RAAus Registration Update 27/5/2013

[Hongie]

....The problem still remains with the 90% of RAA members that have not even the slightest wish to see the RAA succeed.

I try to stay out of these threads, I read them quite a bit though.

 

The above statement I dont believe to be true. What are you basing this on mate?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The number of proxies and members at the EGM.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Actually there is a "Next Step" that members need to be aware of......

 

In the last SQLD elections for Myles seat he was elected with a significantly less than 50% of the initial count. The reason for that was that a significant number of members either didn't vote with a 2nd or subsequent alternate and as such their vote was effectively discarded before the seat was determined. It meant that those who did vote for Myles in the end (because their vote counted from start right through to the end) had more than 1 vote 1 value which is NOT how the system is intended to work. (In saying that comparing the value of a vote for Myles at the end, as a percentage of those who voted at all and were considered in round 1) Im not saying that the system is wrong, merely that most don't understand it, or the consequences of just voting 1 for X and nothing more.

 

If you are going to vote, and for example want Myles as 6th possibility out of 6 then you will very much need to fill in a position for 1 through 5, providing only a 1 through 3 may well mean you are removed from the voting pool before the position is determined!

 

If you vote fill the card for as many positions as there are candidates applying. If you don't know enough about them to feel you can do that then either don't vote at all (no!!!) or start asking questions so you do know enough to prioritise all the way to N!

 

I don't know about you but if it takes 5 knockout rounds to determine a winner then at the end I want my vote to have counted towards the result in some way.

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

The number of proxies and members at the EGM.

I agree....The EGM (feb13)and AGM(Aug12) had less than 10% (AGM) and slightly more than 10%(EGM of members at the meeting, or through proxy, at the meeting.....

 

I do believe that membership interest is growing and as such I can hope that this years AGM will be a greater percentage again.....unfortunately at the rate of growth it will be too little too late.......People may well say they don't understand the issues enough to take a position, but in not taking a position they are in fact supporting status quo.... again too late....

 

Whether people want to get involved in politics or not (and most don't!) you will have to be engaged, or prepared to be sidelined sometime in the near future while CASA works out if it wants to dream up a plan B for recreational flying.

 

If you own an aircraft then not being involved is simply allowing others to determine what the future value of your pride and joy is....at this point in time I can see it being worth not much in the near future and when and if that happens the howls of fury I suspect will be deafening....but too little too late!

 

Andy

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I wonder why if you have time and money tied up in the RAA you wouldn't be concerned about the problems with the RAA.

 

Is anyone not expecting a price rise from the RAA over the next few years to sort out the mess the board has created over the last few years?

 

 

[pylon500]

I think the members numbers vs voter numbers is always going to be a problem.

 

By the same token, how would having say 50% of the membership turning up at an AGM be handled?

 

I initially think it would be easier to do all voting on line, but then I realise that a large portion of our membership is probably computer illiterate.

 

Even those here on the forum only make up a small proportion of membership.

 

This usually means we have to go back to the current system relying on the magazine, that turns up late and is a mouthpiece for those who we now find don't always tell us all the information needed to make informed decisions.

 

These are problems beyond my mere Instructor level to fathom.....

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Arthur, most libraries offer free internet access and computer lessons.

 

You have to wonder if someone that is so old they can't use a computer should be flying a plane...

 

 

[rankamateur]

I wonder why if you have time and money tied up in the RAA you wouldn't be concerned about the problems with the RAA.Is anyone not expecting a price rise from the RAA over the next few years to sort out the mess the board has created over the last few years?

Only if their reserves get cleaned out by a legal action, otherwise I can think of no better way to use some of the reserve than to employ as many suitably qualified people to sort the mess out as it takes.

 

 

[TK58]

If you vote fill the card for as many positions as there are candidates applying. If you don't know enough about them to feel you can do that then either don't vote at all (no!!!) or start asking questions so you do know enough to prioritise all the way to N!

Absolutley right Andy. I understand this time round there are 3 candidates in SQ for 2 positions. Everyone who votes (and I hope that's everyone who's eligible) needs to fill in all the squares or their vote could be wasted.

 

BTW, I am one of those candidates. Anyone who wants to know more is welcome to contact me.

 

 

[billwoodmason]

This tread seems to have got off topic - back to registration issues - can anyone compile a list of Aircraft types and the issues involved for all the RAA registered aircraft that are not being re registered due to non compliance in one area or another. I have a friend involved who owns an Evector "Sportstar" with an adjustable pitch prop. The first he knew there was a problem was after I mentioned to him that he may have an issue with his prop and I urged him to contact the RAA. He was informed that it would not be re registered under it's current classification with an adjustable prop. I think everyone needs to know in advance. Forewarned is forearmed!!. Lets see if we can do something constructive to help our members.

 

 

[biggles5128]

O.K, my renewal advice arrived the other day. I have a factory built J230. Apparently I need to supply photos of the right hand side of the aircraft with rego number, Photo of MTOW and warning placards in cockpit (no specifics there). Jabiru have been supplying the same info to RAAUS for a while now so presumably all Jab (2007 onwards) owners will need to supply similar. Jabiru did inform me however that they had supplied photos of all warning placards in the aircraft and have this on my file at the Jab factory, for some reason RAAUS does not have this detail. Hope this helps other Jab owners.

 

 

[TK58]

I think everyone needs to know in advance. Forewarned is forearmed!!. Lets see if we can do something constructive to help our members.

That's a good idea. Unfortunately RAAus is the only authoritative source for that information, but they seem to be unwilling or unable to provide it. The only other approach I can see is anecdotal - e.g. we know CTLS aircraft are affected and some (maybe all?) Pipistrels. Any others we know for sure?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Go to the thread "problems' and take a deep breath - there's a lot there starting with the strong probability that some people are going to finish up in gaol for fraud.

 

You'll find makes which appear to have effectively now become single seaters, C/S props mentioned I think, and the owners of these machines need to get active rather than just chewing the fat with their mates and hoping someone else will.

 

 

[billwoodmason]

The silence from RAA is deafening !! In my previous post I mentioned Evector aircraft with variable pitch props have an issue with being legal. Another one for the list. It has to be asked how were these aircraft allowed on the register in the first place. Has someone misrepresented them on application or is there some other explanation. It would appear that the owners are being left to pick up the tab.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

The silence from RAA is deafening !! In my previous post I mentioned Evector aircraft with variable pitch props have an issue with being legal. Another one for the list. It has to be asked how were these aircraft allowed on the register in the first place. Has someone misrepresented them on application or is there some other explanation. It would appear that the owners are being left to pick up the tab.

Bill when you say variable pitch do you mean inflight adjustable? If so then that's the issue not the aircraft type. Apparently (at the time the D was made) there are no inflight adjustable props that meet the LSA standards and can therefore be accepted by the Aircraft OEM as a fitment option for their LSA aircraft.

 

If you don't mean inflight adjustable I suspect that the issue is the same, either the prop hasn't been tested to the ASTM or other LSA standards and or the manufacturer hasn't authorised their use on the aircraft. Quickest fix is to fit the OEM mandated prop and you'll be back in the air in no time....

 

More info here http://www.raa.asn.au/2013/02/lsas-with-in-fligh-adjustable-prop/

 

Andy

 

Oh yeah.... all the above assumes it is an LSA aircraft......if not then ignore

 

 

[billwoodmason]

Andy, I do mean inflight adjustable - sorry for the confusion. Apparently the way forward to keep the aircraft flying is to either replace the prop with a fixed pitch type or re register in the Experimental category at a subsidised cost of $500.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy, I do mean inflight adjustable - sorry for the confusion. Apparently the way forward to keep the aircraft flying is to either replace the prop with a fixed pitch type or re register in the Experimental category at a subsidised cost of $500.

and probably not just any fixed pitch wood prop, but the exact one that the OEM specifies because the OEM certifies the entire aircraft LSA and the prop in being able to be certified by the Aircraft OEM must of itself been certified to one of the LSA standards.

 

ELSA has a bunch of its own restriction which may or may not impact on the current owner directly, but almost certainly will impact on the resale value because it will be a much smaller market that it can appeal to.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

InFlight adjustable (IFA) props are great stuff and I'd love one. In a seaplane they are almost a basic requirement. Forcing people back to experimental seems a very adverse step. You'd think that there could be something worked out with CASA (their call not RA-Aus) to keep IFA props on, as a minimum, seaplanes but really on any aircraft where you can afford one. They get you off the ground quicker and get you to your destination sooner and save fuel. All good stuff.

 

 

[djpacro]

... You'd think that there could be something worked out with CASA .....

My guess is that CASA would simply respond with - there is a way - follow their rules.

At present there are standards acceptable to CASA for these propellers which allow them to be fitted to Light Sport aircraft but so far no manufacturer has listed an approved standard in the appropriate section of the signed statement of compliance required for LSA.

[billwoodmason]

I think a stumbling block in the short term is working out who is going to pay for the approval - manufacturer, importer or hapless owner/s.

 

 

[Ron5335]

Go to the thread "problems' and take a deep breath - there's a lot there starting with the strong probability that some people are going to finish up in gaol for fraud.You'll find makes which appear to have effectively now become single seaters, C/S props mentioned I think, and the owners of these machines need to get active rather than just chewing the fat with their mates and hoping someone else will.

Based on the current trends in society, it hardly seems likely that anyone will end up in gaol (Or Jail) over any issues that will be uncovered in the " Cleansing"

 

I heard an interesting fact that no one has ever received a jail sentence as a result of an ICAC finding, and thinking back over the years there has been some doosies, it's always "We have uncovered what was going on and changed the procedures so it can never happen again".

 

To back up my theory check this link of a multi million dollar fraud and how it was handled

 

http://m.smh.com.au/business/profit-above-all-else-how-cba-lost-savings-and-hid-its-tracks-20130531-2nhde.html

 

The big issue that is always a hot topic in these forums, and the big discussion of who is liable to what extent, can also be viewed this way.

 

There was a tragic outcome, however whether the aircraft had 10 ...., 19 ....., 24 ....., 55 ...., or VH - ... under it's wing, the result would have been the same, and it's cause was brought about by a catastrophic engine failure and not a fault of it's airframe and things from there on were the result of decisions that were made by the occupants.

 

In a nutshell it was an aircfraft in the wrong classification. There is no need to panic and ground everybody, (Groundings are always linked to safety issues) just reclassify them as their registrations come around.

 

 

[turboplanner]

This will give you a more accurate guidance - especially if you track down the 12 cases.

 

http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencing/fraud_offences.html

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The core problem with the RAA is not setting goals, the change of president, treasurer and secretary makes no difference as the RAA is just drifting from one embarrassing disaster to the next with the management denying any responsibility. Its like the registration debacle, Ed Herring either won't tell us or hasn't got a clue how long its going to go on for. He won't even volunteer to offer a date for resolving the issue. By not setting goals they have no idea what bits of the RAA are functioning correctly.

 

 

[Ron5335]

Turboplanner, Your information link is 100% correct, but now apply what is in it, to the fraud that was uncovered and referred to in my link.

 

By reading your link, this bloke should have been locked up for life, but in reality he got nothing, and got to keep his rewards, in fact the people who alerted the officials to the crime came out of it worse off !!!!

 

Sadly, the days of where people attend court to see justice based on common sense are gone, and have been replaced by the frustrations based on the determinations of terminology, while the solicitors & barristers pat themselves on the back and say what a good job they are doing.

 

Off Topic, but supposedly we live in a society that treats everyone equal (Bulls#$%^)

 

If I drive my car and hit a Non Registered, Uninsured vehicle that is being driven by an unlicensed driver, I am still responsible for that persons injury, and if I am uninsured I could lose my house, savings, car and every asset I have, and that wealth is transferred to the person who was doing an illegal act.

 

If the roles are reversed and he hits me, If I am uninsured, I get sweet FA and his life goes on as normal.

 

Back on topic, I predict that at the end of the day, no individual will be held responsible or accountable, and CASA will end up with a big Organisational orgasm by announcing that it has uncovered a big wrong doing that it is fixing, and how lucky we are to have them there.

 

 

[rankamateur]

CASA will end up with a big Organisational orgasm by announcing that it has uncovered a big wrong doing that it is fixing, and how lucky we are to have them there.

Job satisfaction comes in all shapes and sizes, obviosly.