RAAus Board Election 2019 - candidate K Sutton

[kasper]

Hello all.

 

I did say in the RAAus Board Election 2019 thread where nominations were called that I would open a thread for communicating with members and indeed any forumites during the election as I accept that 750 words in a magazine with a photo may not be the totality of what I would like members to know about me or where I think the direction of RAAus should be.  I checked with Ian that his would be OK and he is happy to allow it. 

 

If any other candidate wants to open their own thread to canvas/explore/explain their position feel free to do so as a separate thread to this as I would prefer to keep this thread focused on what my position views are. 

 

Feel free to ask through this thread or by private message anything you wish and I will reply as I can.  I will add comments to this thread - and this thread only - on my intentions if I am successful in being elected and appointed to the board.

 

As a starter here is the 750 words that will appear in the magazine.

 

"I am an RAAus pilot member and have been since the early 1990s when I trained on the jabiru.  By the mid 1990’s I became an AUF instructor, then senior instructor on the jabiru, skyfox, drifters and thrusters.  I added Level 2 maintainer based on my experience in rebuilding tiger moths and overhauling engines.  Through to the turn of the century I enjoyed rebuilding, maintaining and training pretty much anything that was AUF registerable from my workshop/sailloft.

 

In 2002 I moved to the UK and recertified on weightshift microlights and enjoyed flying around the UK and Europe in a 1986 weightshift I rebuilt.  Whilst not an instructor in the UK I enjoyed the flying club model of operations and ‘trained’ many pilots on how to file and fly international flight plans to cross the channel.   I also started a CAGI cup for the UK based on the Australian CAGI as I know it is a brilliant and fun way to enjoy your flying. 

 

In the UK I was elected to the board of the British Microlight Aircraft Association – the equivalent of RAAus – and brought my experience and skills in both flying microlights and business management to the board.  Whilst on the board I organized the Round Britain Microlight Rally and found that rewarding and exhilarating. 

 

I returned to Australia in 2014 and I have settled here now enjoying building, maintaining and flying my own little fleet of RAAus planes.  I currently hold RAAus pilot certificate with all control groups and pretty much every endorsement other than variable pitch and flyingboats/floats.

 

I feel that the as RAAus in its management and direction has drifted over the past 4-5 years from low cost low impact fun flying and I am asking to be elected to the board to bring that focus and clarity back. I want to belong to and represent an organization not with a focus on “A pilot in every home” but one of “A pilot in any home’.   A refocused attention on lowering costs, admin and processes to allow RAAus to be as affordable and as free from process and admin as it can be without moving into unsafe operations.

 

I want to see expansion of the coverage of RAAus however it MUST NOT be at a cost of giving up the distinctive nature of why we exist.  Nor can we continue to give up hard won exemptions and freedoms without cause.  I am firmly of the opinion that evidence based regulation is the key - if there is no evidence of RAAus freedoms and practices resulting in actual safety failings then we should not change just to increase coverage.

 

I feel that RAAus has effectively leveled up to GA on process and policy in an attempt to gain greater concessions.  Areas such as medicals, owner maintenance, owner builders processes have become far too GA like in the pursuit of expansion of RAAus.  I believe that GA recreational flying should have been using RAAus safe history to remove restrictions and burdens they faced rather than RAAus adding them. 

 

We have reached the ridiculous situation that you can design and build your own aircraft and register it but then not be allowed to modify it without RAAus technical office involvement and costs … even though RAAus are not legally allowed to direct you to make any change or refuse to accept your modification.  Equally we have an operations manual that fails to require 2 yearly flight checks on some control groups because RAAus overlooked including them in our Ops manual.

 

I want to get the focus back onto supporting and allowing members to own and operate aircraft with minimal touch and cost while the RAAus executive and board focus on ensuring good administration and maintaining our freedoms.

 

The dry factual bits:

 

1.       I receive no income, remuneration or honoraria from any flying related activity

 

2.       I am a Chartered Accountant (fellow of the ACCA)

 

3.       I am an admitted solicitor in NSW (not currently practicing)

 

4.       I am a certified project manager (PMI certified)

 

5.       I have a 25 year career in finance governance and process improvement in Australia, the UK and the USA

 

6.       I am currently the finance manager of a not-for-profit housing association in Australia – turnover circa $25m

 

7.       There are no impediments to me being appointed as a director of RAAus

 

My qualifications, business experience and history as set out evidence strengths in policy setting, strategy development, financial oversight and review."

 

[Downunder]

Would you like to make a pdf "how to vote" card or similar document? 

 

Something we could print out and/or email to friends. ... to promote your application. 

 

 

[facthunter]

 That's the sort of CV the "show" needs. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Well, so far you are the best person for the job. I wonder when we will hear from the other aspirants.

 

I doubt that the two Michaels are wanting you on the board.

 

 

[kasper]

Thanks for the comments.

 

1. I am happy to create a simple .pdf flyer of the statement and pic and set out the general dates etc for the election.  I'll post it on here tonight

 

2. I am not going to get into what other aspirants or existing directors or the CEO may think of my nomination. 

 

My intention are that this thread from my perspective will be posative only in content so I am not commenting adversley on anyone and if there is a negative it will only relate to a policy or position that I disagree with.

 

Not interested in playing the people,

 

I am looking only to represent a point of view on policy and direction of RAAus that I want to take into the board.  Whilst it is divergent from where I see RAAus heading I am not looking at attributing the cause of difference to any particular person/people.

 

 

[kasper]

Afraid I’m not able to put out a PDF as I’d hoped as I want to include details of dates and who to contact as RAAus. 

 

Whilst the dates for the the election are 1August to the end of September the contact at RAAus to follow up missing ballots etc on is not known. 

 

Once the August magazine is out I’ll create one.   

 

 

[Kev]

Excellent write up Kasper.

 

I would and will vote for you on this alone.

 

Good luck.

 

 

[slb]

I hope you get elected Kasper.

 

It’s about time someone called for a look at the more affordable type of flying that the majority of pilots first started with. Those with lots of spare cash will always be able to train in the heavier and faster types of aircraft but most just wish they could buy something small and affordable to start off with. The Organisations are supposed to be not for profit which means making it affordable for everyone, and  encouraging new schools. If they don’t do this for the lower end, then we will lose that pathway.  So well done and we all hope you get through.

 

 

[Keith Page]

I hope you get elected Kasper.

 

It’s about time someone called for a look at the more affordable type of flying that the majority of pilots first started with. Those with lots of spare cash will always be able to train in the heavier and faster types of aircraft but most just wish they could buy something small and affordable to start off with. The Organisations are supposed to be not for profit which means making it affordable for everyone, and  encouraging new schools. If they don’t do this for the lower end, then we will lose that pathway.  So well done and we all hope you get through.

 

"New Schools".. Hmmmmm... Well the evidence I am receiving -- schools are not being encouraged. Schools are closing.

 

I think this trend needs to be reversed very quickly.

 

KP

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

The Organisations are supposed to be not for profit which means making it affordable for everyone

 

Let me clarify this - RAAus is a Not-For-Profit, which doesn't mean "cheap".  It means their "profits" don't go to shareholders / members / Directors / owners. 

 

There's nothing to stop you owning, building or flying a cheap aircraft with RAAus, but people don't want them - our experience of trying to sell 95-10's under $5k is that no one wants them, even if they are registered and flying.    Reasons?  People don't want to put the time into maintaining them, pilots are too heavy for the MTOW, don't trust a 2 stroke, want 2 seats etc, etc. 

 

I welcome any ideas to reverse that trend.

 

A weight increase that brings the lower end of GA into RAAus will bring some older Cessna, Piper 2 seaters that are way cheaper than a Jab.  The alternative is relying on imported factory built, or kits.  Unfortunately we now live in a society that wants everything NOW and not willing to design, build, maintain.

 

Kasper - thanks for taking the time to engage with the Forum.  Best wishes for the election.

 

 

[spacesailor]

" our experience of trying to sell 95-10's under $5k is"

 

BUT

 

There were 16 people building in the 95-10 category.

 

UNTIL RAA decided to Push them out.

 

IF you can change the Weight restriction, WHY not that undesired "wing load" rule.

 

Has this rule been applied to ALL RAA aircraft ?

 

spacesailor

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

IF you can change the Weight restriction, WHY not that undesired "wing load" rule.

 

This is set by Legislation - CAO 95-10 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017C01129

 

Unfortunately this isn't something RAA can change, the best Kirk can promise is to add his voice to the RAA Board requesting that CASA and our legislators amend 95-10, and the public lobby the Minister to that end.  CASA is moving away from Exemptions.  The Weight increase is coming from CASA, RAA have no legislative power to change it, only to accept or reject CASA's offer.  CASA offered an increase to 750kg back in 1994, but the Board of the day said "we're too busy just now."

 

Let's see what Part 149 brings. 

 

Kirk may be able to discuss this with more professional knowledge.  It is refreshing to have a candidate on the Forum.

 

 

[turboplanner]

There's nothing to stop you owning, building or flying a cheap aircraft with RAAus, but people don't want them

 

That's one view. The other view is that RAA has not be promting them or building on the grass roots of its existence.

 

If the aviation-enthused people out there in the general population aren't aware of this low cost way of accessing a flight a day within the household budget, the only way they are going to become aware and start buying is for the Association to promote the sector.

 

 

[slb]

A weight increase that brings the lower end of GA into RAAus will bring some older Cessna, Piper 2 seaters that are way cheaper than a Jab.  The alternative is relying on imported factory built, or kits.  Unfortunately we now live in a society that wants everything NOW and not willing to design, build, maintain.

 

Older Cessnas may be cheap to buy, but expensive to maintain. Especially with SIDS which I believe is not just a one off inspection

 

 

[slb]

That's one view. The other view is that RAA has not be promting them or building on the grass roots of its existence.

 

If the aviation-enthused people out there in the general population aren't aware of this low cost way of accessing a flight a day within the household budget, the only way they are going to become aware and start buying is for the Association to promote the sector.

 

Agree wholeheartedly. If the flying schools taught in 2-stroke, easy to maintain aircraft then it follows that the student would buy them. There are some areas around Aus where low cost flying is endorsed by the CFI as an entry level, but as Turboplanner says, this is not promoted as a entry level in to flying by most.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Flyingvizsla

 

Many thanks for your reply,

 Which I googled the relevant doc.,

 

 

"Prepared by the Legal Advisory, Drafting and Contracts Section, Legal Affairs, Regulatory Policy & International Strategy Branch,

 Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Canberra.

 

Compilation No. 1.

 

1A      

 Name

 

                 This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 95.10 Instrument (Repeal and Remake) 2017.

 

1B      

 Duration

 

             This instrument:

 

(a)   commences on the day after registration; and

 

(b)   is repealed at the end of 30 September 2020.

 

1C  

 Repeal

 

               The Civil Aviation Order 95.10 Instrument 2017 is repealed.

 

1         

 Application

 

          This Order applies to a low-momentum ultralight aeroplane in relation to which the following requirements are satisfied:

 

 

(a)   the aeroplane is registered with the RAA or, if the aeroplane is a weight‑shift controlled aeroplane, with the HGFA;

 

 (b)   the aeroplane is a single-place aeroplane that has a take-off weight of not more than:

 

             

 (i)   if it is equipped to land on water — 335 kilograms; or

 

           

 (ii)  if it is equipped with a recovery parachute system — 320 kilograms; or

 

          

 (iii) if it is equipped to land on water and has a parachute recovery system — not more than 355 kilograms; or

 

           

 (iv)  in any other case — 300 kilograms;

 

 

©   if the aeroplane first became registered with the RAA or the HGFA on, or after, 1 March 1990:

 

 (iii)   if the aeroplane is owned by a person who is not the builder or 1 of the builders — a certificate is in force that has been issued by the RAA or the HGFA 

 which certifies that the aeroplane meets the requirements set out in the RAA Technical Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual, as the case may be.

 

 

C See © If aeroplane First became registered on or after march 1990. 

 

 10-1103 Hummel Aviation Hummel Bird

 1st rego'ed        9/05/1989

 canceled       10/05/2009 

 I was told After deregistration that Only "Flying HB's" were to be Grandfathered & allowed to fly.

 Item (iii) this I do-not understand its meaning !. 

 But I do have 1103s certificate.

spacesailor

 

 

 

[robinsm]

The puish to establish a mini GA empire continues apace.  The name Recreational aviation seems to be more and more aimed at the larger mopre expensive end of the market and not at the home builder with limited funds who just wants to fly.   Is this elitism or just corportate arrogance.   Obviously RAA does not see the value in the roots of this sport.

 

 

[kasper]

spacesailor,

 

I would like to keep this thread to policy n practice RAAus can either set or influence.

 

On your HB issues there have been comments on several threads and I've offered to go over the process to get it onto the register now and offered to do the paperwork for you.

 

The new info you shared for the first time here is that your HB was registered before the cut off date - if thats full registration not provisional then an error was made and regardless of election outcomes talk to me and Ill happily get the error fixed ... depends on type of reg.

 

Back to this thread on policy politions

 

2 strokes are not the future of most manufacturers for a long list of reasons. 

 

- Manufacturers are in it for the $ and if you can't sell them they will not be built.

 

- If instructors ans schools are in it for the $ the lowest operating costs win - high hours use on a 4 stroke win

 

- If students are only trained on fourstokes thats what they move onto

 

plus others

 

Weight increases demanded because foreign manufacturers are building to higher weights or are needing higher weight in oz to get practical range are in my opinion problematic.  RAAus exist separate from GA due to low energy (mass and stall speeds) and minimal risk to public (restricted ops areas and only 1 pax).  Remove these and you are hard pushed to justify separate/different regulation.  My core position is that the difference in regulation must be retained and some changes that are illogical should be wound back.

 

RAAus does not need to continually grow and absorb to remain viable ... we have a revenue base and if we choose to restrict increases in cost chasing new revenue or accepting increased requirements from the regulator without funding to do it then thats a management position. 

 

Its not a position I support

 

 

[pmccarthy]

As a long term member of AUF/RAA I am waiting eagerly for 760kg as it will suit my needs. Many members will have the same issues, wanting to continue to fly trips with a passenger and adequate fuel with increased structural safety. I want RAA to continue supporting the needs of all of its members. Said respectfully of what the rag and tube members want.

 

 

[kasper]

PMcCarthy - Im not adverse to increase in weight increases. What I’m against is giving up freedoms in order to get it AND applying that back against the other areas of RAAus aircraft and operations.  And I want simplicity so minimising difference between airframes and operations across the fleet is also important to me.  

 

My comment on Spacesailor is that IF RAAus are getting into heavier airframes and/or 4 seat aircraft it’s legitimate for other sectors of aviation to call out the operational differences RAAus have.  

 

What i have said is that yep.  That’s a fair call BUT that other sector of aviation should be using RAAus safe history to argue to remove restrictions and in effect level DOWN to RAAus operations. 

 

And a preemptive bit from me - I totally disagree with RAAus protecting LAME businesses.  I have equal issue with protecting L2 businesses.  

 

I want the REQUIREMENTS to be minimal and Recognise that NOTHING stops an owner going beyond the minima and using L2 or LAME if they choose. 

 

I also want want to reinforce the FACT that if your aircraft didn’t come out of a factory it’s an experimental uncertified aircraft and in a real sense nothing RAAus does on these airframes in terms of mods etc is logical.  If it’s experimental when it was registered it’s experimental till the day it’s scrapped regardless of who owns it.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's more the number and type of passenger one  takes that affects the  RISK one should address. IF you are carrying 4 then  why should those who fly single seat (as the best example) be forced to be governed by the same restrictions/rules.  I think a few years ago some people thought RAAus would evolve to  something like Virgin Galactica by a natural evolutionary process. We surrender "rights" for reduced restrictions.. That's the deal. Not be a" PPL by the back door"  service..  For at least 10 years now we have had no real idea where it will end up  Hardly a situation that aids planning and investment and draws people to the movement. Nev