Jump to content

The shiny new-look RAA?


Recommended Posts

Does anyone from among the people who've been attacking Keith

Turbs! A bit hyperbolic there my old sparring mate! I know that we are becoming an increasingly litigious society but surely the Australian way allows someone to disagree with another's viewpoint or opinion (sometimes with a degree or robustness and vigour that might be frowned on in other societies) without being accused of "attacking" someone?

Have I misjudged this community, or is free speech not what it one was?

 

(free speech is to be encouraged, but play the topic not the man and leave snide remarks and innuendo out of it....mod) (hopefully not the "bush lawyers" in the ambiguous post earlier.) Play fair people.)

 

 

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

Top Posters In This Topic

And for clarification: I was referring to the Australian community in general, not the Rec Flying forum community in particular. I wouldn't want to be accused of criticising Site Admin or the Mod(s).

 

(then specify, cheap shots not appreciated....robust discussion encouraged but play the topic sensibly not the man....mod)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

That would be the same set of bush barristers who have already dissected RAA's handling, of course. But jeez, louise, you had the opportunity to showcase (and with the wonderful benefit of hindsight, of course) ELAAA's enlightened approach - call it a 'taste of the lolly', perhaps? Surely ELAAA is not afraid to hoist its colours? You will have to accept that it will never be above criticism, and the Rec Flying community is nothing if not forensically and enthusiastically critical..so it's a given that some flack will come your way. Gosh, I'll bet that when JC walked on water, somebody complained about him stuffing up the fishing for the day.

 

Such is life..

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I got frustrated that the tone hadn't changed in this thread, and looked the information up myself.

 

This is for the 2016 financial year.

 

Printing, Publication & Merchandise - $326,890.00 vs. $367,811.00 in 2012

 

Assets, Cash - $919,429.00

 

Assets Building - $896,285.00

 

Total - $2,192,570.00 vs expected $3,809,360.00

 

Other items which caught my eye:

 

Total Comprehensive deficit $227,535.00

 

Accommodation, meetings, travel $155,213.00 (up from $96,646.00)

 

Advertising, & Promotions $22,484.00

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to say I got frustrated that the tone hadn't changed in this thread, and looked the information up myself.This is for the 2016 financial year.

 

Printing, Publication & Merchandise - $326,890.00 vs. $367,811.00 in 2012

 

Assets, Cash - $919,429.00

 

Assets Building - $896,285.00

 

Total - $2,192,570.00 vs expected $3,809,360.00

 

Other items which caught my eye:

 

Total Comprehensive deficit $227,535.00

 

Accommodation, meetings, travel $155,213.00 (up from $96,646.00)

 

Advertising, & Promotions $22,484.00

Thank you Turbo.. Great to see a thinker and searcher.

 

Deficit $227,535 that was 2016 just wonder what 2017 must be worse - governing by the silenced and the defending.

 

The interesting one is accommodation, meetings, travel $155,213 up from $96,646. Wonder what the surprise for 2017 will be.

 

KP

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you Turbo.. Great to see a thinker and searcher.Deficit $227,535 that was 2016 just wonder what 2017 must be worse - governing by the silenced and the defending.

The interesting one is accommodation, meetings, travel $155,213 up from $96,646. Wonder what the surprise for 2017 will be.

 

KP

The answer is in the 2017 annual report https://members.raa.asn.au/storage/annual-report-2016-17-web-single-pages.pdf

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Oscar.

 

Here is a reply to your post #152.

 

I have no need to go and track what has happened because I had been politely looking about (getting a good grasp) during the development stages of these fiascos that is when the fiascos were developing legs. I am suggesting every one go and have a look about and be careful of what one takes on board as gospel.

 

There is a lot of guff out there and we are expected to believe it, but have a look and it will not fit.

 

I will not be sharing my knowledge just imagine how it will be manipulated this forum is a good example, I have tried a couple of times and been ostracised. No more find it for your selves.

 

A good example:- Turbo had a look about look what he has found. What is the 2017 figures?

 

Go back to my post #132 (i) Jab engine (ii) The lobby work (iii)The flying schools/China. See what can be gleaned. I will not share my knowledge.

 

Oscar that link in your post #152, have you put any consideration, could it be a Dorothy Dixer?

 

How would ELAAA handle the Jabiru Engine issue? Nothing like RAAus that is for sure. I know one thing it would not have gone so public.

 

To help the forumites with the Jab issue - go and look at the You Tube Senate Equirey of Barry O'Sullivan taking Skidmore to task, and it is quite obvious that he has not been briefed correctly about the issue, his advisors had lied to him by fact of omission. Barry knows what went on but getting people to admit is another matter.

 

See when he was given the wrong information the line he used regularly. The burden of the question is ................ .

 

KP

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2017 figures related to post #207Assets, Cash - $658,071.00

 

Assets Building - $896,285.00

 

Total - $1,554,356.00 vs expected $4,114,110.00

deficit of $216,477

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading a financial report is a little more than looking at the profit loss page.

 

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"

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Turbs! A bit hyperbolic there my old sparring mate! I know that we are becoming an increasingly litigious society but surely the Australian way allows someone to disagree with another's viewpoint or opinion (sometimes with a degree or robustness and vigour that might be frowned on in other societies) without being accused of "attacking" someone?Have I misjudged this community, or is free speech not what it one was?

(free speech is to be encouraged, but play the topic not the man and leave snide remarks and innuendo out of it....mod) (hopefully not the "bush lawyers" in the ambiguous post earlier.) Play fair people.)

Sorry but don't those people that have been attacking keith have to abide by the same rules that you have used to delete my ''comments and disagreements to some''the operative word that you have used being disagree!!! A little bit of a hypocritical attitude by you as a moderater I would think ....................

(read the whole topic and follow the edit by Mods please. No hypocrisy, just trying to get the posters to play the topic, regardless of what it is,, not the person. People trying to win points by snide remarks, arrogance, personal put downs and insults WILL be edited. Just because someone disagrees with a post, being on one side of the discussion or the other, is no reason to put down the poster or person of differing opinions. We are all mature adults and according to the rules of the site, are expected to act as such. If you have a problem with the moderation, you are quite welcome to contact the owner of the site for his input. ....Mod)

 

 

  • More 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to say I got frustrated that the tone hadn't changed in this thread, and looked the information up myself.This is for the 2016 financial year.

 

Printing, Publication & Merchandise - $326,890.00 vs. $367,811.00 in 2012

 

Assets, Cash - $919,429.00

 

Assets Building - $896,285.00

 

Total - $2,192,570.00 vs expected $3,809,360.00

 

Other items which caught my eye:

 

Total Comprehensive deficit $227,535.00

 

Accommodation, meetings, travel $155,213.00 (up from $96,646.00)

 

Advertising, & Promotions $22,484.00

Those junkets to narrominded and such sure pushed up the accom/travel bill.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2017 figures related to post #207Assets, Cash - $658,071.00

 

Assets Building - $896,285.00

 

Total - $1,554,356.00 vs expected $4,114,110.00

Wheres the $300000 gone from petty cash ?? anyone explain that?? At that rate of consumption RAA will be insolvent within 3 years

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but don't those people that have been attacking keith have to abide by the same rules that you have used to delete my ''comments and disagreements to some''the operative word that you have used being disagree!!!

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

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Your profile and comments are there to see deleting my comments......................And when it comes to interpretations of comments I for 1 think Keith is being seriously ""attacked ''on this post ,but some members don't seem to have to abide by the same rules others [me included] have to.............

The moderation was done by the mod, no complaints from any member of the forum have been received. ...........MOD

 

 

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.

Fundamental difference between regulations on personal flotation devices and the new tech regs on experimental airframes is that 1 is based on facts and evidence of actual risk while the other isn’t. And to be clear it’s drowning risk that’s evidence based.

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 ??

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Bull, but I still don't understand what you mean by that.

Sorry mate my mistake ,dislecksia has set in caused by brain pain about the whole subject ,and I was reading your deleted posts and thinking you had deleted them ,,,my humble apologies and I hope we can continue to have ""robust and energetic discussions'' in the future ,,,Scott

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but don't those people that have been attacking keith have to abide by the same rules that you have used to delete my ''comments and disagreements to some''the operative word that you have used being disagree!!! A little bit of a hypocritical attitude by you as a moderater I would think ....................(read the whole topic and follow the edit by Mods please. No hypocrisy, just trying to get the posters to play the topic, regardless of what it is,, not the person. People trying to win points by snide remarks, arrogance, personal put downs and insults WILL be edited. Just because someone disagrees with a post, being on one side of the discussion or the other, is no reason to put down the poster or person of differing opinions. We are all mature adults and according to the rules of the site, are expected to act as such. If you have a problem with the moderation, you are quite welcome to contact the owner of the site for his input. ....Mod)

Thank you for that info mod,,my question to you then is why [Oscar][discussion!!!!] not personal attack, questioning the subject he posted not the man ,,mod] has not been subject to the same rules??as he has attacked keith ''personally on his postings and not been "moderated''?????

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
snip snip snipBut

 

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.

If you are alone in your boat and you are not wearing a life jacket and you cannot swim or become disabled and you fall in there will be no-one there to rescue you. I presume that, like seat belts and bike helmets, the government has decided you should be protected - even prime ministers.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are alone in your boat and you are not wearing a life jacket and you cannot swim or become disabled and you fall in there will be no-one there to rescue you. I presume that, like seat belts and bike helmets, the government has decided you should be protected - even prime ministers.

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 ,,yet

ah Col

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry mate my mistake ,dislecksia has set in caused by brain pain about the whole subject ,and I was reading your deleted posts and thinking you had deleted them ,,,my humble apologies and I hope we can continue to have ""robust and energetic discussions'' in the future ,,,Scott

No apology needed Bull. It was an honest mistake but I have to say that I am laughing my head off that you thought I might be a moderator. I think Ian would rather sell his soul to the devil before he'd let me be a Mod. 008_roflmao.gif.692a1fa1bc264885482c2a384583e343.gif

 

 

  • Haha 2
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
No apology needed Bull. It was an honest mistake but I have to say that I am laughing my head off that you thought I might be a moderator. I think Ian would rather sell his soul to the devil before he'd let me be a Mod. 008_roflmao.gif.692a1fa1bc264885482c2a384583e343.gif

My god I don't believe I interpreted it they way either lol,,,,,getting old and think maybe I might have to crawl under a rock soon:juggle:048_surrender.gif.737a6283dfb1349140cc8b959302f540.gif048_surrender.gif.279fb8f6250dbdf484dd36d3be1f98e0.gif048_surrender.gif.737a6283dfb1349140cc8b959302f540.gif008_roflmao.gif.692a1fa1bc264885482c2a384583e343.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 Australia

 

Yes 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.

 

 

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

My apologies to the moderater too,just have a different interpretation of attacking and robust discussion................

 

 

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...