Powerin

I think the Belites I mentioned earlier start at US$8,500 plus engine.....US$3500 for a 28hp Hirth. So reasonably cheap flying is still possible.

Powerwin, Your second quote : reference the board acting quickly , is before my time as a board member, so I 'm not sure I understand this myself.Unless it is reference to a recent decision ( last week) that the current insurance renewal research is to be done by the GM ( that's his job) with his recommendations given to the board for their approval or disapproval. This is how things operate and is inline with normal protocol within the office/exect structure.

I also believe this is how the GM prefers to operate, without too much initial interference from board members. It seems to have worked well with the interview process and recruitment/ recommendations of the new tech manager, National Safety coordinator, and more recently the Ops manager. The board had no hesitations in approving those appointments after the interview processes were well conducted and through, by the GM and others on the interview committees.

 

Time will tell if this process is a good one, however I believe the three new appointees are the right people for their positions, from what I have read about the qualifications of all the applicants.............Maj.....

Indeed you have continued to post Maj, and you are a valuable and knowledgeable member of this forum. My point was not that you are not posting, but have been gagged from discussing the issues that we as members need our reps to keep us informed about. The openness and accountability that most of the reps believed in so strongly before their election now means nothing as they cant say anything without approval from the board as a whole, or the executive.

But if you take on the job you have to do it to the best of your ability without fear or favour. To those board members that are doing just that...keep up the good work!

Incorrect Powerwin, The 'conscious decision' that was approved by the board at the last (Sept ?) meeting, was to investigate the current charges and fees....The GM makes it clear in his letter to FTFs, that this is currently only a proposal requiring input from interested parties. It will remain so until it is in the hands of the board, for their approval, or disapproval, at the next meeting in early March..........Maj....

The Board has however acted quickly to correct this inequitable arrangement by ensuring that the benefits of Member Liability Insurance cover are – as originally intended – only available to those members who contribute to the annual premium cost (viz. full fee paying flying members and Clubs).

While FTFs and SFTFs are currently no longer covered by these policy provisions, the option of extending our cover to include these facilities remains available

My point however was actually to agree with the need for board confidentiality and used this as an example of confusing mixed messages. If you look at your statements here and those of the General Manager's they are somewhat different.

I'm not having a go at you here at all Maj. I totally understand what you have said here and applaud your efforts to keep members informed....but I would class the GMs letter and your followup posts here as far from clear as to the current status of FTFs insurance cover, if any, by the RAAus.

I always thought the increase in Membership fees was because the insurance had been raised to 20mil? Under the terms of the MoU with the HGFA for CAO95:32 I thought it also had to be 20mil now ......... interesting

RAA has nothing to do with covering, or not covering, particular entities, it is the insurance companies who allow, or deny coverage in particular areas, IE training...RAA has to navigate this as best it can with the coverage available at reasonable cost.........pure and simple...............Maj.....

Sometimes misinformation can be spread by different interpretations of the same message. So it's sometimes best if information comes from a single authorised source such as a CEO or GM. Again, I am NOT saying either of these statements from the GM and a Board member are wrong, just that they give different perspectives which may lead to confusion.

“No way would I go up in that …... thing”.

yea. Im confused on several levels here. Just the same as some of you are. How does a club have to join a bigger club?When all the members and instructors are already members of the big club. I just dont get it.Our club has its own PL insurance and hangar insurance. So we are sweet for now. Im just confused about how the hell this all came about and how the attached letter is any sort of explanation or advice, sent out on friday afternoon.. Bloody low act if you ask me. I dont care, if we have to pay we have to pay, thats fine. We will just have to up the prices ...again..after the last hike and the fuel price rise of late.

\But this treatment of the FTF's and clubs is despicable. Absolutely disgracefull behaviour. Talk about bite the hand that feeds them. Ive seriously had about as much as im willing to take from this show.

A plane crashes into a house. The passenger of the aircraft and the owners of the house can sue the PIC for damages and injury. RAA insurance will cover the PIC for up to $10mil. If it is later found that the plane itself was defective and caused the crash then the pax and house owner might also sue the owner of the plane for negligence and damages. What I am assuming here is that if the owner of the plane is an affiliated paid-up member club the insurance policy will cover them, and also USED to cover commercial FTFs for free as well....but not any more it seems.

I agree that it is biting the hand that feeds them. I'd interested to know how much premium saving there would be, if any, by dropping coverage for FTFs. If it costs members a dollar or two a year for the extra insurance I wouldn't mind that if it helps learning to fly to be a bit more affordable thus growing the organisation. The way the GM is talking it seems subsidised RAAus ASICs will be the next on the chopping block. There are less and less benefits flowing to members and rising membership fees.

Part 103 (sub 254lb with 5USgal.s of gas) in the US is doing well.

I am a little confused here. The student and instructor are required to be members yes? So how would it not cover the contributing members( if all members are contributing). Please explain why if I fly my own RAA registered aircraft I am covered but if I fly the club plane (also RAA registered) I may not be? Come on, we are all members and are all contributing. I must be missing something here. Tom

We can still fly reasonably inexpensively if you are prepared to build and fly your own 95.10. I am afraid we are stuck with quasi GA training with GA prices however building and owning can still be done on a fun budget. I have said for many years that AUF / RAA were re inventing GA and unfortunately it is so. Wish we had never heard of LSA! My 2 cents. Tom

I still struggle to understand this animosity some have towards LSA or larger ultralights. It's a bit like blaming the Holden Commodore for the demise of the original VW beetle...and then going on to say people have too much money so we should ban Commodores and make everyone drive BMWs. But if they can't afford that they should buy an old VW beetle.

If pilots really wanted to fly 95.10s they would. There's absolutely nothing stopping them....except for the fact that, despite the low cost, the demand is getting less, and less manufacturers can afford to make planes that people don't buy. Back in the day any ultralight pilot worth their salt would build their own anyway. Why doesn't that happen much anymore?

Time marches on and perhaps the 95.10 aeroplane will go the way of the steam locomotive or the horse and sulky limited to those who have the time and motivation to build and fly their own. That would be a terrible shame...but it's not the fault of those of us who want to fly something faster and more substantial but still can't afford GA.

My recent flying test certainly included several variations of engine failure in the circuit and subsequent landing. I also had the opposite...a throttle failure stuck at full power. You have to decide where in the cct to cut the mags and successfully land.

and there lies part of the problem. There is no doubt that the Drifter would have been less expensive than the Foxbat, to purchase and operate!Frank.

Well, off the top of my head I thought of a school that offers Drifters to train in. A quick look at their website reveals that it costs exactly the same price to learn/hire in their Drifter as it does in their Foxbat....

I'd be happy if a special low cost or free membership/rego was offered to LP rag and tube pilots. But it would have to include all the restrictions they once had- single seat, 300ft max alt, no crossing roads, no insurance etc etc. As in the past, they could even teach themselves to fly if they wanted, reducing the cost even more. Also, aircraft would have to be clearly marked as belonging to this class so that they could be easily identified if they flew outside their restricted areas/heights and couldn't take advantage of the flying privileges full paying members enjoy.

I wonder how many would take advantage of this? The world is a different place from what it was in the 1980s. It's much more risk averse. Sometimes you can't wind back the clock to the good old days. Cheap motoring is a thing of the past too. Car registration is fast heading towards the $1000/year mark.

But if someone wants to fly their own aircraft over their own property below a height which affects any other type of aviation I can't see how that would hurt anyone.

Wow your right, the newspapers will really hang the lot of us now,,,,,,,,this could be bad publicity ,,,,,,,,and for the record starting a new thread with a different name of a thread to somehow make it different to the other ,then publicly bagging the deceased is pretty low rate

Looking at the website of a flying school that had a recent fatal accident, I was a little concerned at how TIFs were being advertised there. There was the TIF where you took the controls, but you could also choose to sit back and enjoy the wonderful sights of a "scenic TIF". It doesn't take much reading between the lines to see what's being offered.

On the one hand I'm happy for as many people as possible to enjoy flying and perhaps go on to learn to fly. But on the other hand there are companies that have to employ CPLs and go through the cost of having certified aircraft and the red tape involved in having an AOC to legally be able to conduct "joyflights", and the public has a reasonable expectation that when they go on a flight it is conducted safely and legally.

How common is the practice of "Scenic TIFs"? I have a feeling it could bite the RAAus hard if investigations showed it to be common practice...especially when overseas tourists are feeling the sudden urge to see what learning to fly in Australia is like.

A look through patents at Auspat shows no patents held by Jabiru that I can see. Remember patents only last 20 years. In any case, as has been said before, what is there to patent? A conventional aircraft with a conventional engine, probably both copied (legally) from previously designs (Jabiru even claim to have copied Cessna). You cannot patent something which is obvious or based on prior art:

From IP Australia:

The invention claimed in a standard patent must be new (novel), involve an inventive step and be able to be made or used in an industry.

 

An inventive step means that the invention is not an obvious thing to do for someone with knowledge and experience in the technological field of the invention.

 

Your invention must differ in some way from existing technology, but the difference must have resulted from something more than the simple application of published information and/or standard background knowledge.

. And isnt that why max turbulence penetration speed is always much lower then VNE...

Just wondering, as I fly planes with stabilators.... A stabilator on its own induces very little stick force and so the trim tab is also an anti-servo tab to increase stick forces in pitch. Therefore a mechanical breakage of any of the linkage or trim motor would actually result in a lessening of stick forces. So a sudden increase in stick forces on a stabilator equipped aircraft would be caused by the trim motor itself physically pushing the tab in an unexpected direction. Is that correct?

I was taught to make radio calls on every leg and it seems to be the culture at YSWG. The RPT boys and girls especially like to know where everyone is and will try, from at least 20 miles out, to get a picture of where everybody is going to be when they join the cct, or more often land straight in and often on the reciprocal to the active runway.

I have a memory like a sieve when it comes to remembering aircraft callsigns and intentions as they come in on the radio. So a knee board is standard equipment for me with a pencil tied to it. However, as others have said, the A5 size is a bit big in a small cockpit and with a joystick....sorry, control column between your legs. I bought a wooden clip board and cut it back to the width of the clip (about 10cm wide), then added a strap and velcro. Ends up about the width of a small notepad and doesn't get in the way.

OK AndyThen what will be the answer when you are not getting any nominations for board positions?

By having all these fancy selection criteria, no one puts their hand up, you have the change that is no nominations. They are scared off..

 

Well that is a different outcome.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

By the same token, volunteers should not be taken for granted. They need recognition and timely reimbursement of out of pocket expenses. We should be prepared, as an organisation, to spend money to thank our volunteers....whether that be an end of year bash at a fancy restaurant or whatever. Volunteerism is still alive and well in Australia...but so is volunteer burnout. We must guard against that.

Firstly, there is no new model. This is a direction we are looking at and seeking input from the membership.

This is on PAGE 1 of one Governance training manual I have (from the Australian Institute of Company Directors):

Role of the Board

• Overall business performance - ensuring the association develops and implements strategy and supporting policies to enable it to operate profitably or to provide member services, into the future.
   
   
  
• Overall compliance performance - ensuring the association complies with its legal and policy obligations.
   
   
  

Seeing we in aviation love our acronymns, here's another golden rule for our board to remember:

NIFO......Noses In, Fingers Out. It is the board's job to keep an eagle eye on the running of the organisation (down to the last detail), but keep its fingers out of the running of the organisation.

Not having a go at you here Jim, I realise you are on the same page with all this. This is just the way an organisation should run, regardless of members' opinions.

I have to agree. While I'm all for proportional representation it's difficult to see how this helps RAAus. Do the needs of a RAAus pilot in NthQld really differ from those in Victoria? If a clique of well qualified Caboolture (Qld) people were elected to the board I fail to see how this would harm the interests of myself in Sth NSW (apart from Natfly being held at Caboolture airport ). RAAus and it's members are bound by the regulations in its Ops and Tech manuals, which in turn are controlled by aviation law. The main problem we seem to have at the moment is actually complying with our own regs and the laws that constrain them.

Let's get the outfit fixed and running properly. If that takes cutting back the board to a manageable size where important decisions can be made in a timely manner then so be it.

I'm rather surprised that Jim has said that the newly accepted model is one where the board is "to set policy and strategy for the organisation". Jim also says this model is used widely in the "outside world". Is this really how the culture within the RAAus thinks? Are they that insular from the "outside world"? Have they really only just now realised that perhaps a governance model that most organisations in the world use might just be something that RAAus could also use??

If true, therein lies much of the problem with RAAus.

Then you have nine months off and you discover you have mis-placed your clicker and you can't get it to click however you try.

:poke_tongue_out:At what point will that be powerin? I'm still waiting for it