The shiny new-look RAA?

[bull]

RAA decided to cut off the bleeding and risk from a stand alone Natfly that few were attending, spend a small portion of the money on Ausfly and increase spend taking meetngs and sponsoring flyins around AustraliaYes more travel costs but saving overall.

Pretty logical approach Id have thought

 

Losses are reported to be decreasing and there is a plan. Seems some might need to attend a meeting or two and hear what RAA actually has to say.

 

Possibly do you think values of property in regional centres firstly havent kept up with Sydney returns you indicate OR they were inflated originally.

 

By not doing something properly ....like records and tech management.... you can save plenty in the short term. Even produce a nice surplus. Grounded owners no doubt werent happy with that cut rate approach and it seems CASA werent either. The audits didnt come from nowhere, there was years of warnings.

 

If they stopped the printed magazine now, that members somehow saw as a “free” entitlement, the business would be close to or in the black.

So why have the deficit been constant for the last 3 years then if costs are dropping ,,as I see it costs are increasing for travel and such , but the big thorn that all the raa lovers have used as an excuse for increasing costs [ the magazine ] has actually dropped and administration is now the biggest bleed of funds??????And just on the subject of natfly,,,,do you know how much that monstrosity of a fence has cost RAA for the full 5 days of hire and erection and disassembly???bit more than a small amount I would think.

 

 

[coljones]

Like bush walking/trail riding/ walking down the back block of the farm/ walking along a very long beach /driving alone in your car/ etc etc etc what happens then if you suddenly fall down a hole/ chuck a hearty/ suddenly break your foot/ trip over a dead whale/do you reckon we should all have to wear personal locater beacons to do these simple things?? although it is a good idea for the trail riding /bush walking example , but is not as yet a requirement for walking down the back paddock ,,yetah Col

I suppose that a body floating around the harbour is a bit offensive to some. There is probably a strong argument for EPIRB for bushwalkers and kayakers because of the very high emotional and financial costs of missing bushwalkers and kayakers. Having the Daily Telegraph and Alan Jones whipping up a firestorm of feigned outrage is usually enough to turn a politician into an alcoholic. In the case of cyclists on the road and/or without helmets the outrage of the whole community is palpable.

 

 

[SDQDI]

So why have the deficit been constant for the last 3 years then if costs are dropping ,,as I see it costs are increasing for travel and such , but the big thorn that all the raa lovers have used as an excuse for increasing costs [ the magazine ] has actually dropped and administration is now the biggest bleed of funds??????And just on the subject of natfly,,,,do you know how much that monstrosity of a fence has cost RAA for the full 5 days of hire and erection and disassembly???bit more than a small amount I would think.

Bull I think if you have a full read of the financial report that a lot of your questions would be answered, pay special attention to the explanatory notes that are throughout it as they do explain a lot of the why’s.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Reading a financial report is a little more than looking at the profit loss page.and: Bull I think if you have a full read of the financial report that a lot of your questions would be answered, pay special attention to the explanatory notes that are throughout it as they do explain a lot of the why’s.

It is an interesting report with a lot of explanatory notes which are worth reading. Imo it is a well set out report and again imo seems to be a lot easier to access now than in the "good old days"

I've written a few hundred Annual Reports, so I'm disqualifying myself as having a conflict of interest, but perhaps you would be good enough to explain how falling assets can be a good thing for members, and running deficits isn't going to take the organisation out, and how we can actually now see the profit/lost result of the Magazine, compared to the good old days, and so on.

 

 

[robinsm]

Bull, I'm sorry, but I don't understand your post. Are you saying I had your comments deleted? I think you're on the wrong track there

I've written a few hundred Annual Reports, so I'm disqualifying myself as having a conflict of interest, but perhaps you would be good enough to explain how falling assets can be a good thing for members, and running deficits isn't going to take the organisation out, and how we can actually now see the profit/lost result of the Magazine, compared to the good old days, and so on.

I could never understand how a business/body could run at a loss or deficits as a normal thing and consider themselves to be successful. If you or I did this then we would go out the back door very quickly...just sayin

 

 

[Oscar]

And riddle me this - what is the justification for RAAus having substantially more restrictive requirements on 95.10 kits than on 95.55 kits ? Ever considered that current RAAus tech may not actually like the “old school” stuff and the expansion into higher performance airframes is actually at the cost of the old AUF type airframes ??

Kasper: I can't answer your question; I haven't looked at the requirements for 95:10 kits, because, to be honest, I have no interest in this area of flying. Prima facie it seems incongruous.

 

 

[Oscar]

I could never understand how a business/body could run at a loss or deficits as a normal thing and consider themselves to be successful. If you or I did this then we would go out the back door very quickly...just sayin

Oh dear, now you've gone and spoiled the New Year already for our Federal Treasurer!

 

 

[SDQDI]

I've written a few hundred Annual Reports, so I'm disqualifying myself as having a conflict of interest, but perhaps you would be good enough to explain how falling assets can be a good thing for members, and running deficits isn't going to take the organisation out, and how we can actually now see the profit/lost result of the Magazine, compared to the good old days, and so on.

Well firstly the falling assets. I would not expect the building/land to fall (for us on the farm the land is the only asset that does not fall in value) and that is curious that it is. I am not sure of the reason for that as I would doubt real estate would be falling in the ACT so could it be that it was over valued previously? Or is it a case of conservative accounting? (Which should be a good thing) or is it something untoward? (I doubt it as what benefit would there be in that?) I don't know enough about it though to say either way. Obviously the assets like computers and equipment are going to fall in value and that is something every good business owner would expect. So is falling asset prices good? Obviously it would be better if they didn't but in the real world assets other than land/water generally fall so it may not be good but it is reality. (I forgot about the cash savings which obviously should grow except when using them in a deficit year, I am far from an accountant!)

 

As for the deficits that is similar to robinsm's post

 

I could never understand how a business/body could run at a loss or deficits as a normal thing and consider themselves to be successful. If you or I did this then we would go out the back door very quickly...just sayin

I agree that deficits as a "normal" thing is not sustainable BUT I don't think deficits are always a bad thing if done for good reasons over a reasonable timeframe.

 

For example our farm last year had a large loss which was the first loss that we have had for many years but the improvements made have set us up to do much better in the future.

 

Now as we know with RAA they have updated the system so that we can do a lot more online and so that in the long run we can run a lot more efficiently. Now we can all argue how this could have been done better or cheaper but only a fool would say it didn't need doing. This has put a huge dint in our profit loss sheets but I would certainly expect that in this financial year or the next those setup costs will be gone which will go a long way to helping the long term viability.

 

I am even less knowledgable on the magazine so I had better leave that for someone who knows more about it.

 

In summary I would expect the RAA to be breaking even this or next financial year and then I would be expecting to see only black ink and would have questions to ask if that didn't eventuate.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Oh dear, now you've gone and spoiled the New Year already for our Federal Treasurer!

No federal government business here, we are talking about RAAus running at a deficit and only what I am hearing how good things are ticking over.

If that is all good I would hate to see the activities if things are bad.

 

KP

 

 

[robinsm]

One year as a deficit on a farm or business happens, but when the company is running a deficit as standard op procedure consistently then something is rotten in the state of ...you know where...

 

 

[robinsm]

Oh dear, now you've gone and spoiled the New Year already for our Federal Treasurer!

Yep, could never understand that either, surely the govt should be running at a cost neutral situation, any surplus should be applied to ongoing programs to benefit the populace? After all, I, obviously mistakenly, thought that governments were there to look after the country and its people, not to run deficits, support the rest of the world and set up financial feeding troughs for elected members, both state and federal. I must be naive to think that..charity begins at home, look after your people first and live within your means...sorry...just some rambling from a disillusioned voter and member of the masses.

 

 

[kasper]

Kasper: I can't answer your question; I haven't looked at the requirements for 95:10 kits, because, to be honest, I have no interest in this area of flying. Prima facie it seems incongruous.

Fair call ... but RAAus is supposed to be for all and it’s clearly not a level playing field in the minds of RAAus tech.

Some differences

 

1. The kit has to be assessed fully by RAAus and full tech and material specs provided to RAAus

 

2. Any change from the as approved kit is not allowed:

 

- want to use a different engine or prop - nope

 

- want to add a different instrument setup - nope

 

- want to change the flap system or add a secondary electrical load like a radio - nope

 

- if it’s an approved set of plans not a kit and you want to change the type of wood to an Australian alternate - nope

 

- want to use a different type of glue or fabric covering system - nope

 

Wonder why there are no 95.10 kits or approved plans ???

 

 

[jetjr]

RAA didnt run Ausfly so the fence cost them nothing

 

They were one of several sponsors, not even the largest,

 

Really should attend RAA meeting or watch one as these points are raisd and answered at each one

 

What exactly do you want to cut out to bring RAA into profit? Wages, salary? Who would run it?

 

Capable people cost money and with the amount of pointless complaining that goes on, who would want the job?

 

The management isnt there to become friends with everyone of 8000 members, RAA was in deep trouble based on previous mismanagement and it will take time and pain to get out.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well firstly the falling assets. I would not expect the building/land to fall (for us on the farm the land is the only asset that does not fall in value) and that is curious that it is. I am not sure of the reason for that as I would doubt real estate would be falling in the ACT so could it be that it was over valued previously? Or is it a case of conservative accounting? (Which should be a good thing) or is it something untoward? (I doubt it as what benefit would there be in that?) I don't know enough about it though to say either way. Obviously the assets like computers and equipment are going to fall in value and that is something every good business owner would expect. So is falling asset prices good? Obviously it would be better if they didn't but in the real world assets other than land/water generally fall so it may not be good but it is reality. (I forgot about the cash savings which obviously should grow except when using them in a deficit year, I am far from an accountant!)

I can understand how you wouldn't be sure; but that's not what you told us back in your comment; I took that as telling us that everything was fine is we just looked at this comment or that comment.

 

The magnitude of the money involved is enough to hurt you as a member.

 

As for the deficits that is similar to robinsm's postI agree that deficits as a "normal" thing is not sustainable BUT I don't think deficits are always a bad thing if done for good reasons over a reasonable timeframe.

 

For example our farm last year had a large loss which was the first loss that we have had for many years but the improvements made have set us up to do much better in the future.

 

Now as we know with RAA they have updated the system so that we can do a lot more online and so that in the long run we can run a lot more efficiently. Now we can all argue how this could have been done better or cheaper but only a fool would say it didn't need doing.

Have you been able to extract from the financial reports exactly what has been done and how much it cost, bearing in mind that if you are talking about software costs, that should have been in previous years?

 

This has put a huge dint in our profit loss sheets but I would certainly expect that in this financial year or the next those setup costs will be gone which will go a long way to helping the long term viability.

If it has put a dint there, there should be amounts shown for this dint, shouldn't there? Now they are setup costs, and now they will be gone? Where are they shown?

 

I am even less knowledgible on the magazine so I had better leave that for someone who knows more about it.

You were unequivocal before in reassuring members, which could have put them off making their own enquiries, and I'm commenting here to show that it's not necessarily a good thing to reassure people without knowing your facts because it can make them complacent, or give them expectations which might not occur.

I've never seen a side by sided assessment of the magazine in any of the annual reports, yet it is such a big cost to the members.

 

What is intriguing is that the vague "Printing, Publishing, Merchandising expense has not changed much over the past five years.

 

How hard would it be to provided income for magazine sales, and Magazine Advertising Sales, vs the cost of production and distribution (and the breakdown to show how much Office expense was in that), to come up with a profit/loss.

 

Based on what you said above, this sounds like a feelgood statement, but this sort of analysis is what I would expect to see in an Annual Report, so the members don't have to just get a feel, jump to a conclusion and then hit anyone on this forum who might be raising some issues.

[turboplanner]

Yep, could never understand that either, surely the govt should be running at a cost neutral situation, any surplus should be applied to ongoing programs to benefit the populace? After all, I, obviously mistakenly, thought that governments were there to look after the country and its people, not to run deficits, support the rest of the world and set up financial feeding troughs for elected members, both state and federal. I must be naive to think that..charity begins at home, look after your people first and live within your means...sorry...just some rambling from a disillusioned voter and member of the masses.

Let's not get sidetracked; the Federal Government has already said when it expects to get back to surplus, and as I understand it, the wish to get back to surplus is bi-partisan.

[robinsm]

Let's not get sidetracked; the Federal Government has already said when it expects to get back to surplus, and as I understand it, the wish to get back to surplus is bi-partisan.

Yep, and santa claus comes at christmas,...surplus... government.. (bi partisan wishes are fine but sounds like air fairy spin to me. Historically, rare occurrence). Hopeful but not holding my breath.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

how much does everyone expect the RAA membership charge to rise this year? I'm thinking at least $25 but no more than $30 that will put it at $260-265, this will increase the revenue by $250-$300k range

 

On 1st July 2017 it rose from $215 to $235 ($20) and two seat aircraft registration fees will increase from $140 to $165 ($25).

 

 

[M61A1]

Someone has to pay to manage all those "management systems" (to keep us safe, compliant and trained), and those managers will have to have assistants.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Someone has to pay to manage all those "management systems" (to keep us safe, compliant and trained), and those managers will have to have assistants.

Yes and No.

Based on the last major vote + proxies, members voted for a structure to pay people to do those jobs.

 

When the big one eventually occurs, and there are reactions such as a demand for an SMS of bigger capacity, and supervision of operations pay with a big P is going to be the operative word.

 

If the members decided to handle it the same way as the Sporting Shooters Association and convert to an Incorporated Association, with volunteers and some admin employees, then those two operations would be handled by volunteers at vastly less cost.

 

It's just a matter of the structures; both work.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

What I find disturbing about the continuing management of the RAA is the exec/board seem to be asleep at the wheel again. This data is from November's sport pilot.

 

How does the RAA jump from 207k hours to 380k in one year, keep in mind there has been no significant increase in membership? It looks like the new management system is grossly inaccurate and no one cares. Previous variations have been relatively benign. I would have thought someone would have checked this before publishing. There are a few other errors in the report which I won't bore you with that also slipped past the careful eyes of the management.

 

 

 

[Keith Page]

Bull I think if you have a full read of the financial report that a lot of your questions would be answered, pay special attention to the explanatory notes that are throughout it as they do explain a lot of the why’s.

"Explanatory Notes".. Hmmmmmmmm? Normally when one needs to get a view across every point must be covered, not a stone left unturned. A believable story.

Could be called, "Fibbing by way of exaggeration".

 

KP

 

 

[turboplanner]

"Explanatory Notes".. Hmmmmmmmm? Normally when one needs to get a view across every point must be covered, not a stone left unturned. A believable story.Could be called, "Fibbing by way of exaggeration".

KP

Keith, I've been arguing against the people who've been attacking you, and the figures to raise some concerns, but let's stick to the figures themselves to tell the story one way or the other.

Certainly the Annual Report figures are no clearer than they were in 2010, and that's not acceptable to a Member organisation, and I would suggest the directors do them again so Members can draw their own conclusions. But its also not acceptable just to egg things on without some facts.

 

 

[M61A1]

Yes and No.Based on the last major vote + proxies, members voted for a structure to pay people to do those jobs.

So that would be a YES....

The problem is that the SMS, and the associated crap is of absolutely no benefit to anyone (except those it keeps employed) that doesn't hold an AOC.

 

Private pilots in the GA system have no SMS and are not required to, just like private motorists. Our hobby , is not a "sport" like racing, I could maybe see the point if we were form a Drifter air racing club, or competitive aerobatics of some kind, but until we do, we are the same as Joe Bloggs with his Commodore.

 

Why people have to make stuff more complicated than it is, annoys me. I was going to say, it's beyond me, but I know why they do it, and it's only self serving.

 

 

[turboplanner]

So that would be a YES....The problem is that the SMS, and the associated crap is of absolutely no benefit to anyone (except those it keeps employed) that doesn't hold an AOC.

Private pilots in the GA system have no SMS and are not required to, just like private motorists. Our hobby , is not a "sport" like racing, I could maybe see the point if we were form a Drifter air racing club, or competitive aerobatics of some kind, but until we do, we are the same as Joe Bloggs with his Commodore.

 

Why people have to make stuff more complicated than it is, annoys me. I was going to say, it's beyond me, but I know why they do it, and it's only self serving.

It beggars belief that after all this time someone doesn't exactly know what his position is in aviation, but I'll try to explain:

Private Motorists and Private/Commercial Pilots, including Joe Bloggs, the Commodore Driver are administered by State and/or Federal Government Departments, and those Government Departments look after risk management.

 

RA pilots are not permitted to operate under those departments; they are permitted to take advantage of some exceptions to that system, provided they operate under Self Administering Bodies. This is whether they race or just hand around doing circuits. The Self Administering Bodies, as their name implies are responsible for the safety and risk management of all their operations. If someone wants to call it crap, rather than making an effort to comply, the Self Administering Body may find it easier just to shed them.

 

 

[M61A1]

Yes, Turbo, I know what the position is... I just think the way they've done it is rubbish.

 

They increased the training requirements, so that there is little or no difference, but piled on regulatory requirements, that now make it barely worthwhile, and then they wonder why it's dying off.

 

If you get away from the trees for a bit, perhaps you'll be able to see the forest.