rhysmcc Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I'm not really sure why you'd think a commercial operation would be able to fill the shoes of RA-AUS at a cheaper price (unless I've misread your post). The fact it's commercial means they are out to make a buck rather then just cost recovery. I agree that it has become more about regulators and less about being advocates, maybe that's a worthwhile submission to be made to the CEO in regards to the constitutional review, however I don't see a commercial element being the answer here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Just look at the GFA - over 1000 pages of "rules" and membership declining, hours flown declining. The same thing happens with many "volunteer" organisations. The founding generation get is going and it grows then as it reaches a size its own overhead begins chewing up the benefit to members and they enter a long slow decline. I am not down on RAAus - I am concerned that its role is becoming less member orientated as its "regulatory regime" increases.BTW in other threads aren't you expressing concern about these very issues especially the financial viability of RAAus? I am proud to be a member of RAAus and locally am part of a small bunch of enthusiastic members who love this end of aviation. I have built a 95.10 aircraft and am seriously thinking of building something else - obviously not someone who is down on RAAus. I am just challenging the role that RAAO's play - I think that they would be better served not to be "regulators" and achieve more by being active advocates. I wonder what's driving the changes.........I wonder for example, if its more about relevance to current people......than the complexity of the rule set.... IO mean when I started flying I had zero understanding of the rule set that bound HGFA at the time and couldn't have cared less...the understanding and concern about just that came much later....but by then I was well and truly hooked and I don't thing that set of rules, under the influence of normal evolution (as opposed to major step change) will ever get me to drop membership....but that's me and not everyone. Complexity in RAAus has either been manadated by CASA or enforced (where we previously agreed but didn't implement) Yes, I am concerned about long term survivability of RAAus and its financial basis.... The reality is however that today we can solve the financial stability by simply adding $50 to the member costs each year......However if looking for the best outcome for all members (distinct from individual members) then such a simple approach is not the right thing to do, in my opinion. Rather we are looking at our cost base with a view to efficiency improvements. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 Your interest may be the long term survivability of RAAus but is not the concern of most members - remember they are only members because of the various mandates. The EAA has no role mandated for it in the US but look at its membership as it plays a role that is relevant to members (it is more than about homebuilding) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 I'm not really sure why you'd think a commercial operation would be able to fill the shoes of RA-AUS at a cheaper price (unless I've misread your post). The fact it's commercial means they are out to make a buck rather then just cost recovery.I agree that it has become more about regulators and less about being advocates, maybe that's a worthwhile submission to be made to the CEO in regards to the constitutional review, however I don't see a commercial element being the answer here. Because it is my experience with GFA that a glider maintained under the GA is half the annual costs compared to GFA system. Remember that RAAus maintenance rules are increasingly complex and compliance will drive operators to commercial maintenance. In GA there is once only registration fee and no membership fees. So if all you have to pay is a Schedule 5 type maintenance cost I predict that there will be minimal difference if not a saving. I just don't have the data to do an exact comparison but if people can supply their current annual recurring maintenance costs for RAAus and GA experimental aircraft who does it and on what basis I am sure that this argument can be settled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhysmcc Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 CASA isn't a commercial operation either, they work on cost recovery plus a whole bunch of tax payer money (avgas tax). I agree that it appears cheaper to go the CASA way (no annual fees or regos), but from what I'm told, getting a LAME to do your maintenance is one of the huge costs and compliance with the regs (i.e. you can't just go fit an iPad to the console). Our focus should be on ways to minimise the costs of RA-AUS, thus lowering the membership fee requirements. If we can also work on ways to reduce the amount of regulation and complexities, that will also reduce the cost base. You're right in saying that a majority of members are only part of RA-AUS because it's mandated, which is most likely why it takes a less advocacy roll and why member participation in elections and meetings is low. You can't claim to be the voice of 10,000 members, if those members haven't had input into the message. I don't own an aircraft so I'm not really up to speed on the RA-AUS maintenance rules and the increase in complexity and compliance you mention, however if that's the problem then shouldn't we be trying to address that rather then create a new entity? How much of that problem is from CASA and would be required by the new entity anyway and how much is our own doing and can be fixed? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 CASA is a problem. It's unpredictable and not working under the best regs for private aviation to advance under. Perhaps it will get better. Whatever the future IT will always be a player in the game. The allocated DUAL role for the RAAus (Represent AND Regulate) will always be difficult and the boundaries must be clearly defined ( and understood).by all affected parties. (Us, The RAAus and CASA.) WE have to be able to stand up to the CASA without fear of retribution. They must fund us at an appropriate rate for performing the work that they would have to do , if an organisation wasn't doing it, and have concern for our continued existence. ( Like the US FAA.) The cost of working under CASA (outside of the RAAus ) is a work in progress with the new cost recovery matter being dealt with, so it's something of an Unknown at the moment.. It won't be cheap and it won't be simple. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 If you really want to see how it is done take a look at: http://www.copanational.org/files/COPAGuidetoUltralights.pdf More aircraft and more tiger country and more variable weather Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Maybe the time is approaching for a seperate organisation for the lighter and slower end of the RAA aus fraternity. I fly rag and tube (19 reg), slow cruise and am becoming more and more frustrated with the GA wannabe's (cost based I am sure) in RAA Aus. Unfortunately our organisation seems to be leaning towards this end of the market, and it is understandable given that most of the RAA reg aircraft are now in the faster, mini GA catagory. I also am concerned that the 95 10 and the slower end of the market are going to be left behind and managed and regulated the same as the faster aircraft. It would be a shame to be over regulated when some of us just want to get into the air and fly for the sheer enjoyment of it. We dont want a fast taxi, a mini intercity rocket or a 172 lookalike. The organisation has to be mindful of its roots and the fact that there are some of us out there that do not want to move into the 22nd century. Leave us alone to enjoy what we do, and statistically do safely. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhysmcc Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Surely the overheads required for a smaller organisation as you mention would make the cost per member probative. I understand what your saying though in terms of a "niche" area being over run by differing needs/wants. What is it about LSA aircraft (mini GA) that has caused rag and tube aircraft more regulation? If this is an issue, then it should be addressed. However if the "more regulation" is due to a change in what CASA deems acceptable risk, then you can hardly blame the LSA mob? I guess the answer would need to be a complete review of our operations and regulations and why they are there. Can some be lifted from certain aircraft? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 There is scope for new organisations to become RAAO's and I have spoken to CASA about this - be prepared to jump through a lot of hoops. I agree that 95.10 is left behind - no one seems to recognise the legal significance of the placards we all put on our 95.10 aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Aviators have always been good at finding new and innovative ways of dividing us up into smaller and smaller subgroups....... Pretty much the same way that an alcoholic is good at finding his next drink....... Question is can we solve our differences in a way that doesn't divide us? Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVOCET Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Aviators have always been good at finding new and innovative ways of dividing us up into smaller and smaller subgroups....... Pretty much the same way that an alcoholic is good at finding his next drink.......Question is can we solve our differences in a way that doesn't divide us? Andy Aviators have always been good at finding new and innovative ways of dividing us up into smaller andsmaller subgroups.... In other words , leave us alone to mind our own "bussines" Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 Question is do we need to be unified in any way except as a lobby group? I am definitely not advocating further subdivision and if anything I would prefer to see a unified body if we can't get independent arms length delegation for private parties to do what RAAO's do now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 There's an old saying. IF we don't hang together, we will surely hang separately. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVOCET Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Who ( in the true sence of the word) are the "AVIATORS " in this contry ? At the moment their all at one anothers throats . Its has to work ( as id did once ) from the top down . Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 D G Anderson was the head of DCA and a lot of "ordinary" pilots got to talk with him and shake his hand. It was one of the 'weakest "Handshakes I ever felt but apparently he had a distinguished career in the AirForce.. Flying doesn't have the AURA? It once had to the average person.. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVOCET Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Fly Away No MoreTo Pay : Seems to me that this has resulted in a generation of Pilots , but not nessesarly Aviators , Quick walk around , jump in turn key , Al this leads to more regulation , this slow, down hill decline in freedoms , How far down the hill do we have to go before we're regulated out of the sky altogether ? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I am passionate about the survival of RAAus because that's the only way I know of that I can exercise the privilege of being pilot of my J230. For medical reasons (Type 1 Diabetic) other options discussed as being available to members aren't really available to me. That means that I will do what ever I can to make RAAus survive. RAAus of itself as an incorporated Association is important because its the mechanism to allow what I want. If for some reason the Gov was to change that and put a better alternative approach in place then RAAus without its enabling ability for flight would of itself be as useful to me as mammary glands on a bull and I suspect the last member remaining would be the one who renewed his membership the day before the announcement..... and I wouldn't be wringing my hands about its imminent windup...rather Id be enjoying the better and cheaper alternate.....But I cant see a better and cheaper alternate that meets all the Government and its statutory body CASA's requirements. Jim, if you think you have a viable alternative then more power to you....In the meantime I will do what I can, with the rest of the board, to make RAAus more sustainable and relevant and better perceived value for money to the members and an organisation that is better able to weather the peaks and troughs that we have seen in the last decade. So don't for one minute think Im invested in the RAAus organisation for any reason beyond its ability to enable me to take flight. The fact that others join only for that reason is to me self evident. I guess in a deprecating way, my involvement is all about protecting what I want....the fact that what I want is exactly aligned with what other members want is good fortune for others. In my opinion it was that reason which drove a (possible???) over representation of CFI's on the board in years gone by, they not only hand there ability to fly at risk, but also there ability to eat. Perhaps the same driver works in reverse for those that fly cheaper rag and tube....you have enough investment to participate in these forums, but don't stand to loose so much that you want the hassle of standing for the board....... (and I don't say that as fact...merely thinking aloud about what drives the majority) I know for fact, that within the general membership population that there are about 3500 aircraft for 10,000 ish members. On the board however the ratio of ownership to only pilot is much higher so something is driving that aberration in representation.... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhysmcc Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I'm looking forward to watching the CEO's presentation on the finances and what changes/ideas are being suggested to reduce our overheads. This to me is biggest important issue facing RA-AUS, how it can reduce the costs to members. There are a lot more issues at play, but if can't find a way to reduce the annual fees more and more (medically able) members will go the RPL route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Just a note of warning, cost reduction in a deficit budget wont necessarily lead on to a reduction in what people pay today, that doesn't happen until the deficit is dealt with first. Of course if the reductions exceed that necessary to address the deficit then we either build our reserves to deal with the longer term strategy, or reduce the costs to members.... But you knew that :<) Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Andy's approach is pragmatic and logical. Sharing information is important too. Owner groups are the big source of information within organisations. The RAAus is the only group of pilots that has anything like the numbers required to have an economic mass. Training is the big difference here. It's a big responsibility in a large land area country. SAAA is based on the CASA licence, yet as I understand it they are talking of training. They are 1/5th of our numbers roughly. Clearly they have more difficulties than we do in that area. One thing common to all sectors of Recreational flying is the age factor. Without the older guys who some appear to regard as bad news we would be in the poo, but we do need younger people and more women should be there too. Internal bickering is very non productive. Tolerance and inclusiveness is what is wanted. Plus a reasonable bit of user pays so the basic guys don't get loaded up with costs they don't contribute to. We are what we are, and have the people we have and should work together to put our best efforts forward. Not everyone will be pleased with everything. IF the figures Ross Millard states are correct ( and I'm pretty sure they are), we are doing well under the circumstances. It hasn't exactly been a walk in the park lately. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhysmcc Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 SAAA would be making a huge mistake by taking on pilot training and as I've mentioned before, I believe the way forward for RA-AUS is to move away from that area and focus more on the recreational aircraft we choose to fly. The hard work is ensuring the correct exceptions are in place such that no one who has a RPC would be excluded from a RPL (ie medical) and appropriate support in place for our FTFs. We should be working with SAAA in developing our building and maintenance programs while providing them additional ways for aircraft registration and operation (away from the CASA stream). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 SAAA would be making a huge mistake by taking on pilot training and as I've mentioned before, I believe the way forward for RA-AUS is to move away from that area and focus more on the recreational aircraft we choose to fly. The hard work is ensuring the correct exceptions are in place such that no one who has a RPC would be excluded from a RPL (ie medical) and appropriate support in place for our FTFs. We should be working with SAAA in developing our building and maintenance programs while providing them additional ways for aircraft registration and operation (away from the CASA stream). But who is going to train the pilots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhysmcc Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 In simple terms, The same people that train them now, but instead of issuing a certificate they receive a licence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 In simple terms, The same people that train them now, but instead of issuing a certicate they receive a license. A license ? Do you mean the Americans have to train them ? Just kidding, getting a GA school to train pilots for a Licence is too expensive for ultralights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now