Jump to content

The shiny new-look RAA?


Recommended Posts

Yes, good point. But to take your analogy further, do 'shareholders' in other companies have to pay the company annual fees? Remember, we are members of an organisation that is being run as a business, but the purpose of the business is to run the organisation for its membership. Without the membership there would be no company, surely?Sorry if the above reads naïve, I have very little knowledge in the legal implications of RAA being run as a company, but I'd like to think if there is no valid reason why we members shouldn't have knowledge of the content of the boards submissions, then maybe we should... It would certainly put to rest any of the bickering on here about the performance of the board. If they're doing a good job (as I suspect), they have nothing to lose from a little transparency, and everything to gain.

 

Alan

You could probably equate the members to customers.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 361
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The reason that RAA is a company is that the members voted to make it so.

 

I voted against the change to the constitution and pointed out the problems, both to RAAus as it was then and here on this site. too few voted against the change so we are stuck with it.

 

I can at least fly GA and do my own maintenance, but I am not certain about the legality of maintaining my RAA rego plane. I have asked the question more than once and received no reply from RAAus. So if it all goes pear shaped I will say I built the plane, I have done the maintenance procedures course and I maintain it in accordance with CASA schedule 5.

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
I bet they're still flying long after the last set of wings fall off (fatigue) the current lightly built slippery machines.

that might be the case with helicopters but considering that the youngest J3 cub is now 70 years old I can see that corrosion and metal fatigue issues are going to be a much more consistent issue with these old planes

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
that might be the case with helicopters but considering that the youngest J3 cub is now 70 years old I can see that corrosion and metal fatigue issues are going to be a much more consistent issue with these old planes

Cost of replacement makes these aircraft much more viable to repair and maintain.

Local training facility just rebuilt their 172. SIDS, new windows, paint, interior.

 

A small fraction of the cost of a new one and all set for another 10 yrs training.....

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, good point. But to take your analogy further, do 'shareholders' in other companies have to pay the company annual fees? Remember, we are members of an organisation that is being run as a business, but the purpose of the business is to run the organisation for its membership. Without the membership there would be no company, surely?

I missed this point; the members are the customers, the services are the price and the annual fee is the payment. Just like a subscription for software or leasing a car.

The Company decides how it will do business and what products it will offer and what prices it will charge.

 

The only input you have into that is whether the customers have the ear of a director or two, and they are not bound to follow what you say.

 

By Comparison, the skeleton of an Incorporated Association is its members.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably about the same amount as we have now. The HF/maintenance issue ratio is about he same everywhere in the western world. They aren't complex, and they are more structurally sound..

You don't think there would be a difference between an aircraft maintained by a LAME and an aircraft maintained by the local tinkerer whose life's work was the coagulation qualities of blood cells?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a big difference between a LAME who has spent his entire life working on Cessnas/Lycomings/Continentals and an enthusiast who has built and rebuilt many engines, runs a non standard engine, perhaps even something a LAME has never seen before. I used to fly my Cobra with a Subaru engine, aftermarket computer from the states, gearbox from New Zealand. Who is going to understand that? This is experimental, I love tinkering, I get help from others, I spend a lot more time on things than I could possibly afford to pay a LAME to do. We are recreational, fun, experimental, yes tinkerers even and that's what I like about it. I am not flying in CTA, I don't take passengers, I fly over countryside devoid of kindergartens, children's playgroups and huge shopping centres. I want to be able to my own thing!

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
  • Winner 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
You could probably equate the members to customers.

Perhaps more like small shareholders...?

 

People invest in companies hoping to get a benefit from them. They get a chance to vote but a small number of shareholders can have a very big impact on the company's direction by voting for particular Directors.

 

Every RAAus member gets the right to vote but it seems just a very few actually control the direction of their company by exercising that right.

 

Kaz

 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
In defence of Frank, he was elected, he went to the board meetings he got to know the personalities, he got to see the patterns of behaviour, he got to see the adherence to procedures standard, he got to see the decision process in place, he got to air his views person to person; and he got to form his opinions based on first hand experience.The comments that you make might be applicable to you Col, but if someone comes along and feels strongly enough to post what they've seen first hand, it is very wrong to try to fob them off with these sorts of baseless comments.

 

Throughout the past ten years, and even in this thread there are people who, without having any facts at all paint a picture which is designed to squash anyone who expresses a concern.

My comment was about the average member of RAA. Almost every member of the board was/is unknown to to the vast majority of members. I know of Frank, I have read his contributions over the years with interest but generally, as I said, I am more familiar with a bar of soap, despite any good work that Frank and the others have done (and the bad is probably well hidden)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, a big difference between a LAME who has spent his entire life working on Cessnas/Lycomings/Continentals and an enthusiast who has built and rebuilt many engines, runs a non standard engine, perhaps even something a LAME has never seen before. I used to fly my Cobra with a Subaru engine, aftermarket computer from the states, gearbox from New Zealand. Who is going to understand that? This is experimental, I love tinkering, I get help from others, I spend a lot more time on things than I could possibly afford to pay a LAME to do. We are recreational, fun, experimental, yes tinkerers even and that's what I like about it. I am not flying in CTA, I don't take passengers, I fly over countryside devoid of kindergartens, children's playgroups and huge shopping centres. I want to be able to my own thing!

OK I'll be more specific; a tinkerer who has NO previous mechanical experience other than a short box ticking exercise, who buys a standard 1974 Cessna 172N for $15,000.00 to fly in this theoretical RAA world, NOT A SAAA EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT maintained by someone with mechanical experience.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone actually stated they are going to take away your right to fly small 1 person machines or not let you operate them out in the boonies ie class g. To some the CTA access will be great. Our training facility teaches us in CTA then takes it off you until 1530 on a Saturday or Sunday, which is quite limiting when shorter days are in effect.(same up till 0800in mornings)

 

Weight limits, they are talking about going up, not taking away from bottom end of scale. The greenies have been spouting no gas guzzling fossil fuel cars for the past 30 years I can remember and no one is taking away our dinosaur ones yet, even thought the Prius etc is here. Some people who like to criticise the people at the top, do have the option to nominate if they wish to stand up. We need RAAus to be able to fly legally. Until some one comes up with a working other option what can you do. I doubt there are a lot of wives/husbands out there in the real world who would let there spouses, father or mother of their children hop into something that looks like a hills hoist raped a lawnmower and be happy about it. We have evolved for better or worse into a more modern fleet. I love old stuff (still own Valiants) but I would not be allowed to do that kind of stuff anymore. If we were all honest most wouldn't despite what we may tell ourselves or the divorce rate would skyrocket.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny. Everyone is having a bitch about "If you want to fly bigger...in CTAF etc etc go GA"... yet out of the posters on this thread there is only one person whose avatar actually shows an ULTRALIGHT AIRCRAFT...

 

Anyone remember...THIS WAS THE AUF. It has been down hill ever since the Recreational Flying wanna be GA stink set in.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • More 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone actually stated they are going to take away your right to fly small 1 person machines or not let you operate them out in the boonies ie class g. To some the CTA access will be great. Our training facility teaches us in CTA then takes it off you until 1530 on a Saturday or Sunday, which is quite limiting when shorter days are in effect.(same up till 0800in mornings)Weight limits, they are talking about going up, not taking away from bottom end of scale. The greenies have been spouting no gas guzzling fossil fuel cars for the past 30 years I can remember and no one is taking away our dinosaur ones yet, even thought the Prius etc is here. Some people who like to criticise the people at the top, do have the option to nominate if they wish to stand up. We need RAAus to be able to fly legally. Until some one comes up with a working other option what can you do. I doubt there are a lot of wives/husbands out there in the real world who would let there spouses, father or mother of their children hop into something that looks like a hills hoist raped a lawnmower and be happy about it. We have evolved for better or worse into a more modern fleet. I love old stuff (still own Valiants) but I would not be allowed to do that kind of stuff anymore. If we were all honest most wouldn't despite what we may tell ourselves or the divorce rate would skyrocket.

Well yes actually the RAAus tech team are hell bent on killing off the 95.10 single seat freedoms by use of the tech manual and inspections. The WHOLE concept of the airframes I've owned - built - designed - modded - maintained - flown under 95.10 for coming up a quarter of a century is seriously being destroyed by RAAus themselves on no evidence basis at all.

 

 

  • Agree 3
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't think there would be a difference between an aircraft maintained by a LAME and an aircraft maintained by the local tinkerer whose life's work was the coagulation qualities of blood cells?

If that were the case, we would already be having more than the approximate 15% of maintenance related issues. The latest RAA figure put HF related at 85%. Why you think it would change just because the name on the dash changed?

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

But they used the term "Pilot error". IF you are still using that description you haven't understood the first thing about Human Factors. Our management haven't done a flying orientated Human Factors Course. unless (For some of them) as a RAAus course and that's unlikely to be an adequate example of how to do it right, unless they were lucky. Nev

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
But they used the term "Pilot error". IF you are still using that description you haven't understood the first thing about Human Factors. Our management haven't done a flying orientated Human Factors Course. unless (For some of them) as a RAAus course and that's unlikely to be an adequate example of how to do it right, unless they were lucky. Nev

The problem is that all they have done is to label them "Human Factors related", it's "Pilot Error", just spelled differently. If they want to take HF seriously, they need to fully investigate and understand the chain of events and the thought processes and actions the led to the event, not just cross out "pilot error" and replace it with "human factors".

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 6
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
If it wasnt for the newer aircraft and pilots theres every chance the organization would be long gone

Baloney. It would be the same small organisation it was at the least...without all the BS we are getting today. And...there is every chance it would have grown with a bit of a push. This industry and the debacle it has become didn't happen by accident. If costs had been kept down...and the fun factor kept high...it would be just as easy as sell if not easier than quasi tin can GA alike we have today.

 

 

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

winsor68.. Excellent words there. "Baloney" is a good answer.

 

Yep egos got in the way and "SAFETY" became the buzz word bigger than Mt. Everest.

 

Egos and the safety mix got out of control and this what we have. I do have a good one liner regarding egos if I use it I will be banned.

 

Safety, is not a big issue just go back get rid of the fear factor teach people how to think with procedures there it is in a nut shell.

 

Do not get me wrong -- I am all for not hurting people and not damaging planes BUT teach "Safe Procedures" .."Safe Cultures".

 

Not the never ending diet of "Safety" "Safety" "Safety" "Safety" and no member input only the egos out of the office.

 

Safety is the end product not the beginning.

 

KP

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Winner 2
  • Caution 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
that might be the case with helicopters but considering that the youngest J3 cub is now 70 years old I can see that corrosion and metal fatigue issues are going to be a much more consistent issue with these old planes

Care to elaborate as to what your extensive and considerable aircraft maintenance experience is, and then tell us why they will age any worse than they have and more particularly, why you think old helicopters age better than old aircraft, considering that most enthusiasts look after their toys exceptionally well?

 

 

  • Like 1
  • More 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Plastic fantastic is a relative thing. My 34yo sapphire was a plastic fantastic if it's day ... but 50knts on 26hp being fantastic then is not what today's pilots with money think of as fantastic.

 

To me plastic fantasies of today are those that need lower than design mtow and very effective flaps to "meet" the stall limits of RAAus airframes and cost half the cost of our 56acre farm. Oh and in reality many of them never operate near the "stall" speed and are belting down final at 75+ to remain safe ops.

 

In my opinion they are not ultralights and I wish that RAAus in looking at increased mtow would look at a new seperate CAO for them and Leave Ultralights Alone - add as much inspection and control to them as they have the energy issues of GA and start rolling back the increased regs on ultralights to reinstate the actual difference that made this movement in the first place.

 

 

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
a few posts ago you declared the plastic fantastics won't last so idkshrug.jpg

The reason I think that many of the slick LSAs will have future issues is that they were built down to a weight limit to achieve maximum payload and fuel load, a lot of them barely meet structural standards, and have had no fatigue analysis done. So, take a very lightly constructed aircraft with an unknown fatigue life, use it as a trainer and fly it at the top end of Va regularly (it'll be OK really...I think) on hot, thermally, Australian days, and I reckon sooner or later things will start falling off them.

I didn't actually mention "plastics". The very light sheetmetal ones, I think will fare worse. The life of the "plastics" will depend on many variables.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Winner 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Look good in the showroom and as a model on your desk. Thin wing sections with no spar depth. No strut either. Maybe 2,000 hours safe life? Who knows.? Once you are travelling over say 140 knots you hit the turbulence with much more dynamic loading possible . Don't knock the 150/152 airframe. It's lasted very well. nev

 

 

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...