very relevant comment there RR .

GA has moved on in giant steps since those days and the term "microlights" embraces a whole plethora of different machinery today and I'm delighted that the organisations that represent the interests us all [well , most of us ] can identify that fact .

Pooling the resources of both organisations can only be a good thing . The remit of the various inspectors doesn't really present any sort of obstacle either , as I'm sure that drawing up some sort of commonality in procedures will be something that LAA/BMAA and the CAA can easily undertake .

The 'body language' of the LAA seems to lean very much towards getting us all together . It also appears that the CAA are keen to do the same . Surely this is good news for us all isn't it ?
I would certainly welcome any opinions that go against this , but cannot personally see any reason why it should not go ahead .

[ChampChump]

A merger as proposed in the document appears to be only beneficial to both organisations. These days, it can be a challenge to distinguish some fixed wing microlights from 'group A' machines; getting all under the aegis of one organisation seems most sensible. I'm not ignoring flexwings; the skills of the BMAA there will not vanish.

Apart from the fun of renaming it, I cannot see anything to cause much discussion. I'm sure some will find things, though.

[Balliol]

I suspect a big driver is the sustainment of suitably qualified and experienced people to staff the engineering sections and satisfy approval holding requirements. Especially as the fleets converge in capability / design it makes massive sense to pool this resource and a joint effort to grow the next generation. Massive potential for pilot licensing delegation to follow. I really hope it comes off.

[Human Factor]

All for it. My not quite so light aircraft is about to join the LAA also.

[Skylaunch2]

Why is the BGA not being merged as well ?

I can guarantee you there is no desire from BGA clubs or members for this to happen. The BGA is self sufficient and pre-dates both organisations.

If there was to be a merger for the BGA, it'd probably be with the BHPA who are a floor below in the office block!

[Dave W]

Negatives I see are reduced numbers of groups to campaign for light aviation as they’d be pooled into one.

That could well be a positive.

"Stronger United", as somebody may once have said.

[neilmurg]

I would have thought that a single integrated GA organisation would be much more effective that several groups without a single message.
It should be perfectly possible to have advocates for both (and more) within a single organisation.
It's not a nil-sum game, and the CAA / EASA would prefer and be able to accommodate (I imagine) dealing with fewer, but more coherent organisations.

[Spooky]

Negatives I see are reduced numbers of groups to campaign for light aviation as they’d be pooled into one.

That could well be a positive.

"Stronger United", as somebody may once have said.

I’d have thought so too, however I read somewhere that it means it’s one seat at the CAA rather than two. Number of members doesn’t matter. How true that is I’m not sure?