Will RAA flying remain affordable

[turboplanner]

I guess the members will vote with their feet one way or the other. I don't think aircraft owners would be swayed by this, I think it would apply to aircraft renters who may fly just now and again, and I don't really think someone will pick on the fees in isolation, but rather as the power, water, rates, takes go up, we will see the straw on the camel's back effect, and historically food, beer and the car are retained at all costs, and it's hobbies which take the hit, so I see the biggest impact on flying schools. And often people under stress make the most illogical decisions - I don't think the sample husband and wife discussion outlined above will be too wide of the mark.

 

 

[Mick]

A rise of $25 equates to how many minutes of flying? Not many! Let's face it, the most expensive part of flying is flying!!!!

 

As outlined in some of the other posts above RAAus provide alot for not much cost when you break it down. The magazine alone costs $66.00 per year.

 

 

[farri]

can any one tell me why our 'sport' came into being all those years ago long before the AUF came into being?

I`ll try! In part, it was to get back to basics in aircraft which were affordable to build or buy, fly and maintain.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Guest becky1]

Nobody is whinging here Yenn and if you read the majority of the posts on this subject,it is a discussion not a complaint.

 

I am interested in helping young people to get started in flying and older people to be able realize their dream of flying that are struggling to have the financial capacity, or if they have it now, not price them out of the market.

 

I can assure you that the 16 year olds that are learning at the school where I am the CFI work weekends at menial jobs as well as going to school and spending their entire wage on an hours flying,they have an ambition to fly and the RAA should be encouraging that by doing their utmost to keep it within their reach.

 

It is all to easy for organizations just to increase fees and in the case of the RAA the gap between the cost of learning with GA and RAA is getting less. With GA if you are under 40 for a PPL medical you need to be checked every four years or over 40 every two which is somewhere around $240 per medical. There is no membership fees to be paid with GA. RAA does not have medicals but now charges $185 per year which is $740 cost per 4 years a difference of $500, a sizeable amount if trying to decide will it be RA or GA and over 40 years old medicals every two years $576 against RAA membership $740 a difference of $164.

 

Sure I know there is a lot of other expense to do with GA ,so there is no need for anyone to put in their next post listing those as I have flown GA for over 45 years and I have struggled to pay the extras on that that since I learn't at 17.

 

It was like a breath of fresh air in the earlier days of AUF/RAA because it was more affordable,it opened aviation and the love of flying to so many new people young and old, but to repeat the Gap is closing between the cost of GA and RAA.

 

All I am advocating,not complaining that perhaps the RAA can maintain as part of its charter to keep its fees as low as it can be and still be workable and if this means not spending money trying to get us to the same level in privilages as GA,then that should be looked at and perhaps be a leader in setting an example to goverments ,organizations and utilities that are hitting us every where with increases that people their loves goals and ambitions are more important then the bottom line on their financial statements.

 

If this has come across as whingeing I am truly sorry,and will be my last word on the subject,but I really feel for young people in particular who really want to fly,but the task is getting harder and harder due to increased costs no matter how small the increase may be.

 

Regards

 

Jennifer

 

 

[turboplanner]

No Jennifer, you are raising valid points. An old Cherokee140 with 4 seats able to pick up passengers from the Metropolitan area isn't looking so bad these days, and you don't have to sit there expecting a forced landing.

 

 

[Powerin]

I admire the pioneers of the RAAus, AUF and before. But there are probably quite a few of us RAAus members that come from the other end of the flying spectrum: those that could never afford GA. Minimalist rag and tube is not for me and holds even less appeal to my family who would never have let me fly one. If it were not for the high performance, but far more affordable than GA, side of RAAus I would not be flying now and would not be a member. So it works both ways.....I suspect getting back to basics would not increase membership or decrease membership fees.

 

As others have said ,the increase is a very small proportion of the cost of flying even minimalist aircraft isn't it?

 

 

[winsor68]

I 100% agree with Jennifer's point about Ra-Aus not spending our money on trying to get us GA privilages... If I wanted to fly GA I would but am happy to stick with what we have got. This was originally Ultralight flying... not Lsa flying... lest we forget.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I`ll try! In part, it was to get back to basics in aircraft which were affordable to build or buy, fly and maintain.Frank.

Correct with the addition of minimal regulation. That is why they were called MINIMUM aircraft.

 

 

[winsor68]

Minimum Aircraft... Good point Ozzie and I just realized how ironic my last post was with the new profile picture of the Texan which by the way is bloody beeeeautiful to fly but more akin to a Ferrari than a Thruster... I worry that the Texan may ruin me for other flying and can't wait to get back in to a Thruster and do a conversion....

 

 

[Methusala]

G'day, nice thread! I would like to say that there are a lot of us (and I would not refer to us as "oldies"; the 60's being the new 40's) who started flying with Scouts, Winton Grasshoppers, Pteradactyls and the like. The inestimable John Galpin , who's adventurous flight around Tassie we all enjoyed so thoroughly as we sat in the imaginary seat beside him flew for many years in a Canadian Beaver. We got our chance to fly because of the minimum aircraft movement. I'm sorry but I don't think this option is open to many these days. Regulation, which started to increase after the HORSCOTS report of the late 80's has gone "balistic" of late. It would be interesting to see how much the extra level of administration has cost each of us. I recognise that you cannot let anyone loose in a "plastic fantastic" with a high wing loading and speeds over 100kts without adequate training and without appropriate maintenance. The real question is whether people like us should bear the cost of services and regulations that are not necessary for our level of activity. Don

 

 

[farri]

I suspect getting back to basics would not increase membership or decrease membership fees.I would have to agree and add that by trying to cater to everyone, RAA has evolved too far from basics to go back there.

 

It appears to me that RAA has a continuous influx of members who want the more sophisticated aircraft and privilages. Then there are those, who, for whatever reason, are transfering over from GA and without them, RAA would in fact loose membership, and maybe, cause fees to increase even furthur.

 

Frank.

[Methusala]

It is not at all a simple problem this one! I know of an instructor with his own flight school who kept a T500 on line for those who wanted a "bare bones" budget flight training regime. He sold it when the demand just wasn't there. It is possible that the young ones of today are not willing to forgo some comfort and sophistication in order to acheive their goals. In spite of perceptions to the contrary aircraft such as Thrusters and Drifters are no less safe than more conventional aircraft. Indeed the contrary arguement can be made regarding stronger primary structures and a lower performance envelope. Don

 

 

[turboplanner]

Methusla, I went through this in Speedway Racing; it came down to psychology.

 

When drivers gave up because they couldn't afford to race, and we introduced low cost classes with standard engines and standard tyres, it brought the young guys in, but soon they started working over the engines, getting professional paint jobs and fitting wide race tyres to look like the big guys, and you could nearly predict the date they would drop out again.

 

So I can sympathise with the instructor with the T500, but I wonder how much the RAA is doing to analyse the safety of the various levels, and promote low cost paths?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

People have had a lot more disposable income to play with over the last 15 to twenty years. Our standard of living has improved dramatically as well. We drive cars with more features and not to mention all the teckie toys we have laying around the house. So this would naturally flow on when it comes to our aircraft. It has been noted that in the US that before the GFC came along that the older 103 types were in decline and the modern LSA types were growing rapidly. Along came the GFC and that trend slowed and continues to reverse itself. 103 has been undergoing a revival. It never happened here as we suffered to a much lesser extent than the rest of the world. There would be many reasons i have as to why i personally prefer the minimum types. I do not live in the past. I could afford a GA type i could spend my saved 50 grand on a nice second hand GA or similar but it is all the accessories i would have trouble keeping up with. Hangers, landing fees, maintenance if i could not work on it. Fuel ain't getting cheaper. And their are future costs to consider as well(ADSB?).Then there are the loss of airports, ASIC BS. airspace hassles. CASA and the RAAus taking forever to get the regs in line with what is being designed and other countries regs. I do fly what i fly because the lower weight, HP, and performance does really interest me. I do take offense of what has been going on within our regulating body and the RAAus especially when it was the AUF. Some of the things i have learned of, in particular of two people, borders on criminal. I fly something that is more along the lines of a off road vehicle over private property mainly using the airspace no one else uses. Don't need anything else. In the AUF days i just had to write a letter to CASA and tell them i would be sensible and fly within the CASA regs for my weight of aircraft and that was that. Did not have to pay no one for any privileges. Now since the name change i MUST belong, i MUST comply, or they will toss me in the pokey for a couple of years. So under that threat, i had to join. Demockracy in action. Don't get much back in return so i see it as a complete waste of money especially when they (RAAus) cannot force CASA into bringing the new regs on line in a reasonable time frame. And i don't have time to listen to wimps when they say they are afraid of losing their privileges if they rock the boat. CASA are only 'servants of the crown' and the RAAus are just an extension of CASA. Tide of the lame excuses and i am sorry for the people who have outlayed up to a 100 grand for a modern aircraft and they are hobbled by useless outdated regs for them. Beautifull aircraft that are limited in their range and safety by weight limits. Why spend the money. Guaranteed that if they ever come in there will be an increase in players as i bet i am not the only one that does not want to play poker with half a deck. There is one answer to increasing membership and participation. Another is to really get back to the other end free it up back to where it was before. start using that unused airspace with some common sense and those who are interested in lower performance for just that sake or others who do not have the disposable income that others have AT THIS POINT OF TIME of their lives will have a place to start NOW rather than wait for their super cheque.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[facthunter]

The low cost path has to be self-built A/C. In the hoo-hah of the "rusty Cessna 150" scare we have ignored the real advantage that the 760 Kgs would have allowed us. That is to BUILD planes of common low cost materials that will carry 2 people for about 5 hours at moderate speed with a bit of gear and tie-downs etc CHEAPLY & safely. We do not build many aircraft in RAAus.

 

ADSB if not handled correctly will be the "real" cost looming in the future. The ASIC is mishandled and ineffective. That is an amount far greater than the RAAus subscription, in one hit, for little or no benefit.

 

The SHAPE of RAAus TODAY.. I suppose it was some sort of evolution, and it is what most people want or they would not be doing it. Could it have been better? of course. IN A PERECT WORLD we ( Us and the rest of the world) would have sat down and been very wise in all matters and got everything RIGHT. Instead we got here through chops and changes and concessions in a topsy turvy way, and we are still doing it. We should ponder why we are doing as well as we are. It doesn't just HAPPEN. Most of the population couldn't care less if the U/L movement didn't exist. It exists because of the past and continuing efforts of those who have put a LOT into the AUF, RAAus officially and behind the scenes. Like it or not. Without your organisation, you will end up with nothing. That is the world of today. You must be represented effectively.. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

A couple of points Nev,

 

GA doesn't have a representative body between the pilots and DOTARS. While someone made the point about the higher comparative cost of new GA aircraft, the economically challenged usually buy or rent older aircraft, so that's where the comparison should be. An example was a Cherokee Six I looked at about three years ago worth $16,000.00. An internal inspection resulted in $20,000.00 remedial work for corrosion. So capital cost was $36,000.00 with potentially quite a long frame life. If you look at the cost per km per passenger (for those who want to take away friends), it was a competitive option. That sector still exists, without intermediary representation.

 

Industries tend to cycle into a mess of conflicting policies, cultures and regulations until the participants finally get sick of it and convince Governments to introduce reforms wshich cleans things up for a while until the sneaky guys whisper in the politicians ears about how much better it would be if they could get this and that, and the ad hoc fracturing starts again. An example of this was rthe success of the Transport Industry through the NAASRA Study Team around 1975 achieving one National standard of truick axle loadings. Today virtually every State has up to three different standards, and the move has started once again to try to go back to National stanards. People are people.

 

It seems from this thread that RAA might also be heading for the patience limit with issues like ADSB, ASIC, and unnecessary costs

 

 

[facthunter]

True Turbo, but the costs you mention are "Imposed" upon us. You are quite right about seat mile costs. The Cessna 210 does well in that area. The role of CASA in Australia is not the same as the FAA in the USA (unfortunately). They are there to regulate "Air Safety". only. (by law).. They concentrate on looking after Airlines. They get their money from a levy on Aviation fuel. ( Correct me if I am wrong). If we didn't exist we would be no problem. Conversely if we do exist, we are a problem that has to be dealt with. Some of the functions that CASA would have done (if we were part of GA) we are compensated for, cost-wise but whether we should get more as we assume more responsibility would be an ongoing thing to address. The relationship with CASA is one that should be watched. If we upset them we may get less, but if we don't stand up for ourselves we will not get what we might need in the long run.. Nev

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

It's a pity RAAus kowtows to CASA. Members would benefit so much more cost-wise by not needing to implement regulatory requirements that we don't need. ADS-B is a classic example, and the response from RA-Aus was very weak and obfuscated. Members need to take a stand against irrational things like that; the Board obviously isn't going to represent members' rights as they should, if the ADS-B response is anything to go by. What does CASA get from RAAus, and what's the worst that could happen if RAAus members start to kick back against unwarranted regulation and unjustifiable "safety" technology? CASA gets weird and starts to withdraw our privileges for no rational reason? We kick back even more with reasoned argument? About time that started to happen, really.

 

 

[Yenn]

What would happen if RAAus didn't kowtow to CASA? I think I know, but you may know better.

 

 

[Methusala]

G'day, The other day, while paying rego for the Thruster, I chanced to meet a high official of the AUF (pardon!) I stated a case for potential safety breech affecting RAA pilots, pax, aircraft and ground dwellers. Simply that if a pilot was averse to possession of an ASIC card, this may tempt him to land in convenient paddocks close to airports rather than on them. Many of us "came from paddocks" and so don't see this as too unusual. With the danger of power lines and more this could be a significant and growing safety threat. He dismissed this idea with no hesitation. He may be entitled to his view but there must be many cogent reasons why ASIC cards are not a good idea at airports infrequently served by large airliners. It is reasonable to expect that airline companies should take responsibility for their aircraft on the ground and that a statuary exclusion zone be declared around them on the ground. This is the sort of issue that I expect AUF or RAA to take up on our behalf. What do others think? Don

 

 

[sfGnome]

Can I ask a serious question? I'm not trying to be controversial - I really don't know the answer. If I wanted to fly a minimal a/c at low heights in the back blocks never straying too far from home, then I'd have to pay my RA membership & Rego. I wouldn't have to pay for any radios and transponders, etc. How is this different from the old 300' and never cross a road rules of the old days? How have the costs for minimal a/c increased?

 

 

[Yenn]

sfGnome. Thus thread was started by the announcment that RAAus fees were going up. That is how we are affected.

 

I see the fee increases as a lesser evil than the expense of an ASIC card and whatever ADSB is going to do to us.

 

 

[Hildy]

As outlined in some of the other posts above RAAus provide alot for not much cost when you break it down. The magazine alone costs $66.00 per year.

I don't really want the magazine! Can I have a refund?

 

 

[Methusala]

Perhaps the link between the 2 viewpoints is that, if we had a choice to just fly in uncontrolled airspace, below 5000 we would not mind paying something in fees. That is, to an organisation that would support our "freedom" to fly without the need for ASIC and ADSB. Not dissimilar, I suppose to FAR-103 in the US. Turboplanner has it nailed with his analogy to omnibus and coach rules in another thread. Exemption from ANO's worked well as a framework in the early days and could be developed. Don

 

 

[sfGnome]

Yen: Yep, the thread started with a discussion of an extra couple of $ per year, but it pretty quickly degenerated into how everyone is being forced into these newfangled restrictions at great cost, and I just can't see how anyone is begin forced to do anything. I assume that there's something I'm missing because I wasn't around then.

 

Methusala: Again, I don't understand. You do have the freedom to fly without ASIC and ADSB. You can fly without a Radio. What freedom don't we have that you're wanting?