Should RAAus be split into "grass roots" and "high performance?"

[Powerin]

Recently and over the years the subject of RAAus returning to it's grass roots has come up. I only know bits and pieces of the history of RAAus and the AUF and I understand the desire of some to return to the heady days of cheap, experimental grass roots flying.

 

I am an aluminium fantastic flyer. I've always wanted to fly, but the original grass roots ultralight never appealed to me and even less to my wife and family due to the perceived safety factor. I can see the attraction of low, slow and cheap flying. But for me, apart from the pure joy of it, flying is a chance to learn new things and see new places...but faster than a car.

 

It's easy to say that pilots like me should just go GA, but that's something I could never have afforded. If it wasn't for the high performance end of RAAus I wouldn't be flying at all. I would guess there are many like me. Should pilots like me be excluded from flying altogether?

 

 

[pudestcon]

Hang on Pow, We want you here so you ain't excluded alright?

 

Gotta say though that I fear the rag and tube end of the spectrum (my end) may get lost in the hurly burly noise of the high performance aircraft and extra privileges (CTA?) we have acquired and will continue to acquire.

 

I voted for no split - just one organisation is enough.

 

Pud

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

We almost need a poll on what constitutes "rag & tube" but I think it will just illustrate what has happened to RAA/AUF in that people want more and more so the definition creeps upwards over time to include more advanced types. Two people I know who are vocal about Rag & Tube both fly aircraft I wouldn't consider in that category. But I am sure if you asked them to be a member of two organisations rather than one they would baulk at the idea.

 

Sue

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So I fly trikes, and a J230. If we split then I would have to belong to two organisations with double the costs. I vote no for that reason and the belief that anything that dillutes our numbers is not fundamentally good.

 

The artificial split that is being discussed is rag and tube vs faster aircraft. Why only that distinction, lets have a high wing org and a low wing org, or as in the case of my 2, a pusher and a puller configuration, or perhaps aircraft that need a prepared strip vs ones that can land anywhere. There are enormous differences available to us and it seems silly to me to use those differences to try and segregate us. Im not at all convinced that "cheaper flying" will ultimately be available to the "rag and tube" brigade anyway, the posts I saw specified membership without magazine and any savings, if they eventuate are likely because of the magazine than anything else.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[shags_j]

I joined RAAus to fly the LSA types as a cheaper alternative than GA. I just didn't really know what I was signing up to when I did (I didn't realise all the differences) but am happy that I have gone that way.

 

CTA would be nice, but I am happy to do my GA to get it, Weight increase would be nice but only out of safety, not to allow some of the bulkier old GA aircraft in.

 

I voted No of course. I can see this as being one of the divisive factors in RAAus in the coming years.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I have voted No.But I do know of a few guys who just want to fly around private property, minding their own business in 95-10 aircraft. Maybe we should look at a seperate Low Performance, single seat only Pilot certificate at a cheaper annual cost.

 

 

[Piet Fil]

I get confused by the statement " that rag and tube will be lost" (some would say its not hard to confuse me). Has the CAO 95.10 been changed or proposed to be changed? I can't remember seeing anything on this anywhere on the net that I can find. What's stopping those that want a rag and tube going that way? I just may be missing something that underpins the "perceived threat".

 

Phil

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

It might be worth asking our Board Members for the cost break up for pilot and rego.

 

From the RAA website - a pilot is $185 per year. A magazine subscription is $66, a non-flying member is $100. So I guess there's admin (or whatever) of $34 ($100-$66) and additional pilot related costs of $85 ($185-$100).

 

Aircraft rego is $65 per seat. Single seat $65, two seat $130. There would be some for insurance, admin, etc. Whether the costs are equally apportioned or perhaps a single seat is dearer per seat for insurance - only someone in the organisation could say - and they may not want to. I would guess there is some cross subsidisation one way or the other.

 

Sue

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Mixing up the meaning of the terms rag tube and grass roots just adds to the confusion. Rag tube is just a construction method albeit the most common in the infancy. Just concentrate on the 'grass roots' bit. easier. Grass Roots in my meaning is a period in time. From around 1974 till 1983. The ultralights were known as Minimum Aircraft and operated under the then ANO95:10. Quite a bit different to todays CAO version of the same. Basically 400lb all up weight and 4lbs per foot wing loading and pretty much anything goes as far as airframe and motivation. No rego no licence. limited to 300ft and a couple of other little things. Entire copy on the ANO was just two A4 pages.

 

Option was there to teach yourself and for some reason this brings about shock and horror from todays crusaders. but to be really fair there were probably very few that never had a lesson somewhere along the way. Most already had some form of aviation background earlier, be they retired commercial etc or current hang glider pilots just transitioning to power. Teaching yourself wasn't as dangerous as it sounds. But we all know that accidents do happen. Though no where near the rate of accidents occuring at the same time in hang gliding or skydiving. The main problem came from two seaters and 'fat' minimums that wanted to go places higher faster. That was where all the bad press came from. Once the AUF established itself the ANO was changed several times in a few years that always included weight increases and had several more tune ups over the years including the CAO version.

 

Just by increasing the weight and easing the restrictions on altitude and cross country in the ANO 95:10 regulation, it started the 'natural progression' to what we have now. If the ANO had been left alone as it should have been and new orders made up to accomodate the fat boys right then instead of the bandaid fix we would still have a low cost/regulated form of aviation. Very similar to the US FAR103. I still do what i did back during those grass roots years. Not lost to me. I just resent having to pay money to do it. Where grass roots is really lost is the way the operating regs are in many ways not conductive to low and slow. Really lost is having to pay 6/7000 dollars just to get legal to get into an early rag and tube worth half that much. For grass roots to make a big comeback it will require cutting out the middle man, a more realistic rewrite of the regs or a really good economy collapse.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Thanks Ozzie,

 

Lets use the term "Minimum Aircraft". Single seat, 400lb all up weight (approx 180kg).

 

To release this segment from undue regulation, these days, would be a big battle. CASA/AUF pointed to the high fatality rate and claimed that extra regulation reduced this. Then the higher end of the aviation industry would be crying "Shock, Horror" unlicenced, unregulated, untrained, unsafe, uncertified, un, un, un, aircraft sharing my airspace, landing area etc.

 

There's a need to put a workable solution on the table. We could argue better, more reliable engines, knowledge, staying away from certified ALAs, flying training, etc. Reduced surveilance (if it stays under RAA) and reduced cost.

 

So what can be put forward to free up Minimum aircraft and their pilots?

 

Sue

 

 

[Piet Fil]

Ozzie,

 

Thanks for the reply, it clears a lot up for me. I suppose not having been aware of the progression from the early days and what was there made it harder for me to understand the issue.

 

Ta Phil

 

 

[shags_j]

Let's be realistic here. The costs for membership and for registering seem to be extremely minimal. You can compare them all you want to flying hours but in all reality it's still only a couple of hundred dollars.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Shags

 

The cost of membership/insurance is a bit steep for what these aircraft are. As most of them operate on private property and away from the public and their property then maybe a realistic decrease would help. Rego should be a admin cost only if it really needed to be issued.

 

The main cost for a newbie that wanted to fly one is the expense of obtaining pilot certification. Some training should be conducted in the pilots own machine as soon as possible to lower the cost. How much does it cost to get a certificate these days.

 

Maybe we should follow the Americans. When they sat down to address this problem it was all up against the wall until some bright spark suggested that ultralights be known as Recreational Vehicles and not classed by the FAA as aircraft. All that was then required of the FAA was to draw up the requirements as to what a Recreational Vehicle actually is and where and when it could be operated. IE. under 265lbs empty fixed rotary or powered, non powered or lighter than air are all classed as Ultralight Recreational Vehicles. If fitted with a flashing light they can fly right up to civilian twilight, thats about 40 minutes after last light. max 5 us gallons keeps everyone close to home or each cross country leg is short. The only thing stopping a similar class here is the attitude of those who make the rules.

 

As for the supposed high accident rate. When things were in limbo there were many people that were waiting for things to become legal so they could buy an approved type aircraft and get some training. Most of the serious accidents occured just after 1983 when the AUF just started, whoohoo many said and charged off and thought that being 'legal' automatically meant they were safe. Well it just did not work out that way for some. For a time it took very little to become an instructor and a lot of 'fly by nighters' came out of the woodwork thinking they could buy a Thruster or Drifter and set up school and make a motza training and selling aircraft. May have worked better if most of them had some solid background and experience and there were some two place accidents. But most of the fatalities and accidents were from poorly trained pilots that were the type of person that really needed some expert instruction or the recomendation that they should take up chess. The Newton report did not really acknowledge this and it was written for politicians. The report was angled and driven towards the percieved need for regulation and training and certified training aircraft. (There was so much effort put into classing the heavier and two seat ultralights that the real Minimums were caught up in the race and they have been ever since.) It had to start somewhere. Once they sorted out training instructors things settled down. But for some they got caught out by a brand new game that was still writing the rules as they went along.

 

As i said before there were only a handfull of accidents in true minimum aircraft.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[winsor68]

In my experience many of the current CFI/Instructors are not willing to fly or instruct people to fly Rag and Tube Ultralights any more... there is a need for this to be addressed in my opinion... perhaps a seperate body would assist this?

 

 

[Teckair]

In my experience many of the current CFI/Instructors are not willing to fly or instruct people to fly Rag and Tube Ultralights any more... there is a need for this to be addressed in my opinion... perhaps a seperate body would assist this?

The problem is there are almost no instructors capable of flying tailwheel or rag and tube ultralights as the movement has lost its original direction of affordable flying. Rag and tube aircraft are classed as 'Low Performance' which in its self is a put down in my opinion. When it comes to short field, rough airstrips and affordability rag and tube are high performance. There are people out there that think as they learnt in a 'High Performance' aircraft they would have no trouble flying a 'Low Performance' aircraft when in reality nothing could be further from the the truth. In my opinion it takes more skill to fly a Thruster than a Jabiru. As someone else has said an economic collapse could change all this.

 

 

[winsor68]

Its has always been my opinion that the current situation is in for a real death spiral very shortly... nothing to do with a GFC or anything... I reckon there will be a BIG reality check soon.

 

Who except retired "Baby Boomers", miners or other wealthy professions can justify the cost of a $100 000 machine????!!!! The Baby Boomers are a dying breed, the miners are finding out their idea to fly to work just doesn't work (not effective to justify $100k) and well... the wealthy dudes just love their toys and always have but wont support a practical recreational flying industry in Australia.

 

 

[winsor68]

It is guys like me who who the Ra-Aus and suppliers need to be marketing towards... 40 something... average income... a real desire to fly but a financial situation that won't stretch to $150 an hour just to hire an aeroplane that at that price I can't take anywhere... and there are hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of me's out there... as opposed to a few thousand of the other sort and shrinking... if this isn't addressed (suppliers always claim they are listening to the market- what market!) we will be back where we were 40 years ago... this will become a wealthy man's playground (it mostly already has).

 

 

[Teckair]

Yeah sadly what you say is correct Winsor. In 1987 I was 32 yo and had been flying models as that was all I could afford. I had the impression that ultralights were dangerous as they had a very bad name at that time but one day I saw some up close and got the bug. I bought a second hand single place Chinook for $3,000 which I learnt to fly in, the undercarriage got wiped off a few times and there were some wild ground loops but I soon learned not to do that. At that time there were no flying schools in the Cairns region and you did not need a license / pilot certificate. A year later I had an instructor rating and then became a CFI all without doing any flying lessons. I would like to see a revival of affordable flying as I feel the system is letting people like you down. I am not suggesting a return to self instruction, as I was probably lucky to get away with that, but rather a change in attitude towards affordable flying.

 

 

[winsor68]

I propose that Ra-Aus sticks with what it seems to have become about ( I would like to say does best but... sorry they have some big hurdles to overcome) .... Commercial Flying Operations. If they concentrate on this they may be able to get it right.... I have no problem paying $10k for a license to risk my own neck... but paying $150 plus an hour to hire an aeroplane is absurd on my budget... better to spend another $10k outright on a simple 95.10 ultralight and just pay for fuel... no different to the motorcycle I have in the garage...

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Its a reality that we live in a society where litigation is becoming more and more of an option. It wasnt all that many years ago that no one had heard of lawyers who would litigate for only a (substantial) share in the outcome. No win, no costs.

 

So with that changing how many can instruct in the type of Aircraft that Ozzie and Teckair talk about and get the necessary insurances to ensure that their livelihood and families arent at risk...... The larger aircraft seeme to be fine from an insurance perspective but Im not sure the same is true of the "minimum Aircraft".

 

If I was a Flying Instructor I wouldnt teach unless I could have the full spectrum of necessary insurance available to me to protect me and my family. Insurance is not cheap and people probably wouldnt then pay what is necessary to cover those costs. You can put liability waivers etc all you like in front of students and get them to sign but in the end its not likely that its actaully the student who will sue, rather their relatives and or family and the waivers have been shown time and again to be at best weak protection.

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I propose that Ra-Aus sticks with what it seems to have become about ( I would like to say does best but... sorry they have some big hurdles to overcome) .... Commercial Flying Operations. If they concentrate on this they may be able to get it right.... I have no problem paying $10k for a license to risk my own neck... but paying $150 plus an hour to hire an aeroplane is absurd on my budget... better to spend another $10k outright on a simple 95.10 ultralight and just pay for fuel... no different to the motorcycle I have in the garage...

Winzor, I know this has been touched on before, but the reality is that unless your an absolute adict, recreational flying isnt right for a person with a young family (from a logic and financial perspective alone) unless that person is in a very well paying job. Its just reality that when your young and have a young family there arent too many spare $ lying around to be consumed by aerial black holes as far as $ are concerned. Theres a reason why this sport is the domain of the over 40's and its not because young cant enjoy the thrill of flight.....

 

 

[winsor68]

Hi Andy... that is my whole point... The current generation of baby boomers are the last of that generation. It isn't going to last. I see plenty of younger family people who take up motorcycling, buy a tinnie etc etc This is where the BIG market is going to be in my opinion. When my generation retires there will be no talk of "Self funded retires" with massive super payouts to buy toys because we will all be Self Funded Retires. If we don't do it now it aint worth didly squat... If someone wants the dollars then make Recreational Flying for the everyday man... who would happily swap the motorcycle or boat for a Ultralight flying machine that tows behind the car.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Yeah sadly what you say is correct Winsor. In 1987 I was 32 yo and had been flying models as that was all I could afford. I had the impression that ultralights were dangerous as they had a very bad name at that time but one day I saw some up close and got the bug. I bought a second hand single place Chinook for $3,000 which I learnt to fly in, the undercarriage got wiped off a few times and there were some wild ground loops but I soon learned not to do that. At that time there were no flying schools in the Cairns region and you did not need a license / pilot certificate. A year later I had an instructor rating and then became a CFI all without doing any flying lessons. I would like to see a revival of affordable flying as I feel the system is letting people like you down. I am not suggesting a return to self instruction, as I was probably lucky to get away with that, but rather a change in attitude towards affordable flying.

Teckair,

You and I must be a similar age, I was 33 in '87. I learned to fly at age 16 and went solo that age. I discovered 'minimum' aircraft (a more correct term to differentiate the early rag and tube machines) in the early 80's, much to the disgust of my GA mates. Nevertheless I continued to fly them and thoroughly enjoyed it for a few years. I had the advantage that I was GA trained and I had to teach myself to fly these early low inertia machines. In those days they were all 95-10 single seaters and you had to be self taught or at least instructed from the sidelines. There was also some pretty bad techniques taught as you would know.

 

In those days the early designers like Frank C. Bailey (now deceased) wrote books on 'minimum aircraft. Franks book "Understanding and Flying Ultralights - A Complete Guide to Minimum Aircraft" was an excelent book on teaching the fundamental principles of designing and flying minimum aircraft.

 

From there came the 2 seat Thrusters and then the Drifters, both great teaching aircraft, the Thruster being the far greater 'handful' of the two. But that was the early rag and tube days. These aircraft, particularly Frank Baileys designs like the STOLaero, Condor, Mustang, Javelin and Jeep were single surface wing types. They had huge control surfaces and were designed to be flown low and slow, after all, we were not allowed above 300' then and were not allowed to cross roads either. They were the early days. These aircraft were absolutely safe at low level, because they were slow and stalled typically below 20 knots; the Mustang stalled at 15 from memory. They were very much smooth air machines, no gust handling capacity. Double surface wings came with the Thrusters and Drifters and crusie speeds increased to 50 knots and things started to change ultimately to the plastic fantastics we have today.

 

I voted NO to separating the organisations, because there is power in numbers; but on the basis that the two or many variables can co-exist. There are some inequities; why should a pilot and a single seat 95-10 type that never leaves the farm paddock be subject to the same costing regimes as the 'higher performance' machines. I'll admit this is difficult one because if you have a Sapphire with a little 447 in it you can readily cross country in it, they perform well, but compare that with an early machine like my Javelin which stalls at aboput 19, cruises at about 35 and VNEs at 45. You aint going nowhere fast in the Javelin, but boy are they fun flying around the farm and you are less likey to hurt yourself pranging in at say 35 in a four point harness and a motor in front than coming off the farm bike at lower speeds.

 

We need to survey the membership for the 'minimum' type of application. I believe there is a good resurgent market for 2 seat Thrusters and Drifters in the training categories, but we have to get their cost base down, so that we can differentiate the costings for minimum type ultralights.

 

 

[Doug Evans]

I vote No but for one team we should be for strenght in numbers !

 

but should have branches EG : 300 /544/600/KG LSA

 

and price acordling ?

 

Doug

 

 

[Teckair]

David I agree with what you say, I think the issue here is affordability for people like winsor, the organisation has changed direction and now people cannot do what we did. It has been suggested that people in his position should not expect to afford to go flying which I think is a bit rich as we know it can be done.

 

In the early days I used to let people do their solo flying in there own 9510 aircraft, under strict supervision of course, which worked fine and was much more affordable for the student, but that got banned.

 

Many people who have learnt in a Jabiru, Tecnam or that style of aircraft look down on minimum aircraft and consider them to be second rate and inferior. This poor attitude is not helped by what I think is a inappropriate category name of 'low performance'.

 

As has been said insurance is a problem minimum aircraft are discriminated against it costs around the same to insure a $15,000 Thruster as a $80,000 Jabiru, most people should know where the most financial risk is there.

 

The vote was if RAAus should have grass roots and high performance categories if this was to happen it would still all be with RAAus and we should still have same strength in numbers.

 

Regards Richard.