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

[winsor68]

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.....

This is a GA attitude... this is what Ra-Aus should NOT be...

 

If people think like this Ra-Aus is doomed... if you wan't a rich old boys club go and fly GA... or will that become for the Ultra Rich only?

 

 

[winsor68]

We actually have people talking wanting to give our money in scholarships to young people who want airline or airforce careers!!!??? Since when has it been Ra-Aus 's commercial aim to support the airline industry?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

This is a GA attitude... this is what Ra-Aus should NOT be...If people think like this Ra-Aus is doomed... if you wan't a rich old boys club go and fly GA... or will that become for the Ultra Rich only?

Its not an attitude....Its a reality.

 

Flying is not cheap and if RAA annual registrations/ licensing costs are a stumbling block then they pale into insignificance against the cost of aircraft ownership or plain old rentals by the hour.

 

Bottom line is that if the $200- $300pa for lic plus rego is a problem then your issue isnt with RAA is more broad than that.

 

If that comes across elitest then Im sorry I dont mean to be, just stating what I see as absolute fact. If you struggle with the $200- $300 then how will you go with the essential timed and on arising maintenance that all aircraft including minimum aircraft need? It seems to me that if the known costs we are talking of are problematic then will the maintenance that is essential, and to an extent unplanned, also get done as it should when it should?

 

Andy

 

P.S just to reiterate, I started with a trike rather than the "all powerful and superior plastic" because it was all I could afford at the time. Its why I call this whole approach a fact rather than an attitude. I also still own the trike and dont at all look down on "minimum aircraft" that would be like a carpenter looking down on a hammer when he had an airgun, both of which he will use.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

We actually have people talking wanting to give our money in scholarships to young people who want airline or airforce careers!!!??? Since when has it been Ra-Aus 's commercial aim to support the airline industry?

Agree and have argued, as I did above that for "Recreational Flying" this does nothing

 

 

[winsor68]

I guess the thread title is a bit limiting... I have no problem with Ra-Aus membership fees personally... I would pay it if it was higher... I have no problem with the cost of getting my certificate... All within reach of the ordinary wage earner if you want it enough... the problem is the ongoing costs associated with the quasi GA aircraft that have been pushed upon us all by the ex GA mob.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

......... the problem is the ongoing costs associated with the quasi GA aircraft that have been pushed upon us all by the ex GA mob.

So I see this claim often, but Ive never seen anyone substantiate it. Teckair suggested a few options but on asking one of the board members he identified that there was a bit of time but no costs....although arguably the time was paid for as wages and therefore time is money. Albeit paid for by a much larger group than otherwise would be the case....

 

Why do you say Ex GA mob, Im not and I know a bunch of owners of J aircraft that learnt to fly soley through the RAA route.

 

Bottom line for me is that if somehow Ive added to your costs, or detracted from your enjoyment then I personally apologise, but in the abscence of any clear proof of that fact I dont think I really need to and I think you guys are making somthing from nothing.

 

Andy

 

 

[winsor68]

Thats OK Andy... there is nothing personal in this...

 

I am guessing that their are a lot of guys flying Ra-Aus who would just as readily be flying GA if Ra-Aus was still a true "ultralight" body. There doesn't seem too much difference to me price wise current Ra-Aus and low end GA (ie private pilot flying C150)...

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

..... 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........

Actually if you read again what I said you'll see that I said Logically and financially you shouldnt be able to afford to go flying............ Which is all well and good if you live by logic or the only drivers other than logic are financial ones.......

 

What most people do, is understand that if they do fly at that stage of their life its because something else in their life has to give way. At that stage of most peoples life there arent too many "big boys toys" $ available and if something has to give way its probably something that "logically and financially" shouldnt be short changed such as mortgage pay down, or a reliable car upgrade or kids orthodontics etc etc.

 

I never said you shouldnt fly when younger just understand and agree within the family, that something else in your families life (ie potentially broader than just you) will suffer.

 

Having said all that I learned to fly at exactly the time we are talking about, work pressures and personality conflicts at the time meant that I flew, changed employers or signed myself into a funny farm. options 2) and 3) judged as being more costly in the long term than 1) was

 

Andy

 

 

[David Isaac]

Guys, Is there any doubt that a CAO 95-25 aircraft are cheaper to buy/build? You can buy a Drifter or a Thruster for <$15,ooo. At the CAO 95-10 end you can buy several different types from $3,000 up depending on condition. You can almost do what you want to the 95-10 category. These type of aircraft are much more affordable than the enclosed higher speed cousins. The problem is there is less instruction available. You can get instruction in a Jab anywhere, not so in a Drifter or Thruster although there may be a resurgence in this area. I know insurers are nervous of two strokes ... but has any risk analysis been done that can point to the failure of two strokes causing death any more than the failure of four strokes. (I don't know the answer to that question). But you can fit a 912 to a Drifter for instruction purposes and own a two stroke privately. This is the real affordable end of Ultralight flying. Surely that is the way to go is it not if cost is a major concern.

 

Hell if you are already GA trained you can even pick up dirt cheap GA aircarft at the bottom end; C150s, Austers, Citabrias all for less than $40,000 and soon there may be no medical costs. GA has no annual rego charge, but you must buy your own insurance. The only real penalties in GA are the LAME costs. RAA may be in pending danger of becoming expensive compared to the future of GA at the RPL end of town if we are not careful.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

An interesting discussion. I voted no because costs for two organisations will be more than for one, so nobody wins.

 

In the two and a half years I've been flying, I'm well on my way to having paid as much for fuel since gaining my Certificate, as it cost me to get the Certificate. Another milestone I'm rapidly headed for is the break-even between hiring and buying my aircraft. Of course there's other factors, like you can't hire a microlight to fly cross-country (except as part of training), but my point is that I have found this new hobby affordable with a second hand low performance aircraft. It wasn't affordable when I was younger, only because there were higher priorities for family expenditure.

 

As a primary category certified aircraft, my XT-912 fits my personal risk profile, and I've paid a premium for that level of comfort. The FTF I attend teaches in four stroke or owner's two stroke. As I'm flying several times a week, I do get to see and meet all the students. The majority are learning in and then buying four stroke powered aircraft, but there are just a few who go the two stroke route. From what I can glean, talking with them, they go two stroke due to cost, not desire.

 

I think the idea of every man and his dog trailing a minimum aircraft behind the car is a tad unrealistic:-

 

• Set-up / tear-down times mean that flying opportunities are more limited. While I could do that, I prefer to pay for hangarage and fly during the week, after work. If I had to Set-up / tear-down, then work days would be out of the question and even weekend opportunities would be scarcer.
   
   
  
• I live in a town with a population of 6,000 and an untowered aerodrome. If even 500 people wanted to fly here, the movements would result in CASA deciding to make the airspace controlled. As it is, it works nicely. Apart from formation flying, a busy circuit contains four or five aircraft, and that does not happen all that often.
   
   
  
• The mind-set of flyers would change. It would be far more populated by cowboys (just look at the issues with Jet Skis), which would change the risk profile and increase insurance costs. Indeed there may be some push to compulsory L2 or LAME maintenance to reduce the number of Bunnings Aerospace bolts being used because they are cheaper and the owners don't know the difference. That would push up maintenance costs.
   
   
  

 

 

I don't think you can put the toothpaste back in the [rag and] tube, so to speak. The world has moved on in OHS, liability etc. FTFs and CFIs will do what is popular, because that is what is good for business. The days when you could lock yourself away in a paddock with a minimum aircraft and ignore the rest of the world, with impunity, are gone. What we have to ensure is that for those people who want to pursue 95.10 building and flying, they can continue to do so. I don't see any actual moves to remove it as an option.

 

If the RAA Board lacks the relevant 95.10 experience or representation, as some have suggested, then perhaps there should be a sub-committee to advise them. Perhaps, even a SIG (Special Interest Group), but that would have to be an on-line one, as obviously members would be scattered all over Oz.

 

 

[Powerin]

Thats OK Andy... there is nothing personal in this...I am guessing that their are a lot of guys flying Ra-Aus who would just as readily be flying GA if Ra-Aus was still a true "ultralight" body. There doesn't seem too much difference to me price wise current Ra-Aus and low end GA (ie private pilot flying C150)...

As I said in my first post win, if RAAus was still a "true" ultralight body I wouldn't be flying now. Although the new RPL may have made a difference.

If you are happy to pay the membership and rego win I can't see the problem, what's stopping you doing whatever you want? There's nothing in the current RAAus structure that prevents you from buying your own $10K aircraft and flying it is there? There's plenty of minimalist aircraft for sale in the member's market.

 

I started this thread to try and work out what the thinking was in this grass-roots vs high-performance debate. So far the arguments seem to come down to keeping RAAus a "workers club" and preventing the "rich old boys" from getting in. It shouldn't be like that (says me the naive country boy ). We're all aviators. I don't care much who flies what sort of aircraft, just as long as we all have the same opportunity to fly under the RAAus banner.

 

 

[Guest bullrout]

(says me the naive country boy ). We're all aviators. I don't care much who flies what sort of aircraft, just as long as we all have the same opportunity to fly under the RAAus banner.

Powerin that is what the debate is about ,Why should someone who flys for fun have to subsidize the old boys club who want ga privliges in an organisation founded on low cost fun flying answer that one please.....

 

 

Quote formatting corrected - Mod

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hell0.What is the cost of a Super Drifter? I think it is around $60 K.If im in the ball park, thats not bad when compared to the average price of a 4WD.

 

Also the Savage Bobber with Rotax 80HP donk is around $65K.

 

I have mentioned these 2 aircraft, because they are 4 stroke and hopfully not to bad with insurance for flying schools or owners.At Boonah Greg Neale's Drifter flew alot when his school first opened.But over the years it was flown less and less as the LSA types came on the scene.As most guys here are aware.When Greg retire from flying and sold the school, the drifter went up to Gympie.Peter Stanton also left Boonah and went to Gympie.He has flown alot of hours and in alot of different Aircraft.He told me that he loves the drifter the best.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

...Why should someone who flys for fun have to subsidize the old boys club who want ga privliges in an organisation founded on low cost fun flying answer that one please.....

Nobody has yet proved that conjecture to be factual. Indeed, the Board response (in another thread) indicated that such a belief is generally unfounded.

Let's get off the bandwagon of the membership being too expensive or the magazine costs too much or that you shouldn't have to pay registration. These costs are a very small percentage of your total flying costs, unless you only fly a few hours per year.

 

 

[coljones]

RPL licence acquisition costs will still be more or less the same as PPL there will be no lessening of ownership costs for the RPL training aircraft and instruction. So if you can't afford to get a PPL now then you probably won't be able to afford to get an RPL.

 

I can't see validity in arguing that members using low performance LP aeroplanes are subsidising high performance HP (or floaties).

 

The registration costs should be the same (within bounds).

 

In most cases there is a 1 to 1 relationship between LP and those who fly them but a many to 1 relationship with HP as there would be more people renting each HP (students, members of clubs etc)

 

Access to CTA does not occupy oodles of CEO or staff time.

 

I suspect the RAAus staff are spending a lot of time keeping and maintaining current opportunities and making sure the regulator doesn't monster any of us.

 

The rest of the cost is insurance and the mag and I can't see any reason for differentials between our classes of aircraft in this area.

 

Cheers

 

Col

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Powerin that is what the debate is about ,Why should someone who flys for fun have to subsidize the old boys club who want ga privliges in an organisation founded on low cost fun flying answer that one please.....

 

 

Quote formatting corrected - Mod

Yet another claim of cross funding which DOESNT EXIST. If your so sure it does, or indeed any of the other people that spout the same B/S please put up or SHUT UP. The claim that those who own and drive the upper end of the performance spectrum (which is a joke in itself, we would be considered low to entry level in GA!!) are rorting you guys just doesnt stand up to any detailed inspection. If you feel it does PROVE IT! or get off that tired and gutless bandwagon.

 

It is true that 95.10 aeroplanes owners for registration have to pay more than the 5c and a bottlecap that they first had to, but in reslity back then a slab of beer was probably 5 for 5c anyway so not really relevant to compare!!! I also dont get it that low performance pilots are always telling us "pleasure in flying isnt about the speed its about the time off the ground" or words to that effect. If that is true and not just more B/S then why should you pay less for registrationr than I do, after all you get more fun than I do!!!! Perhaps its us that are subsidising you?

 

If we look at cars, whether its a Brand new Hyundai or a brand new $300k sportscar the registration component costs the same! of course other costs such as insurnance, owner arranged, cost more but thats the owners choice. (EDIT: on reflection the original comparison between a $500 clunker and a $300k spoortscar while technically true could have been read to infer that LP aircraft = $500 clunker which is not at all what I intend, or think)

 

It seems to me, trying to put the frustration I feel aside, that the claims are completely baseless and in need of some solid proof, if it exists. (EDIT Short man syndrome added nothing to the post and detracted from my credibility, removed)

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest bullrout]

Andy you are a fraud !! why do you fly raa and not ga is it because you cant pass the medical or dont want to pay for the ga privliges that you are constantly lobbying for in canberra =costs 1 board member 4 weeks in canberra ,hire cars motels restuarant feeds ..................where does this money come from?????? ps. if i run into you in the flesh ,you would very quickly realise that NO i am not a short MAN........................................

 

 

[David Isaac]

Folks lets try to not make personal insults. It is quite OK to disagree and emotions can run hot, but can we keep it respectful please. After all we are capable of asking valid questions and challenging reasoning without making personal insults.

 

Thanks.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy you are a fraud !! why do you fly raa and not ga is it because you cant pass the medical or dont want to pay for the ga privliges that you are constantly lobbying for in canberra =costs 1 board member 4 weeks in canberra ,hire cars motels restuarant feeds ..................where does this money come from??????

- I fly because I learnt trikes in a HGFA school and was a HGFA member for years.

 

- I fly RAA now because they provide 95.32 Trike licensing and rego as well as licensing and rego for the J230 as well

 

- Its true I couldnt pass a GA medical....but so what I pass the medical I need to, to fly what I need. (just out of interest why is the medical concern only related to HP aircraft afterall a cardiac event is likely to have tehsame outcome Hor LP.

 

"to pay for the ga privliges that you are constantly lobbying for in canberra " What total B/S, I dont lobby for anything beyond what we have. In fact search for CTA Access posts that I have made and you'll see that I said " I dont want or need Controlled Aispace Access. What I do want is VFR Lanes through controlled airspace for purely safety reasons at places like Coffs." That benefit isnt for HP aircraft only its for all aircraft. How can you possibly claim I lobby for anything???? You dont know me and I dont know you! And to set the record straight I havent lobby'd for anything....ever. initially when part 103 was being discussed I made it clear that on balance I suppported it, with the CTA access it provided, but over time I changed my mind, and that is also in the public domain. In fact it, and all the other comments around CTA are here http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/controlled-airspace.27889/page-2#post-169623

 

Board Members cost us nothing, theirs is not a paid position, and in any event good governance and cotrol means we must have them. The numbers of them are determined by things that dont include style of Aircraft.

 

What is the 4weeks thing you are talking about? If its to do with the AGM then what the hell has that got to do with any of this???

 

Andy

 

Once again a whole series of claims that are like balloons solid on the outside but nothing when you look beneath the surface. Further the moment you look beneath the surface BANG...nothing left!

 

 

[Powerin]

Powerin that is what the debate is about ,Why should someone who flys for fun have to subsidize the old boys club who want ga privliges in an organisation founded on low cost fun flying answer that one please.....

 

 

Quote formatting corrected - Mod

I have no answers...that's why I started the thread. The whole thing puzzles me. I know nothing about these old boys clubs or about lobbying anyone.

In my case I saw a nice aluminium aircraft with numbers on the side at a show a couple years ago. It looked like a solid and safe aircraft. The guy in the tent said he could teach me to fly this aircraft for an amount of money that was far cheaper than anything I had heard of before. Suddenly an impossible dream seemed affordable if I dipped into some savings. So the guy in the tent is now my instructor. I fly for fun.....I just don't fly a minimalist aircraft. Does that make me an "old boy"?

 

 

[David Isaac]

.... Does that make me an "old boy"?

No smart ass ... cause you are toooo bloody young ...

 

[Teckair]

I can't see the minimum ultralight guys winning this one because they are so out numbered.

 

It is no secret that many ex GA pilots and people in general who can't pass a medical or can't afford GA turn to RAAus and then want non minimum aircraft such as Cessnas, Pipers, RVs and even V8 powered spitfires on the RAAus register, this cannot be denied.

 

It is no secret that the AUF and now RAAus has spent time and resources lobbying for things like heavier weight limits, controlled airspace, 10,000 ft and so on all things that have very little to do with affordable minimum ultralights, this cannot be denied.

 

We now have people who think it is OK for owner maintained RAAus aircraft to fly over water and built up areas like Sydney where they can't guide to a emergency landing area, so of course the insurance has to go up. All it will take is for one pilot to have stroke, heart or blackout and hit someone on the ground and everybody will have to have a medical. But what has this got to do with affordable flying? The very basis the movement is supposed to be about.

 

I am both low and high performance so I am not motivated by personal preferences linked to my own personal situation, but rather a situation I feel is wrong. How could you blame the minimum ultralight guys for feeling they are being high-jacked?

 

Regards Richard.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Richard

 

It was more about someone...anyone....substantiating some of the claims made. You provided details so lets go through them:-

 

It is no secret that many ex GA pilots and people in general who can't pass a medical or can't afford GA turn to RAAus and then want non minimum aircraft such as Cessnas, Pipers, RVs and even V8 powered spitfires on the RAAus register, this cannot be denied.

 

Well until I see some proof Im not going to take it at face value. That is not to say I dont agree that there will be some that want this, rather that Im not at all sure that it represents a majority of the side of the artificial split that you guys are suggesting needs to be established that falls on the HP side. But we'll test that theory in another poll. If what you say is true it should reflect in the poll correct?

 

It is no secret that the AUF and now RAAus has spent time and resources lobbying for things like heavier weight limits, controlled airspace, 10,000 ft and so on all things that have very little to do with affordable minimum ultralights, this cannot be denied.

 

I agree with this one, but at the same time still ask the question in what way did the achievment of those things cause the LP team any issues? A current board member who flys LP aircraft has said that they did spend time but very little money to achieve. Like you and I the fact that they did achieve these things provides paths to other flying opportuities, unless you are suggesting that 300ft max and no road crossings is still the way it should be.

 

We now have people who think it is OK for owner maintained RAAus aircraft to fly over water and built up areas like Sydney where they can't guide to a emergency landing area, so of course the insurance has to go up. All it will take is for one pilot to have stroke, heart or blackout and hit someone on the ground and everybody will have to have a medical. But what has this got to do with affordable flying? The very basis the movement is supposed to be about.

 

Let me paraphrase what I read from your words:-

 

"We have people that fly outside the rules now. I cant prove it, but Im going to ascert that it must only be HP related pilots that do that. If the rules actually allow them to do what they are doing then the rules and the pilot are wrong and they should cease immediately. When something goes wrong then even if they are fully following the rules then we'll all be judged badly and it'll be the LP folk that are impacted. The fact that it all started with LP aircraft means that even though things have evolved it should still be all about LP aircraft. In any event despite having no proof to the contrary I'll still suggest that HP cause LP owners to have to pay more.

 

let me point out an incosistency with your logicthat I can see:-

 

In your 2nd para you suggest that its people who couldnt pass a medical that shouldnt be here, and then in the 4th paragraph you suggest that if it all goes wrong we'll all have to have a medical...doesnt that sound like twisted logic to you?? If failing an aviation medical but being fit enough to drive a bigass 4wd is enough to preclude you from RAA then why would an RAA medical be a bad thing? After all how will you know if you could pass unless you sit one?

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

I can't see the minimum ultralight guys winning this one because they are so out numbered.

I must have missed something! What was it they were trying to "Win"? All I've gleaned is that they want a fee reduction.

By the way, which camp am I in? Flying an XT912, it has a fabric wing, is constructed from tube and is classed as Low Performance. Yet, I benefit from being able on occasion to fly above 5,000', although on most occasions, I'm below 3,500'. The heavier weight limit was also a benefit, as I can now carry more fuel along with a PAX. Previously, I had to watch how much fuel was on-board if I had a sturdy PAX. (the aircraft was already capable, just the rule needed to change and a new placard issued by the manufacturer). CTA access isn't a big deal for me, but I understand that there are areas of CTA that create safety issues for RAA aircraft and that a transit lane (not CTA access) would solve the problem. I think you will find that is what is being lobbied for, by RAA, not actual CTA access.

 

It is no secret that many ex GA pilots and people in general who can't pass a medical or can't afford GA turn to RAAus and then want non minimum aircraft such as Cessnas, Pipers, RVs and even V8 powered spitfires on the RAAus register, this cannot be denied.

Looks like the new CASA Recreational Licence is made to order, albeit that it will take time to materialise..... but doesn't everything in aviation.

In respect of the medical. The moves are afoot already to change the rules. There's a big difference between thinking you may not pass a Class 2 medical and actually failing one. The loop-hole where someone who has failed a Class 2 medical but can then self certify to being fit to drive a car will be closed. In the future (don't know when), such a situation will require a medical to certify fitness to drive a car.

 

It is no secret that the AUF and now RAAus has spent time and resources lobbying for things like heavier weight limits, controlled airspace, 10,000 ft and so on all things that have very little to do with affordable minimum ultralights, this cannot be denied.

So, for arguments sake, if I sent you to the corner shop for a litre of milk and while there you bought a block of chocolate for somebody else, I'm subsidising the person who requested the chocolate! While you can argue this way, you could also argue that you were going to the corner shop anyway and had you not bought the block of chocolate, the trip would have cost the same.

 

We now have people who think it is OK for owner maintained RAAus aircraft to fly over water and built up areas like Sydney where they can't guide to a emergency landing area, so of course the insurance has to go up. All it will take is for one pilot to have stroke, heart or blackout and hit someone on the ground and everybody will have to have a medical. But what has this got to do with affordable flying? The very basis the movement is supposed to be about.

I cannot deny that some may think that, but it isn't what the rules say. Paraphrased.. "over a populous area, must be able to glide clear". The bit about a compulsory medical preventing a medical incident is a proven fallacy, so I can't see one occurrence in millions of safe flights being held up to be an emerging trend in support of such a change.

 

 

[Teckair]

Andy,

 

I am was going to take a back seat on this but anyway here goes,

 

Well until I see some proof Im not going to take it at face value. That is not to say I dont agree that there will be some that want this, rather that Im not at all sure that it represents a majority of the side of the artificial split that you guys are suggesting needs to be established that falls on the HP side. But we'll test that theory in another poll. If what you say is true it should reflect in the poll correct?

 

I doubt whether the poll will be very accurate, after this thread most of the people in question probably wouldn't admit to anything as it would just prove what has been said.

 

The proof is on the RAAus register all the planes mentioned have been there, I am told Cessna 150s are now being re-badged as Ravens and registered with RAAus. Even you would probably agree a J230 is way closer to being GA than an affordable minimum ultralight.

 

I agree with this one, but at the same time still ask the question in what way did the achievment of those things cause the LP team any issues? A current board member who flys LP aircraft has said that they did spend time but very little money to achieve. Like you and I the fact that they did achieve these things provides paths to other flying opportuities, unless you are suggesting that 300ft max and no road crossings is still the way it should be.

 

As the current board members are taking us down the road to where we now are I would not expect them to say anything else. RAAus hardly appears to be transparent in these matters how would you really know how correct that is? No I don't want to go back to 300 ft and no road crossings. I thought RAAus was going just fine up until about 9 years ago.

 

Let me paraphrase what I read from your words:-

 

"We have people that fly outside the rules now. I cant prove it, but Im going to ascert that it must only be HP related pilots that do that. If the rules actually allow them to do what they are doing then the rules and the pilot are wrong and they should cease immediately. When something goes wrong then even if they are fully following the rules then we'll all be judged badly and it'll be the LP folk that are impacted. The fact that it all started with LP aircraft means that even though things have evolved it should still be all about LP aircraft. In any event despite having no proof to the contrary I'll still suggest that HP cause LP owners to have to pay more.

 

I don't have to prove it, it was in the thread concerning the Lightwing Speed crashing into water North of Sydney.

 

These guys are breaking the rules. LP folk are already impacted. How do you suggest we get any believable figures from RAAus? Things can be hard to prove. Can you prove the sun will come up tomorrow? No but we all know it most likely will, it comes back to common sense which unfortunately has become uncommon. The more complicated things are the more difficult and expensive they are to manage. I don't think it should be all about LP aircraft at all and have never said so. I was at a gathering of instructors some time back when a couple people suggested RAAus should adopt GA theory exams. Why? Because they reckoned RAAus exams are now more difficult than GA. This was probably not correct but it does show what has happened, how thin the line is getting between GA and RAAus. This sort of imposition should not be put on the minimum aircraft guys. It is not just the cost we are talking about here it is the imposition of what is required for defacto GA being placed minimum aircraft.

 

let me point out an incosistency with your logicthat I can see:-

 

In your 2nd para you suggest that its people who couldnt pass a medical that shouldnt be here, and then in the 4th paragraph you suggest that if it all goes wrong we'll all have to have a medical...doesnt that sound like twisted logic to you?? If failing an aviation medical but being fit enough to drive a bigass 4wd is enough to preclude you from RAA then why would an RAA medical be a bad thing? After all how will you know if you could pass unless you sit one?

 

I did not say people failing medicals should not be here I said we have ex GA pilots who have failed medicals who come over to RAAus wanting to fly GA or GA style planes. The logic is not mine an neither will it be my idea to impose medicals, public outcry and the media will take care of that for you. You may not get a RAAus medical it might be a casa job.

 

Anyway I have had enough of this I see no point in stating the obvious to people who don't want to know.

 

Richard.