Two Governing Bodies

[Admin]

In New Zealand there are two governing bodies in recreational aviation and this provides parallel paths for every recreational pilots. Yes it does introduce competition but as we all know competition in the form of a duopoly can be good for an industry not to mention the ensuring of both entities to act above board and for the customer...you, the recreational pilots.

 

Naturally if a cartel forms between the two entities all the benefits of healthy progression of an industry would be wiped out, but 2 entities, providing not only choice to the recreational pilot but also safety in the industry itself which could only be a good move.

 

The negative of having a duopoly in a small market as such that recreational aviation is in Australia, would be in the form of limited financial resources for each entity and what each entity could provide, but at least what they do provide, will be targeted in a way that provides more benefits to the recreational pilot and the industry in general...a healthy competition.

 

What do you think? If NZ can have two governing bodies looking after recreational aviation, wouldn't it sound feasible for Australia being a lot larger market to have a duopoly as well and would that benefit recreational pilots and the industry?

 

 

[damkia]

Just the one, but with a bit more focus that we have currently.

 

The charter needs to be more like EAA - fostering aviation, rather than regulating the crap out of it.

 

Do away wit RA-Aus permit to fly and use CASA RPL, allowing the larger 2 seat aircraft, and CTA movement (if they're going to close down as many strips as they have been in the last few years this is a necessity anyway). This would improve training standards.

 

If anything, roll it into SAAA, for which we share more than a bit, using their inspection schedules and assistance throughout the various builds. These people have a far more evolved structure that we could utilise to our advantage.

 

Yes it will cost more but what is your safety worth? Do we really want to go back to the days of multiple fatalities every year by builders who are under-scrutinised due to financial constraints within different organisations?

 

Has competition ever worked? (think - power, supermarkets, fuel, various public transport infrastructure under private ownership, etc)

 

 

[ave8rr]

NZ is much much smaller than Aus as far as Recrational Flying goes. Two governing bodies work there just fine.

 

The only problem I see is that all aircraft would need to be registered under one umbrella (CASA) as an example.

 

ANY licence / Certificate holders could then also fly the aircraft with appropriate endorsement.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

competition is a great concept when a component of the cost base is profit. RAA is a not for profit organisation which means that competition wont drive costs down by effectively limiting the margin that can be made. On the otherhand competition does encourage effeciency and that would be good if the services provided were established and identified up front such that effeciency isnt falsly claimed when service simply isnt provided.

 

When I buy a TV I want competition because I know the consumer base is big enough to support a number of suppliers. Im not at all sure that there are enough flyers in Australia to justify competition. The costs of supplying the sevices have to be spread across the user base of the organisation. When we are all under 1 body that 1 body has one system that we pay for. when 50:50 each 1/2 pays for a whole system and the staff that operate it. I suspect those inefficiencies might more than offset any best practise benefits........But its all speculation until a business case is developed.....and that would be speculation until you got the nod from CASA that they would enter into a deed of agreement with you. Given that having 2 organisations to oversight and audit is likely to drive inefficiencies within their system as well Im not at all sure that getting the CASA nod would be at all likely....

 

Still all speculation until someone picks up the phone and makes a few calls....Good luck with that

 

Andy

 

 

[eightyknots]

In New Zealand there are two governing bodies in recreational aviation and this provides parallel paths for every recreational pilots. Yes it does introduce competition but as we all know competition in the form of a duopoly can be good for an industry not to mention the ensuring of both entities to act above board and for the customer...you, the recreational pilots.Naturally if a cartel forms between the two entities all the benefits of healthy progression of an industry would be wiped out, but 2 entities, providing not only choice to the recreational pilot but also safety in the industry itself which could only be a good move.

 

The negative of having a duopoly in a small market as such that recreational aviation is in Australia, would be in the form of limited financial resources for each entity and what each entity could provide, but at least what they do provide, will be targeted in a way that provides more benefits to the recreational pilot and the industry in general...a healthy competition.

 

What do you think? If NZ can have two governing bodies looking after recreational aviation, wouldn't it sound feasible for Australia being a lot larger market to have a duopoly as well and would that benefit recreational pilots and the industry?

Some of you may have noticed that I have recommended two governing bodies in Australia in a number of relevant posts over a couple of years.

 

I currently live in New Zealand and if/when I come back to Australia, I would love to have a choice of organisations to join. It works well in New Zealand, which you'll appreciate only has one quarter the number of recreational aviators compared to Australia. The reason why it works so well can be summed up in a few words: healthy but good-natured competition. If for instance, one organisation would get too big for their boots/too heavy-handed/delivered poor service to their membership base, the members would simply leave and go to the other. As a result, no organisation takes the risk and both are extremely member-focused.

 

Last year, I attended the AGM of the Recreational Aircraft Association of New Zealand (RAANZ) and the atmosphere was very member-oriented. A lot of behind-the-scenes advocacy is taking place at CAA level and there is also a big spotlight on safety matters. Talking to a number of committee members afterwards revealed that the biggest focus of all is that the organisation is for the members that they serve. All in all I did not sense any 'political undercurrent' which is very important to me personally. I can only say to my fellow Australians in Australia: why wait?

 

This Forum has enough (and to spare) of wise, capable people who could (1) seek CASA approval to form a second body; (2) form an inaugural board/committee; (3) enthuse Australian recreational aviators to join; and, (4) remain member-focused. Why wait??

 

PS: if in any doubt, always refer to step (4) above. Why wait???

 

 

[damkia]

We're buying safety, not toasters.

 

Safety should be about not scrimping on money, or competition for money. It should be about making the best use of the money raised with the least amount of wastage on redundant administration costs.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

We're buying safety, not toasters.Safety should be about not scrimping on money, or competition for money. It should be about making the best use of the money raised with the least amount of wastage on redundant administration costs.

you mean....for example... the redundant costs of running 2 complete systems? yeah that buys me a lot of safety....oh hang on actually it buys me no safety and a heap of inefficiency!!

 

I dont care if its toasters or safety in a user pays environment the same underlying business concepts apply. If theres a succesful toaster manufacturer out there whos been competing for years effectively then they may well be able to provide more safety than some of the other competition to RAA that already exists today!!! HGFA on paper provides the same services as RAA for the weightshift segment, but in reality provides members with zero unless your a hang glider pilot, strap on a motor and other than an annual renewal you'll get zip.....

 

Sometimes people dont realise what they have until they try the alternate!

 

Andy

 

 

[eightyknots]

We're buying safety, not toasters.Safety should be about not scrimping on money, or competition for money. It should be about making the best use of the money raised with the least amount of wastage on redundant administration costs.

Toyota, Ford, Nissan, Holden, Subaru, etc, all provide a safe product AND there is competition.

 

In the Soviet-era days, there was one significant car manufacturer: Lada (even they got the Fiat people to build the factory for them in the late 1960s, as Ford had done earlier in 1929). The upshot is that more competition does not equal less safety.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Toyota, Ford, Nissan, Holden, Subaru, etc, all provide a safe product AND there is competition.In the Soviet-era days, there was one significant car manufacturer: Lada (even they got the Fiat people to build the factory for them in the late 1960s, as Ford had done earlier in 1929). The upshot is that more competition does not equal less safety.

I agree in principle, my question is if there is the consumer base to be viable. I dont know about teh NZ experience but do know in Australia that at times the government wants competition and puts support mechanisms in place to ensure it occurs and is (semi?) successful. At the end of the day it would depend on what sort of Deed of agreement that CASA would put in place with an alternate. If its user pays as I expect( ie the pie size is thae same just gets cut into more pieces), then it would pretty much have to stand on its own. In that scenario would there be a sufficient user base to justify another governing body?

 

Anyway, there isnt enough info to form a view, these are just ideas being thrown out there and being discussed, Im not married to any particular standpoint.

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

Two bodies would just be the start of a deterioration into a rabble which would have to be scrapped and all aircraft and pilots incorporated into CASA. (That's the short version, there are reasons and stages)

 

RAA is by no means a basket case; why wouldn't you get active, get some good people in, and get the culture up to standard?

 

 

[ben87r]

I have cast my vote as "Yes, pilots having a choice of 2 Gov Bodies for 3 Axis would be a good thing & good for the industry"

 

This is how i see it between RAA and the new CASA RPL, I now see CASA as an alternative to RAA and i think the "competition" between the too could bee a good thing. I already think that competition from RAA has been the reason that CASA has gone with the RPL so maybe now RAA might get a bit of a fright and hopefully everything goes in the right direction

 

 

[eightyknots]

Two bodies would just be the start of a deterioration into a rabble which would have to be scrapped and all aircraft and pilots incorporated into CASA. (That's the short version, there are reasons and stages)

Turbz: The long (term) version (solution) may be far better than you think. Just hear me out:

 

I have found the New Zealand culture to be very similar to our own "Fair Dinkum/Fair Go" culture (except most of them look very blank at you when you say "fair dinkum" so they don't call it that over here but it's effectively the same). Because two governing bodies for rec aviaton works exceedingly well in a New Zealand context, it is absolutely worthy of giving a second body a run in Australia.

 

In my opinion it hinges on this question principally: who has the get-up-and-go to get the ball rolling? This will require a small dedicated group, who are prepared to serve a fledgling membership base (at first) with altruistic motives and unparalleled dedication until a critical mass of members have been accumulated so that it becomes sustainably viable.

 

Now for my vision (eightyknots' manifesto): that the new body would get young people interested in aviation (the next generation of their membership base) and generally promote the recreational aviation sport at country fairs, the Sydney Easter Show, in Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth (and Tasmania to keep cfi happy), via a dedicated website, via positive interviews with the media, etc, etc, etc. If recreational aviation would get a higher profile by a dedicated bunch of enthusiastic people who knows where it will end up? My dream is that the second body will gain most of its members from non-aviators and that the current RA-AUS won't lose many members at all. That would be the ideal outcome for the sport. I believe it is entirely possible.

 

 

[winsor68]

RAA is a not for profit organisation Andy

I think this is the problem... Ra-Aus has become the administration for a large (and potentially MUCH larger) new style of flying industry...

 

I think it is time for a complete rethink because Ra-Aus was not IMO set up to administer 100's of commercial flying schools and manufacturers... So change is painfully necessary.

 

 

[M61A1]

We're buying safety, not toasters.Safety should be about not scrimping on money, or competition for money. It should be about making the best use of the money raised with the least amount of wastage on redundant administration costs.

I'm not so sure I agree, in regard to the safety. I see the concept of recreational aviation as a means to "do it yourself". I see the safety as your own responsibility, whether it's the flying or the maintenance. Which would make what we're "buying" is, in my opinion, soley the admin. So perhaps the competion should be about best service for cost.

 

 

[eightyknots]

I'm not so sure I agree, in regard to the safety. I see the concept of recreational aviation as a means to "do it yourself". I see the safety as your own responsibility, whether it's the flying or the maintenance. Which would make what we're "buying" is, in my opinion, soley the admin. So perhaps the competion should be about best service for cost.

Interesting comment: The RAANZ charges $NZD 70.00/annum for flying members ($30 for associate members) which is about $AUD 55.00 (and $25) respectively. The Annual aircraft inspection is free to RAANZ members.

 

How does that compare with RA-Aus anyone?

 

 

[damkia]

I'm not so sure I agree, in regard to the safety. I see the concept of recreational aviation as a means to "do it yourself". I see the safety as your own responsibility, whether it's the flying or the maintenance. Which would make what we're "buying" is, in my opinion, soley the admin. So perhaps the competion should be about best service for cost.

That "admin" also controls things like all the training and certification of pilots and instructors, all the certification of aircraft, maintenance and L2's, and AD's of aircraft and manufacturers, etc.

To me that equals buying "safety", or at least safe systems of operation.

 

The fact that RA-Aus is a social recreational activity group is secondary to it's primary function as an oversight of safety for the group. If you want "social" join a flying club, the RA-Aus lists them on their site, but AFAIK does not control them or take money from them.

 

Two or more organisations with differing codes/standards of operation is a recipe for disaster. Anyone care to shop for the lowest common denominator/dodgy deals to get your membership buck? By having one set of standards by which everyone lives by, and administered by one organisation you are pretty much guaranteed a better result safety wise than having multiple standards governed by multiple organisations, especially if you re expecting "churn" between the organisations.

 

Has anyone looked at the safety record of the NZ twin organisations compared with RA-Aus? (curious...)

 

 

[turboplanner]

Firstly, don't even think about talking lower costs after you all walked away from me over the subscription increases and said it was mere petty cash.

 

You didn't bother to investigate WHY the fees went up, you didn't bother to find out what made them go up and who was involved, you just put a spanner in the wheel of people trying to tell you there was a problem.

 

One thing which comes through again and again in discussions is that even with one body (we'll disregard HGFA and SAAA and GFA because they are smaller specialist bodies), there is a massive shortfall in knowledge which pilots who go through the CASA system get - not so much the hands on flying skills, but the BAK, MET, NAV etc.

 

Two bodies would not improve that, but the existing body increasing its procedures would.

 

Finally, right when people are asking you to vote and set up proxies for critical improvements, this is providing a major distraction and side track. I wonder how many still remember what those votes are for, or have taken the trouble to actually do something about improvement rather than just joining another stream of theoreticals?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Interesting comment: The RAANZ charges $NZD 70.00/annum for flying members ($30 for associate members) which is about $AUD 55.00 (and $25) respectively. The Annual aircraft inspection is free to RAANZ members.How does that compare with RA-Aus anyone?

Which to me suggests that the NZ government is topping up the bucket at a much higher rate that here in Australia. I cant see that its possible to pay for the admin staff costs for that price let alone building and evolving an appropriate system to manage and lift the knowledge of the member base. It could be done like that in Australia, but for that to occur the Australian government would need to lift its part of the funding and to be honest there are otherthings more needing those tax $ than rec flying operations in my opinion.

 

Andy

 

 

[fly_tornado]

An alternative to the RAA would go really well. There are bunch of new ways to deliver services the RAA over the internet at a fraction of the cost that the RAA provides. I am guessing the RAA doesn't want to implement any changes which would reduce the cash flow to the flying schools and themselves.

 

 

[M61A1]

Which to me suggests that the NZ government is topping up the bucket at a much higher rate that here in Australia. I cant see that its possible to pay for the admin staff costs for that price let alone building and evolving an appropriate system to manage and lift the knowledge of the member base. It could be done like that in Australia, but for that to occur the Australian government would need to lift its part of the funding and to be honest there are otherthings more needing those tax $ than rec flying operations in my opinion.Andy

That could also mean that RAAus does a whole lot that it doesn't need to.

I work for a company that does business like that, put in tenders offering unnecessary services, claiming that it makes them "better", or the usual catchphrase of "safety". The reality is that it means they need to more employ more people to do unnecessary tasks, whichs makes them really uncompetitive agains most of the opposition, then everyone loses because they have no work.

 

I would completey agree though, that our tax dollars shouldn't be paying for any recreational activities.

 

 

[M61A1]

That "admin" also controls things like all the training and certification of pilots and instructors, all the certification of aircraft, maintenance and L2's, and AD's of aircraft and manufacturers, etc.To me that equals buying "safety", or at least safe systems of operation.

 

The fact that RA-Aus is a social recreational activity group is secondary to it's primary function as an oversight of safety for the group. If you want "social" join a flying club, the RA-Aus lists them on their site, but AFAIK does not control them or take money from them.

 

Two or more organisations with differing codes/standards of operation is a recipe for disaster. Anyone care to shop for the lowest common denominator/dodgy deals to get your membership buck? By having one set of standards by which everyone lives by, and administered by one organisation you are pretty much guaranteed a better result safety wise than having multiple standards governed by multiple organisations, especially if you re expecting "churn" between the organisations.

 

Has anyone looked at the safety record of the NZ twin organisations compared with RA-Aus? (curious...)

I may well be completely wrong, but it is my understanding that the majority of system in which we operate is already laid down by CASA, and that RAAus are there to ensure that we follow those rules and the few exemptions for rec flying.

I believe that you are responsible for your own safety, and the regulators are there to make sure you don't hurt anyone else.

 

 

[facthunter]

CASA gives money to RAAus to do some of the work that It would have had to do if it was running it. Whether this could disappear is anyone's guess as historical reasons for anything tend to get clouded with time. CASA used to talk of a parallel path option but I don't know what that actually referred to.

 

Duplication goes against the concept of efficiency gains, with size. The problem with RAAus is the line between regulating and control and the needs of the members to have their organisation respect their aims and wishes.

 

CASA is not elected by anyone and answers to the Government of the day. Civil Aviation Safety Authority. It "regulates' aviation. Specifically "civil" (non military), aviation. It has /or is delegating some of that authority to the RAAus.

 

I personally think this is the problem for the future and have stated so for as long as anyone is prepared to listen. Our organisation should have an arm's length relationship and understanding with CASA, not a cosy little matesy "deal". CASA retain the ultimate responsibility and cannot get out of it and can bring our operations to a halt anytime.

 

They ( CASA) might prefer to just deal with AIRLINES but that may be a world far away. We need something between ourselves, ( as recreational pilots) and CASA. GA doesn't get it and has relied on organisations like AOPA who have a relationship with them that fluctuates in intensity and effectiveness for the people who join it. AOPA may have members from our group, and they would take more interest with more activity.( Like anyone else).

 

CASA may do things for us and GA that appear quite good but their main job is to regulate "safety". How heavily the hand is applied depends on who is running it and the emphasis they place on certain aspects of it. Nev

 

 

[damkia]

RA-Aus was set up by CASA as an entity to oversee the regulations CASA had put in place. It is not, and never was a "social" club set up by members, nor was it meant to be. There is no forum available on www.raa.asn.au = "not social". There is a reasonable argument to be made for separation of objective decisions by RA-Aus from "mates" agreements from within (similar to the old "Separation of powers"). "There's nothing wrong with Jab 3300 engines that I'm going to talk to you about, the owner is a mate of mine..." (Example only)

 

RA-Aus is the authority everyone is answerable to in the first instance, possibly CASA if needed for more serious or far reaching issues.

 

RA-Aus sets the rules, we abide by them by using due diligence, and we all live to fly another day. If we don't play by the rules then the matter is handled by RA-Aus, or escalated to CASA for appropriate judgement and possible penalty.

 

All this notwithstanding the current issues around certain members of the hierarchy of RA-Aus...Could the real problem be that we are TOO cosy with them already, knowing them TOO well?

 

If you want a social club, join a flying club or keep posting here.

 

 

[facthunter]

You have quoted me but I can't see why. I never mentioned a social club or Jabiru engines and much else to provoke your response. I can't see the connection. Nev

 

 

[damkia]

Apologies - hit the wrong button..........

 

I'll remove your quote...