Democracy????

[Guest ozzie]

Hi All,Once again a lot to think about, it just feels like even when you vote that vote is meaningless against the organised mob keeping a certain member in/on the board. There are some organisations that like RAA have a board but you only get 2 terms of 3 consecutive years in any 15 years, sure stops the empire builders.

 

Again a lot to think about, thanks guys and gals.

 

Bob.

Some serious changes have to be made as you have stated above. Only have to see how 'Little Johnny' got carried away after his long term as PM. The other is to prevent those who have a conflict of interest. The prevention of upping flight school fees by CFI's on the board. Is one example I would also like to see the voting returns sent to a private body or electorial office for counting. Hey, it is not that i don't trust anyone BUT! Boy if anyone from the RAAus office has read the two threads on the 'Board' must have hit the fire bell by now.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[winsor68]

Yenn i suppose what you are saying can go the other way as well. Do those flying the pseudo GA types expect those flying grass roots types are just going to go away? Plenty of room for all.The point that has been made is that the grass roots types do not wish to subsidize those wanting more weight, more airspace access etc. And why should they? If you have read what Tony had said in that email to me it was pointed out that those in control considered the Grass roots types to be just a source of income to push what is considered their personal barrows. No one wishes to put your privileges on the line nor do they want you to be prevented from what you wish the RAAus to seek from CASA. They just do not wish to keep putting their hand in their pockets to pay for your increased privileges. All they want is what this 'sport' was started for way back in the seventies. Easily obtained and affordable flying in the airspace they were originally provided and with minimum of regulation. Blinkers off and see the bigger picture. Remember this. If it was not for those who started off this game you now would be flying your aircraft under the SAAA banner and would have VH rego on the tail.

Ozzie

Well said Ozzie... This organization is the former AUF... Australian Ultralight Federation. As much as I love flying a Texan to my mind she is an LSA aircraft. Rather than go after CASA to stop the BS regulation of these aircraft... someone not so long ago decided to takeover the AUF as the easier route. I feel like a fraud when encouraging people to come and join Ra-Aus as a cheaper route to recreational flying than GA... It is just marginally cheaper... and more so for those who build their own aircraft and register them Ra-Aus rather than the SAAA route of old.

 

As much as Ra-Aus has gained... it has lost what was.

 

 

[icebob]

Hi David,

 

Yes some good points, I have a relative who lives out western Queensland, when we went to visit him some years ago even the local copper did not know what the farm house looked like and he had been in the local area 25 years. So if you fly on a remote property like that the only way authorities would know is if you had a serious accident and needed the ambulance, well maybe not if you could cover it up. Who would find out other wise - no one, and it happens out there so why not anywhere? If you turned up in an well presented aircraft that had a rego number that looked correct and flew off and returned, packed up and left at the very least you would be looked at as unsociable who would dream illega - I wonder?

 

Bob.

 

Bob.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Flying your own unregistered aircarft over your own castle

 

Technically you own the airspace up to 500 ft agl over your property. Therefore I am suggesting no authority has jurisdiction over your flying pursuits whether they be a rag machine or an unregistered C150 for that matter as long as you stay below 500 ft agl. In the same manner you do not need vehicle registration for vehicles driven on your own property. Will anyone offer some informed comment please.

 

David

Hi David,

 

Not much joy in the CASA legislation - There are two issues, one of registering and the other of airworthiness. There is no expemption in the legislation for aircraft registration other than what is listed (no mention of your own airspace). CASA does mention "your own land" in relation to mustering operations, where you can undetake them privately, but only if you own the land over which you are mustering, otherwise its a commercial operator for the job. They also mention it in relation to getting permission from the landholder for some activities over that land. But they don't mention it here. It may be contained in other legislation outside of CASA. I'm not a lawyer, so you will have to make of this what you can.

 

Good luck

 

Sue

 

Civil Aviation Act 1988

 

Section 20AA Flying unregistered aircraft etc.

 

Flying an unregistered aircraft

 

(1) A person must not fly an aircraft within Australian territory if:

 

(a) the aircraft is not registered under the regulations; and

 

(b) the aircraft is, under this Act or those regulations, required to be registered under those regulations.

 

 

 

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

 

 

 

(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an aircraft that is employed in private operations and that possesses the nationality of a Contracting State.

 

 

 

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1A) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).

 

(2) In subsection (1A), employed in private operations has the same meaning as it has in the regulations.

 

 

 

Flying without a certificate of airworthiness

 

(3) An owner, operator, hirer (other than the Crown) or pilot of an Australian aircraft must not commence a flight in the aircraft, or permit a flight in the aircraft to commence, if:

 

(a) there is no certificate of airworthiness under the regulations in force in respect of the aircraft; and

 

(b) the regulations do not authorise the flight without the certificate.

 

CASR Part 47 — Registration of Aircraft and Related Matters Advisory Circular AC47-01(3)

 

4. BACKGROUND

 

4.1 Under section 20AA of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 a person must not fly an aircraft

 

within Australian territory unless the aircraft is registered or exempted from registration

 

under regulation 47.015 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR).

 

4.2 CASR 47.015 - Requirement for aircraft to be registered

 

4.2.1 For paragraph 20AA (1) (b) of the Act, an aircraft is required to be registered unless

 

it is one of the following:

 

(a) an aircraft that is not intended to be used as an aircraft;

 

(b) an aircraft that, under Subpart 200.B of CASR, is exempt from Part 47 regulations;

 

© an unmanned free balloon;

 

(d) a permanently tethered balloon;

 

(e) a kite;

 

(f) a model aircraft;

 

(g) a parachute;

 

(h) a rocket;

 

(i) a UAV other than a large UAV;

 

(j) an aircraft that is registered under the law of a foreign country referred to in

 

subregulation (2);

 

(k) an aircraft that satisfies all the following conditions:

 

i. it has been manufactured in Australia for delivery outside Australia to a foreign

 

operator;

 

ii. it is registered under the law of a foreign country, be a Contracting State to the

 

Chicago Convention or any other foreign country with which Australia has an

 

agreement that allows an aircraft registered under the law of that country to be

 

operated in Australia;

 

iii. it displays nationality and registration marks in accordance with the law of that

 

country;

 

iv. it has no certificate of airworthiness issued, or rendered valid, under the law of

 

that country;

 

v. it is flown within Australia only for a purpose mentioned in paragraph

 

21.197 (1) (b) or © – Special flight permits for delivering and exporting of

 

aircraft or for production flight testing new aircraft.

 

AC 47-01(3): Registration of Aircraft and Related Matters 3

 

Revised October 2009

 

4.2.2 For paragraph (1) (j) and subparagraph (1) (k) (ii), the foreign countries are:

 

(a) the Contracting States; and

 

(b) any other foreign country with which Australia has an agreement that allows an

 

aircraft registered under the law of that country to be operated in Australia.

 

Subpart 200B CASR is just a list of aircraft types that are either military, required to be registered by other governing bodies eg RAAus, foreign, etc. No mention of private land or airspace. No joy there.

 

 

[icebob]

Hi Sue,

 

some good points but .. (1) we know what makes an RAA aircraft registered in the eyes of CASA but why is it not in these regulations too (2) where in the CASA regs does it say "current" registration only certificate of airworthiness. (3) say I purchase an old C150, it has certificate of airworthiness and rego and i just fly it around my farm for the next ten years, by the way i read the regulations i am legal???? now for the sake of this say i purchase a (sorry guys) drifter from you and fly it up to my farm and just fly around the farm for the next ten years not join RAA after that first year, who will know?

 

I have not seen any evidence of a follow up of aircraft rego's to see who/what is active or current or just a pile of sticks in the shed, how can anyone tell from the RAA database, there is no documented evidence that can be presented at law that I could find?

 

Bob.

 

 

[Admin]

Guys, I think this thread is opening a can of worms in terms of legality. No one here wants to promote ANY kind of illegal flying in any way whatsoever and if the law states basically that CASA control anything that goes against gravity then that is the law and which this site promotes and stands by...however, you the users of this site have the rights not to have your freedom of speech curtailed in any way as well (within the site's rules)...let's act professionally before we hit the submit button :big_grin:

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes there's no point fighting bad behaviour with bad behaviour, and public liability will take you out if you make a mistake anyway - just counterproductive - remember the most public fatality a fgew months ago? We don't want to go there.

 

 

[icebob]

Hi Ian,

 

Thank you for defending the freedom of speech of us all.

 

First up i would like to say i do not condone the unregistered flyer's or in the words of others the cowboy, I would much rather see in the first instance a re education of that person than a prosecution but most times regrettably we do not get to find out why this flier is unregistered and how we all could of helped that to not happen.

 

I think we all agree that the regulations issued by CASA are by and large written by lawyers for lawyers and in some cases more difficult to understand than an insurance policy.

 

To me the basic premise of this thread is should those registered fliers who fly tube and rag aircraft only be charged more in fees because of the higher performance aircraft coming onto the register? Is this fair to all or should there be set classes or groups of aircraft that attract their own and maybe slightly higher registration fee.

 

Is there a portion of the fee increase because of the higher performance aircraft or just the usual costs of living?

 

Should high drag low performance aircraft get a reduction in fees at all and if so what type of aircraft are they?

 

The last question for you Ian - what if anything is the board doing about aircraft on the register that have not paid annual fees for for some time, is there a follow up of some kind, do we know is the aircraft flying, under restoration or just a pile of sticks in the back of the shed, I have asked HQ and could not get a definitive answer.

 

Bob.

 

 

[Guest rocketdriver]

Pardon me if I missed something, but there seems to be a case being put that the increased fees are due to higher sppeeds, weights, CTA approvals etc. I can't see that. Why would these changes in our privelidges cause an increasein the costs of operating our association? Would it not be more likely that costs have increased due to recent past lack of budgets and lack of expenditure discipline?

 

 

[icebob]

Hi Rocketdriver,

 

Yes i see it that way too but on the first post that is not what the questions were, looks like we all got a little of topic - me too.

 

Bob.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Is there a portion of the fee increase because of the higher performance aircraft or just the usual costs of living?

As John McK posted on the "future of Board Members" thread:

 

"...gone from a surplus of around $400K in F09 (adjusted down to around $350K due to an outstanding bill) to a significant loss for F2011"

 

I'd have to say this bombshell was a little more than CPI costs and very worrying for us all.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

From my layman's reading of what I have found so far - it appears that an aircraft must be registered even if wholely contained within the boundaries of your property.

 

GA aircraft have a perpetual registration with no renewal fees, to de-register requires advising CASA that it will no longer fly and surrendering rights to the VH-letters

 

RAAus aircraft have to be renewed each year and can become unregistered by the non payment of fees, the rego number is preserved and can be re-activated.

 

There are a finite list of aircraft that do not require Australian GA registration in CASR 47 and 200B. Nowhere does it allude to exemption over the owner's freehold land's airspace. RAAus aircraft are exempt from GA registration under 200B because they are required to be registered by RAAus. Civil Aviation Order 95 (CAO.95) gives that exemption from things like PPL, GA rego etc. and delegates this responsibility to RAAus. The RAAus ops manual does not state any exemptions from registration (Section 4.09 - Registration & Markings) for aircraft. RAAus introduced dated rego cards to curb the incidence of people flying lapsed aircraft (or at least make them identifiable)

 

I'll put in the usual disclaimer - that there could be some overriding legislation in relation to land/air ownership rights. Given that CASA is commonwealth law, which overrides State & Local Laws and most land law is State controlled, it seems unlikely (but not out of the question). CASA does deal with it but more in the context of getting permission to do something in that airspace, not exempting it from regulations.

 

Now, I'll stop playing bush lawyer. I have asked someone who should know, to give me chapter and verse; so when I get it I will put it here. Until then you may happily fly a kite, UAV, model, military plane on Defence Force business, overseas registered maque etc; all without Australian Rego, legally.

 

Sue

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Regarding lower fees for rag & tube - we pay $50 for our single seaters and $100 for our two seater. I guess part of that is insurance, but it still is lower.

 

I am treasurer for a number of organisations; and the state of affairs with RAAus is concerning. I think there is truth in some earlier posts that suggest the Bureaucracy is running the show, rather than the Board. Its a temptation as organisations get bigger, especially in a monopoly when membership is compulsory. I've seen it happen in Local Government where waste happens because it is so easy to pass it on to ratepayers. The Board needs to take some control.

 

If good people want to stand for election they need to get the word out. Unfortunately I get to vote for a paragraph or two that says "hey, I fly lots of things..." and not much more. This site would help, and taking full advantage of RAAus opportunities pre-election (the A4 page) and getting out to meet the troops would help. I am guilty of voting for someone simply because I knew the name (but not the man), or when I didn't, it was because he was the sitting member. A good photo goes a long way with those who don't know you. I was rather surprised at how young Darky looked in her photo and that probably went against her. We are, on average, about 55yrs old. I would like to see some younger representation on the Board with new ideas and in tune with the pilots of the next 20 years.

 

I want to move to SA so I can vote for Basscheffers - he was keen enough to volunteer to organise a Western Fly-in when I raised the idea - so I think he has the goods.

 

Sue

 

 

[Yenn]

I am happy to see that some listen to my point of view and no doubt some don't. What I would really like to know is, how much have fees risen over the years since AUF started and how does that compare with inflation? Also would we be a viable organisation if we had not encouraged the other than 95-10 owners to join? I doubt that we would still exist as the number of 95-10 planes flying is a very small proportion of our total. Would we even be viable if we only had 95-10 and slow draggy planes like Drifters and Thrusters? Will we be able to exist with one group of members blaming the other group for all their problems? Will CASA take us seriously? Do you even care if CASA takes us seriously.

 

What I see is a group of disaffected members, who don't vote or if they do, they don't have the voting power to get their point of view passed. We live in a democracy and expect things to be run democraticly, so we have to have our say and accept the majority decision. If we don't like it we can always leave the organisation. I can't see any reason that we can't build our own 95-10 style of aircraft and fly it under CASA regulations with GA rego.

 

 

[turboplanner]

While I can see good reasons for having a layered membership, it's more for safety - getting the right regulation for the right class of aicraft.

 

I don't see any difference in administration

 

However, there may be incoming costs from CASA depending how far the top end goes, and by separating classes, you can apply those costs to the applicable classes.

 

But we aren't there yet.

 

On the other hand your point is quite valid, we always should be looking at cost patterns, and asking questions.

 

We can now get to Japan on Jetstar for less that $500.00 and we never could have done that if we'd just taken the old QANTAS fares and added CPI inflation.

 

I've said a few times, it's not the increase in subscription cost alone which is the issue, because your right - that's about an hour's flying per year.

 

What is the danger is the increased cost of food, flood tax levy, peak oil driven fuel price increases, carbon tax etc. which within 18 months will change the shape of our budgets, so now is more the time for Associations to be cost cutting than escalating.

 

 

[Admin]

Ian for the record, I do not believe any of us who are discussing this issue are promoting illegal flying, I am certainly not. What I am exploring is whether or not certain specific activities are in fact covered by any regulations.David

Covering thy butt David...on previous occasions there was/is an engine manufacturer called R otec that kept running to CASA and RAAus saying that I should be kicked out of the RAAus as I was, through this site, promoting illegal flying for not deleting your posts that breached flying rules, however we all know that the site is self moderating and further posts from users always highlight the fact that a post is illegal flying but they don't include those follow on posts to CASA etc...just trying what they can to get me and this site into trouble. So, it is better for me to just remind everyone from time to time when legality questions come up that there is legal and illegal flying and this site does not promote illegal flying in any way but at the same time it hopes to allow you your freedom of speech (within the site rules)...just another day at the office

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

RAAus fees over the years

 

When you have a look at the fees over the years there hasn't been much change (ignoring GST) there has been no change in 20 years in aircraft rego, and about double in 19 years in membership, some of which would be insurance. I checked the RAAus site for fees and they have gone up: pilot $185, single seat $65, two seat $130.

 

The following figures have been taken from our receipts:

 

Flying member / pilot

 

2010 $160.00

 

2009 $160.00

 

2008 $160.00

 

2007 $160.00

 

2006 $145.75

 

2005 $145.75

 

2003 $145.75

 

2002 $145.75

 

2001 $145.75 incl GST

 

2000 $138.22 ($132.50? - might include another item)

 

1999 $127.50

 

1998 $127.50

 

1996 $75.00

 

1995 $75.00

 

1994 $75.00

 

1993 $75.00

 

1992 $75.00

 

1991 $55.00

 

1990 $45.00

 

1989 $35.00

 

1988 $70.00 (included rego so I guess it was about $35.00)

 

Aircraft rego single seat - hasn't gone up since 1990 (2 seat is twice the price)

 

2010 $55.00

 

2000 $55.00 10% GST

 

1990 $50.00 fee hike

 

1989 $25.00

 

I have full schedules of fees from 1992 & 1993 if anyone was interested in comparing CFI, School, initial, student etc fees.

 

Sue

 

 

[turboplanner]

Around 1988 the memberships would probably have been processed manually by typewriter; I can remember writing BASIC programs for databasing around that time.

 

Since then we have progressed to computer databases, and now to online databasing where the member is prompted to pay, pays, and updates his own details on the central database.

 

So that area is a lot less labour intensive and should have come down in price rather than increase with the price of meat, eggs etc

 

Other costs, such as investigations may have gone up.

 

Another factor is what savings, if any have come from economies of scale in member growth, let's say from 1500 to 10,000, which has the effect of substantially reducing the per member cost for fixed items.

 

Yet another factor is whether additional functions are being carried out by RAA, what their cost is and whether they are necessary.

 

And so on

 

When ALL these factors are taken into account it's then possible to see the more complex curve and optimise the cost for members

 

I'm just giving you some ballparks here, I'm not saying the fees are above cost or below cost

 

What I am saying is that clear transparent processes are required.

 

Of all sections of the community, we along with 4x4, rallying, motor racing, caravanning are about to cop it in the neck the most due to:

 

(a) The Peak Oil date having been passed guaranteeing hefty fuel cost increases until we go electric

 

(b) CO2 emission penalties (even though today's cars and trucks only emit about 20% of the particulates of factories)

 

By comparison, if your hobby is sailing, walking, biking etc, you may even be in for rewards like infrastructure improvements and tax concessions

 

As a pastime with a perceived elevated we've been helped over the Public Liability hump by the insurance companies who've expanded their businesses and given us affordable policies.

 

So we don't want to be adding any straws to our backs which are not absolutely necessary.

 

 

[eightyknots]

When people fly around unregistered and something happens to them it is the entire ultralight fraternity that gets a bad name in the press. Therefore, it's really important for everyone to be registered.

 

I'm currently living in Enzed as can be seen by the flag under my name which indicates my location NOT my nationality. What they do in New Zealand is to have two ultralight clubs (or, as they call it "microlight" organisations). You have a choice to join one or the other. The fees are different but the respective organisations have different emphases. What about a specific separate club for 95-10 style of aircraft if CASA legislation permits this, and then another for the remainder of Australian ultralights? Alternatively, what about a 95-10 style aircraft sub-branch system within the RA-Auf?? Owners who are members of the sub-branch dealing with 95-10 style of aircraft could then have representation on the RA-Auf board chosen to represent their sub-branch.

 

I am sure something can be done to accommodate all kinds of sub-544kg recreational aircraft.

 

 

[Guernsey]

What you are saying Eightyknots was put forward many times by Col Winton back in the 80's as he could see the way the Auf was heading.

 

Whilst the idea seems good to me I would be interested to know how many 95-10 aircraft would be in this group. The numbers are certainly

 

reducing rapidly which is such a shame. Possibly your idea if taken up could encourage the production of these type of aircraft, I believe the

 

demand is there. Alan ex 95-10 aircraft owner.

 

 

[winsor68]

I reckon if the 95.10 aircraft were available the market would be there. Now... which manufacturer is prepared to release a sub $25000 fly away 95.10 machine to test the waters?

 

 

[winsor68]

Those little Sapphire's are a $40 000 aeroplane if factory built. What is needed is something much simpler that can be tacked together in 100 hours... perhaps something more akin to the single seat Thruster/Mustang style.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

When the change was made from AUF to RAAus i had a disscussion with a board member at the Narromine fly in. I was told that if ever needed that the 'AUF' was not dissolved and could be brought back into operation. Maybe this should be looked at. Also the same with the MAFA when the membership was rolled over into the AUF it was never officially disbanded. But if it came back it would have to go through the incorperation B/S.

 

So technically it could be brought back into play as well if CASA could be convinced to allow it. The last MAFA treas/sec still has the books and some money. Tim Campbell informed me of this just before he past away 2 years ago.

 

David when i became aware of the dirty deeds being played out in Canberra i went thru both the CASA regs and the RAAus regs to see if there was a way out. CASA own all the airspace from 0ft upward. Just like the govenment own whatever is under your land. I looked at trying to get into the HGFA nanolight cat., i fit weight wise but the term 'weightshift' identifies their aircraft. And anyway they seem more politically messed up than the RAAus. With CASA the lawyers did a really good job closing the option of 'parrallel paths' and the AUF rule of exemption of membership where you just had to write a letter to CASA and tell them that for whatever reason you did not want to be part of the AUF you would abide by their ops manual and that exempted you from joining. Loop holes all closed now. About the only things you can fly now without BS are foam park flyer rc models. Park flyers are graded by weight and power. Kites are pretty regulated as well on where you can fly them, how high and size. Model rockets same. So as the old saying goes we have to 'sit on the pot and S##t' according to their rules.

 

'Australia land of the free, girt by sea and there is no escape'.

 

Ozzie

 

ozzie

 

 

[turboplanner]

Very interesting Oz, consider this hypothetical:

 

A poster recently suggested that if the RAA ceased to exist, we would not comply with CASA's regulations and so we would all be grounded.

 

Now he may be right and he may be wrong, but let's say that is the case.

 

So far no director has denied the RAA is bleeding at the rate reported

 

Several posters have said they were happy tol wait perhaps months for the current analysis to be completed

 

Maybe the RAA has a very big pot of cash reserves, and can wait for the report, then wait for the next meeting to discuss it and put corrective action in motion

 

To me it's the classic training scenario for new Executives who've shown some promise - Do you wait, then maybe not have the time to fix the problem, or to you move now. The current majority is for waiting.

 

So what if the pot runs out?

 

Well, members could be hit with a levy or series of levies, and that will go down like a lead balloon

 

Or...

 

I stress this is just a hypothetical, with no base figures, but I guess you can dream Oz.

 

 

[Guernsey]

There is also another problem with 95-10, where do you get an engine for them, all the popular small two strokes are no longer being

 

produced or being phased out and new design replacements are too expensive. I should have kept my Winton Swing Wing and my Tyro

 

the latter being fully certified. Alan.