Jump to content

The shiny new-look RAA?


Recommended Posts

Perhaps part of the problem is lack of exposure. When I joined a flying club on the NSW South coast I was told about a project that had occurred a few years earlier in combination with the local high school. A small group of students built under supervision a kit aircraft, from memory it was a lightwing perhaps. Perhaps aircraft builders need to organize and promote their area. Whilst I am sure that regulation is part of the problem it must surely also be whether young people get to meet a builder who is willing to share their knowledge and enthusiasm, Seems to me that any young enthusiast who dropped into this thread would draw the conclusion that aircraft builders and many pilots are an unhappy lot. It is not really selling the idea as something enjoyable.

 

 

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

Top Posters In This Topic

We wouldn't want to put a rosy take on it if it's not true and has no real future.. Schools could play a part in this but as an ex chalkie I'd be somewhat wary about sticking my neck out in that environment. if I was still there. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, Nev, our incoming "new blood" is of a generation that has no interest in ever building an aircraft. They are very unlikely to ever pick up a fraction of the general knowledge that most of us oldies take for granted. They don't have the attention span to commit to long term work toward a goal that is recreational. Worst of all they actually need the nanny state to look after them.These people are our future. (Specifically the future of RAA).

Unfortunately our organisation is forced to evolve to cope with it. I don't like it but i accept the younger generation is indirectly moulding my future.

Maybe we shouldn't hand them a factory built aircraft for some cash.....make them build it, make them maintain it. If they want to fly , they will do it. "Never do something for them that they can do themselves". If they want to pay more for someone else to take the risk, that's what GA is for.

 

We're taking the wrong approach in trying to lure people in, we should only be there for those who want to fly, not trying to entice those who are half hearted about it.Those who want to fly, usually have known they want to fly since they were a child.

 

The nanny state is creating these dependent people, and doing them a disservice in doing so. You make independent people by giving them independence.

 

Muzzle the ambulance chasing lawyers, let the people make some mistakes and learn the consequences.

 

We don't have to keep expanding, all we need is to be stable and sustainable.

 

We had a system where CASA gave us the rules and all RAA had to was administer licencing and rego, but we have been forced to make a business that requires a safety management system amongst other things. Where is the GA pilot's safety system? We're private pilots we do need an AOC.

 

I have no problem with going heavier and faster, flying a Pitts or an Extra is recreational flying. I think drawing the line between rec flying and running a business is a good idea, but needs to be properly executed. Running a business should be well regulated and safe for paying customers, Rec flying needs to be deregulated as much as possible, put the onus on the pilot/builder to keep themselves safe, with enough regulation to keep the public safe.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the RAAus just doesn't have the power to do things cheaply. I think it needs dedicated staff at head office to keep feeding CASA with answers to questions.One day, after flying my plane for about ten years, my registration renewal was refused because there was only one photo of the fuselage numbers in some filing cabinet in Canberra. The cause of this was a CASA audit, not anything the RAAus did. So how about the theory that they are trying to keep costs down, but it is CASA that determines the costs ?

I think most CASA staff come from an organization where there is unlimited funding and unlimited time and no real work to do while waiting for WW3.

....and if I remember correctly, the cause of that was an idiot beating up a speedboat on lake Hume and flopping into the water and being difficult to identify, that probably being the last straw in a series of unidentified heroes such as the one flying through the trees in a caravan park etc.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is that the increasing tightness of regulation (& consequential rising cost) is customer driven. You only have to look at the diminishing number of humble fun aircraft, to see that. There are so many "mini GA looking" aircraft out there. And they are getting seriously long hours on their airframes. Not at all like the simple, early rag and tube planes. And since the majority of new pilots "just want to fly", there is a diminishing number that want (&have the skills) to do maintenance properly, let alone to successfully build an aircraft without making some basic mistakes which might not even show up until it comes to bite the next owner.

 

Our organisation has to try to deal with that changing environment.

 

It's not only about the cowboy element. I've seen GA pilots behave badly too. The old crash comics often featured them.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To revert for a moment to an earlier part of this thread..

 

I would ask those who hearken back to the AUF as a paradigm of supporting a simple, affordable regime vs. an apparent vision of RAA chasing a complex, 'heavy' flying machine milieu: where would you place - on a scale of 1:10 for gratuitous empire-building - the AUF push through the HORSCOTS Inquiry of 1987 for increased weight and height limitations for 95:10 aircraft, with a trade-off of increased regulatory authority?

 

Those with no knowledge of this, might want to look at: https://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/students/horscots_1987_PP3A.pdf

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On quite a different note, I notice that KP has taken a holiday and chosen not to respond to my post #152.

 

Hopefully, KP is having a well-earned respite from his travails against the RAA - and long may you prosper, KP.

 

But when you return, I still want an answer.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On quite a different note, I notice that KP has taken a holiday and chosen not to respond to my post #152.Hopefully, KP is having a well-earned respite from his travails against the RAA - and long may you prosper, KP.

 

But when you return, I still want an answer.

Now where is the optimistic like:wink:

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
To revert for a moment to an earlier part of this thread..I would ask those who hearken back to the AUF as a paradigm of supporting a simple, affordable regime vs. an apparent vision of RAA chasing a complex, 'heavy' flying machine milieu: where would you place - on a scale of 1:10 for gratuitous empire-building - the AUF push through the HORSCOTS Inquiry of 1987 for increased weight and height limitations for 95:10 aircraft, with a trade-off of increased regulatory authority?

 

Those with no knowledge of this, might want to look at: https://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/students/horscots_1987_PP3A.pdf

I doubt that much of the issue is caused by deliberate empire building, just a bunch of people trying to make it "all things for all people", with the misguided idea that if we don't keep expanding , we will die.

I expect that the bulk of regulatory changes have been triggered by CASA management following the current (and useless)trend of trying to legislate for every possibility to ensure that they wont be sued. In doing so, they force involved organisations to implement Quality, Safety and Training systems as a way of ensuring everything is documented should the worst happen. I't not just happening in Rec Flying, it's happening in every industry in the country.

 

The problem is that they are regulating rec flyers in the same way they would regulate RPT when we should be no different to the average motorist. (Give them a licence and administer the rego).

 

I see no reason we can't split aviation into Rec Flying and Flying for Profit. Fare paying Joe Blows deserve a well regulated and safe transport system, and I can't see any need to have weight limits for rec flying as long as it's not putting the public at risk, who cares? Anyone who gets in the passenger seat is a willing accomplice. I would love to see bigger, faster, aerobatic and some diversity of design (made because you can), but bring the regulation down to the absolute minimum required to keep the public safe, instead of increasing to GA levels.

 

In any case I cant see it happening in my lifetime. Too many lawyers are too busy touting for business and trying to make a name for themselves with a new precedent, and too many magistrates are going along with them.....I don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the RAAus just doesn't have the power to do things cheaply. I think it needs dedicated staff at head office to keep feeding CASA with answers to questions.One day, after flying my plane for about ten years, my registration renewal was refused because there was only one photo of the fuselage numbers in some filing cabinet in Canberra. The cause of this was a CASA audit, not anything the RAAus did. So how about the theory that they are trying to keep costs down, but it is CASA that determines the costs ?

I think most CASA staff come from an organization where there is unlimited funding and unlimited time and no real work to do while waiting for WW3.

There is my thoughts Bruce.. You have flown your plane for 10 years now all of a sudden not enough stickers on it. The fact is it was OK once and now it is very unsafe without the stickers on it. You get told the story, "CASA audit" Hmmmmmmmmmm? CASA has to be at the RAAus building to perform an audit, some of those schemes come solely out of the RAAus office without help from elsewhere.

I have the same problem I know your pain Bruce.

 

KP.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The impenetrable suggestion that RAA somehow 'conspired' to exacerbate the Jabiru situation ( if indeed that is WHAT is being suggested; I find it hard to determine what has been suggested, in the dogged resistance to providing any sort of 'evidence', or even a hint, of 'facts') is a load of hogwash.A general indication of the efforts RAA made to try to get CASA to listen to sense, is contained in the following: https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/response-to-dr-aleck-june-2016-jabiru-instrument.pdf. That is a very considered and careful letter; earier responses by RAA, in particular by Michael Moncke, were considerably stronger in their denunciation of the CASA action. They are discoverable.

 

Those who tend to place any credence in KP's uttering, should perhaps avail themselves of the opportunity to seek a response from Jabiru regarding whether it feels it was in any way 'let down' by RAA action. If in doubt, it is always a good idea to seek out the information from a reputable source, and Jabiru management (Rod Stiff or Sue Woods) would fall into that category.

 

In the interests of further information, KP should provide us all with a detailed explanation of what action his organisation would have taken in the situation that RAA was placed? It is not justified to simply throw out accusations of 'not good enough', without at least providing an outline of what WOULD have been good enough. There can be no possible legal consequences of expressing one's own view of what was required, and that would at least present to us a picture of the proficiency and realistic understanding of what we could expect from ELAAA.

 

Over to you, Keith, to lay your cards on the table.

Back again had to do some work I see your comments Oscar I will digest them are make some amendments to your story.. At a glance there a couple not stacking up but they stack up for those who do not question.

KP.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
So nothing else has affected the cost rise?You are dreaming if you believe that Bull. Convenient though it may be I still think it isn't that simple.

So where has all the funds gone? Isn't RAAus operating on a negative budget.

Not sure of the exact figures wasn't there a surplus funds sitting in investment funds, I think it is all nearly gone.

 

KP

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gee Keith, I thought CASA were good at using a lot of words to say very little but you are far better than them at that.

I have had some brilliant teachers..

KP

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is.... Either please casa or stop flying. They always hold the trump card no matter if we fly under RAA or GA a new lighty mob. The same problems will arise with an 'new' organisation. Either do it casa way or go home.

 

Our casa seems to have also screwed GFA (in my opinion), I've given up gliding because now it costs me more to fly a glider for an hour than a drifter. So in the light of that, RAA not so bad!

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
The bottom line is.... Either please casa or stop flying. They always hold the trump card no matter if we fly under RAA or GA a new lighty mob. The same problems will arise with an 'new' organisation. Either do it casa way or go home.Our casa seems to have also screwed GFA (in my opinion), I've given up gliding because now it costs me more to fly a glider for an hour than a drifter. So in the light of that, RAA not so bad!

This takes a bit to fathom.

CASA is in a position to oversee all things aviation in Australia. CASA is not the manager.

 

The government of the day is the manager of aviation activities looks very much that the government is not doing its duty.

 

Look at what is happening with the ministerial positions they are at sixs and sevens, so if that is the case problem starts at the top.

 

KP

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith, Doesn't RAA or ELAAA or GFA have to abide by casa rules and audits?

CASA is the overseer given the duty by the government of the day. The government is the rule maker by way of Acts and Regulations.

CASA is a bit out of control because of the diligences of the transport minister, see what Barnaby will do. The last minister was more interested where they were going to eat that night.

 

CASA can do audits. There is another I am working on -- how ICAO audits work. CASA gets a visit from ICAO sanctioned ladies and gentlemen occasionally.

 

CASA had an audit performed by ICAO end of last year have not heard any results.

 

Have a look at this link will help with some aviation information.

 

Assistance to the Aviation Industry

 

KP

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
To revert for a moment to an earlier part of this thread..I would ask those who hearken back to the AUF as a paradigm of supporting a simple, affordable regime vs. an apparent vision of RAA chasing a complex, 'heavy' flying machine milieu: where would you place - on a scale of 1:10 for gratuitous empire-building - the AUF push through the HORSCOTS Inquiry of 1987 for increased weight and height limitations for 95:10 aircraft, with a trade-off of increased regulatory authority?

 

Those with no knowledge of this, might want to look at: https://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/students/horscots_1987_PP3A.pdf

Yep I remember HORSCOTS very well.

It did two very important things

 

1. It increased the MTOW of Single seater 95.10 to address the identified structural failures ... BUT it added the low energy maintenance of the ultralight distinct from GA by requiring 30kg/m^2 at MTOW as a proxy for tested stall speed at low MTOW. And

 

2. It recommended mandatory pilot training in certified airframes which were to be the only factory airframes under 95.25.

 

Critically it identified that the prime and unacceptable risk was from pilot training and unreasonable operating limits so that was addressed as above plus increasing altitude from not above 300ft agl to not below 500.

 

So we have a 30 year old system based on the structure of pilot training and operating limits as control with minimal control on airframes tfatvare experimental ... and the 95.55 two seat experimental is coming up 20years old.

 

Please show what’s wrong with the logic behind the structure that came out of HORSCOTS...

 

 

  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Kasper, I know (or knew, since one of them has passed away several years ago) two of the principal protagonists for those changes - their names appear in the minutes of evidence repeatedly - very well, and I am in NO way suggesting that there was any fault in the logic behind what came out of HORSCOTS. I believe it achieved, as you say, some very important developments improving safety for ultralight aviation in Australia.

 

In fact, I suggest that it possibly emboldened the CASA of that era to look to a more realistic MTOW for the next upward 'class' of ultralights above that imposed by other national authorities such as evidenced in BCAR S and the similar JAR standards, that allowed for the development of some damn fine early ultralights by world standards, such as the Jabiru LSA55, the Lightwing series, etc.

 

But my point is this: it seems to me that there is now strong criticism of the current RAA administration attempting to adjust to the changed expectations and demand - as evidenced by sales - for a class of what perhaps we should call 'very light' aircraft of comparable capability to the small and relatively simple end of GA. Yet, that - to me - appears to be qualitatively no different to the efforts of the nascent AUF at HORSCOTS to improve the situation at that time. Quantitatively, it has to deal with the situation of today, which is so much more complex and hence complexity is an unfortunate fellow-traveller to progress.

 

In no small part, we have lawyers to curse for that; and I would think that any reasonable person could not place blame at the feet of RAA for the actions of lawyers. We have the intrusion of 'standards' for safety, product liability etc. that are NOT the product of RAA action.

 

This phenomenon is not restricted to Aviation. The complexity, weight, cost etc, of a 'family' sedan car of today is several hundred kgs heavier, and multiples of the cost, of a comparable car of 20 years ago. It is all but impossible for owners to do ANY maintenance work beyond oil changes and perhaps brake pad replacement and spark plug changes, for the suitably experienced. You cannot tune it in the backyard garage. And perish the thought of modifying it..

 

Yet, I do not see any similar outcries for change to these 'impositions' that seems to be a feature for (some) recreational aviators. The call here seems to be that we should be left alone to do our thing, that we are a class apart, and that RAA is monumentally deficient in apparently conniving to not resist these impositions on our freedom.

 

Let me state categorically that I wish that exactly these feelings could be achieved. It would make my flying so much easier. For what I want to do with my own aircraft, and in respect of the multitude of changes I have made to my old Jabiru, I would hugely welcome a more relaxed regulatory regime.

 

BUT: times have changed. This is just a fact of our existence, that we - and RAA - must deal with.

 

May I present an example of just how far 'times have changed'? Just before Christmas Day, our Prime Minister copped a $250 fine for not wearing a life-jacket while paddling an inflatable dinghy 20 metres from his jetty to the shore..

 

Here is his Twitter response:

 

Yesterday I was moving an inflatable dinghy from a jetty into the beach - only about 20 metres and always very close to the shore. I wasn’t wearing a life jacket, but as NSW Maritime explained to me today when I called them, because I was in the dinghy alone, even for that very short distance the NSW regulations required me to wear one. The rules can often seem very technical, but they are there to keep us safe and we should all comply with them. So lesson learned; I will make sure I always wear a life jacket in my dinghy regardless of how close I am to the shore, just as I always do on my kayak.

 

Please - think about this, and try for a moment to place yourself in the position of RAA trying to deal with this level of regulatory insanity that we all have to endure in our daily lives.

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Back again had to do some work I see your comments Oscar I will digest them are make some amendments to your story.. At a glance there a couple not stacking up but they stack up for those who do not question.KP.

Keith: work is always the curse of the talking class. Everybody needs a break over this mad time.

 

I look forward to your exposition of how the ELAAA would have handled the Jabiru situation.

 

In the meantime, I note that you have re-focussed your comments towards the CASA audit. Now, the problems that audit found in RAA administration were a product of the 'old' RAA administration. That is an incontrovertible fact of history. The 'shiny, new RAA' that you so castigate has to ensure that the manifold problems of the earlier RAA administration will never again intrude on recreational aviators to ground their aircraft, reduce their MTOW to single-seat aircraft when they had paid large sums of money in the belief that they would have an effective two-seat aircraft etc.

 

Not exactly a shining endorsement of the 'old' RAA.

 

A cynical person might question whether the discarded rump of the 'old' RAA that had been found so deficient by CASA might be the best people to lead recreational aviation into a bright new future.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith: work is always the curse of the talking class. Everybody needs a break over this mad time.I look forward to your exposition of how the ELAAA would have handled the Jabiru situation.

 

In the meantime, I note that you have re-focussed your comments towards the CASA audit. Now, the problems that audit found in RAA administration were a product of the 'old' RAA administration. That is an incontrovertible fact of history. The 'shiny, new RAA' that you so castigate has to ensure that the manifold problems of the earlier RAA administration will never again intrude on recreational aviators to ground their aircraft, reduce their MTOW to single-seat aircraft when they had paid large sums of money in the belief that they would have an effective two-seat aircraft etc.

 

Not exactly a shining endorsement of the 'old' RAA.

 

A cynical person might question whether the discarded rump of the 'old' RAA that had been found so deficient by CASA might be the best people to lead recreational aviation into a bright new future.

.

(edited...mod) to make the new RAA seem all rosy when in actuality it is failing and falling into decline and anachy, Yes the old AUF did have problems but the financial management was 100% better then the so called educated proffesionals we have today,,,the old AUF ALWAYS WAS IN SURPLUS FUNDS with a substantial reserve fund that has now been degraded to the point of being in debt and requiring more funds from members to fund the new shiny GA club they have created............so Oscar there is always two sides to every argument (edited..Mod)

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Caution 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Keith - I did see your now-deleted comment, and I certainly was in no way offended by it, nor would have taken umbrage at all! However, site rules are site rules...

 

I am, though somewhat deflated in my hopes that you would outline how ELAAA would have handled the Jab. engine issue. Here was an opportunity for you to lead by example in the search for transparency in the operation of any administrative body responsible for recreational aviation, that you reject. That is, of course, entirely your right to do, no one can force it upon you, but I do think you have rather tossed away the moral high ground on this one...

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get away from the hair splitting and posturing, and down to some hard facts, and to make it very simple, just zero in on two key assets:

 

In the 2012 Annual Report supplied to the Department of Justice, RAA value for the Office Building was $1,017,500.00

 

Cash in the bank was $1,782,494.00

 

Total of those two assets: $2,799, 994.00

 

At a conservative 8% earnings rate, those two assets should have been worth around $3,809,360.00 in 2016, and $4,114,110.00 in 2017

 

Does anyone from among the people who've been attacking Keith and reassuring everyone of a rosy future know what value those two assets are as of the last filed annual report?

 

And the answer to that one would be "No", or the figures.

 

As a guide on what's claimed to be one of the major issues of this aviation organisation; publishing a magazine, from the 2012 Annual Report, it's possible the magazine costs were part of what was listed as "Printing and Publications" - $367,811, down from $474,908 the previous year (the $107,000 variation not warranting a comment).

 

As far as what income the magazine generated from sales and a substantial number of ads, maybe it's in that report somewhere, but I didn't find it.

 

Nevertheless one would think that a comparison between the specific profit/loss of the magazine then and now, couldn't be a bad thing.

 

 

  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith - I did see your now-deleted comment, and I certainly was in no way offended by it, nor would have taken umbrage at all! However, site rules are site rules...I am, though somewhat deflated in my hopes that you would outline how ELAAA would have handled the Jab. engine issue. Here was an opportunity for you to lead by example in the search for transparency in the operation of any administrative body responsible for recreational aviation, that you reject. That is, of course, entirely your right to do, no one can force it upon you, but I do think you have rather tossed away the moral high ground on this one...

Has me befuddled as to why it was deleted, as you say site rules.. But which one? I am always cautious with my content.

re. Jab Engine. Just imagine how these bush barristers will dissect the handling protocol. So do not put contentious material out in public.

 

KP.

 

 

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...