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

[winsor68]

IMO the aircraft we are being "offered" are not Ultralights... they are LSA. Perhaps a new body should have formed to handle them much like the US and AUF can get back to making the low end of the spectrum what it should be... like the US ultralight system but much improved in training and standards. In order to fly an "Ultralight" a pilot has to complete X number of hours LSA as a way to show competency... and then a simple conversion... that way the AUF can get out of the Commercial Flying School business where it IMO has no place to be and get back to the basics.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Teckair, thanks for the response, I believe you have some interesting statements in your response that are worthy of further debate. I know you dont want to, but please humour me, In this case rather than an emotional outburst of "you cost us money" there are some real things to discuss and who knows maybe I'll end us seeing what it is that you are trying to say, whereas when ever Ive previously asked prove it I just keep getting "Because" as the answer.

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 do agree a J230 is closer to GA than minimum Aircraft but I still dont believe you have answered the "So What" clause. If 150's are being registered as Ravens on the register then I pressume that the CoA requirements and deficiencies found in the recent audit should put paid to this as being a way to maintain existing registration or as a way of put new "Ravens" on the register by virtue that I would wonder where the CoA was going to come from?Do you agree?

 

If that is happening then its fundamentally wrong and I would oppose it by virtue that you may call the 150 anything you like but you pressumably havent changed any of the physical characteristics, some of which are outside our envelope of what is technically acceptable. However if an RV is homebuilt and done in such a way that it complies with the RAA requirements for registration (and I mean really complies not just a paperwork fudge at initial rego time followed by a paintjob, passenger chair being fitted etc etc then why is that an issue? similarly I would love to see a V8 Spitty that meets the RAA rules. The problem you have described isnt the aeroplane style, but the simple fact that pressumably they dont meet our rules and are therefore illegal. Where that is happening then its all of us that will be negatively impacted, not just LP Aircraft. You may claim that LP need to be seperated from the rest so as to somehow lessen the impact to them, yet I would argue why do Legal HP aircraft get left to face the music when in the same way as for LP aircraft it wasnt us that did it.

 

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.

 

Richard what you are saying to me is that you dont trust the current board, that would include the parts of the board that was voted in as a result of the distrust of the previous group. Are you saying we got it wrong again? I think a statement that some time but little expense is relatively easy to test at a gross level, but given the financial problems of the past perhaps neither of us can get a definate detailed answer to that, personally I dont have a problem taking it at face value but them perhaps that's becasue it suits my argument. In the same way that you might dismiss it out of hand just because it doesnt suit yours.....

 

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.

 

Yep agree with Lightwing, to be 100% compliant with the rules RAA aircraft cant fly victor 1, if 500ft is below the top of the cliff then how can you possibly glide to land unless carrying a fair chunk of forward speed which can be turned into altitude and even then you are busting the altitude limitation. Perhaps a query to the Opps manager as to whether he believes we can use Victor 1 might be useful. That all said had it been a trike instead of a lightwing, or perhaps a sapphire might be a more relevant example given recent events then I would argue that its RAA pilots at fault rather than HP pilots only unless you know it to be fact that LP aircraft dont use the Victor one route? I agree your point re complication and the impact on cost, however would point out that if that complication also brings a 30% increase in membership because suddenly you appeal to a greater chunk of joe public then the increase on 20% in costs results in a 10% saving to everyone doesnt it? If I read between the lines up until the last RAA membership increase the fact that we didnt have any year on year increases was put down to economies of scale due an increasing membership....I know over the same time my electricity prices didnt stay teh same year to year....

 

You make the point that "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." and again I have to say I dont understand what you are talking about. Exactly what has been impossed on "minimum aircraft" owners? I dont recall any changes in the timeline that we are talking about, other than the radio carriage one and the need for a beacon if flying distances. I dont believe for one moment you can lay either of those at the feet of the HP Aircraft owners or indeed RAA. Both those decisions were made by CASA in isolation to RAA. (actually isolation is the wrong description, in both cases RAA made a submission but I think CASA applied a not withstanding clause to both submissions) I personally happen to agree with both decisions, and the logic that went with then. I consider those to be standard safety evolution which would occur if we were around or not. So, the specific question again, Can you give me examples of the imposition that has been applied to LP Aircraft owners now, and I guess to be fair any that are likely in the future because of where we are today? Perhaps Im just extra thick today, I didnt see any specific imposition at all in your last post.

 

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.

 

I really struggle with this one. If your GA and think you might fail then its OK to come across because you havent failed...but if you did fail then its not Ok, even if you are judged fit to drive a car?. As I understand it all Doctors, including the subset of DAME's have a legal and certainly moral obligation on detecting someone with an illness that would prevent them being fit enough to drive a car to take the steps to have that addressed with the registration departments in each state or territory. So, if the failed GA guy comes over here and can drive a car because the DAME didnt take that away from him at the same time then notwithstanding the aviation medical he meets the legal requirements for RAA with the risk reduction restrictions on what he can do that go with the lower standard. You see this as a problem where I cant actually see the problem. You are mixing 2 seperate standards and trying to tie one to the other where the only formal tie exists at the Doctor, not someone else unqualified judging that if he failed an avmed test then clearly he shouldnt fly in RAA

 

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

 

You clearly think the position Ive taken is one where I choose to be blind to those things that are to you and others obvious. Im sorry they are not obvious to me, yet if you can provide me with the examples Ive asked for, rather than sidestepping the request like many others have done, then Im not opposed to being persuaded to see your points of view. Turbo over on the other site and I became very heated as he argued for a major changes in the RAA board. I argued that until he could prove the ascertions he made I wasnt doing anything. It took time but I ended up seeing elements of his point of view, enough to see that change in the board was likely for the better. I never agreed entirely with the way he communicated it, but hey forumns are hard to work in, you dont get to see the full gamit of human communications and body language.

 

Richard.

[Powerin]

IMO the aircraft we are being "offered" are not Ultralights... they are LSA. Perhaps a new body should have formed to handle them much like the US and AUF can get back to making the low end of the spectrum what it should be... like the US ultralight system but much improved in training and standards. In order to fly an "Ultralight" a pilot has to complete X number of hours LSA as a way to show competency... and then a simple conversion... that way the AUF can get out of the Commercial Flying School business where it IMO has no place to be and get back to the basics.

How would this change what we have now in the RAAus for LP flyers? Why would this make your flying experience any different than it is now? Why would this change what aircraft are being "offered"? What would change?

I'm not taking sides, I'm just trying to understand how LP flyers are being disadvantaged by the way things are now. I have no axe to grind. I'm not interested in this pointing fingers at HP flyers and saying it's all their fault because they have too much money. I'd be interested in hearing what needs to change in the RAAus to make things better for LP flyers, and why. What are these "basics" that RAAus needs to get back to?

 

 

[Guest bullrout]

A.Solo time in own single seaters apun clearance from instructor B.no magazine [tech manual instead] C.cheaper rego/licenceing D.max tow 300kg E.training schools that teach high drag low inertia for true ultralights. This last one is very important, senario, new pilot /new licence trained in jab then buys a 95.10 for getting hours up cheaply ,pulls it off trailer puts the wings on and go,s flying outcome?????????

 

 

[dazza 38]

The trouble Flying schools are having with Drifter/Thruster type aircraft for instructing in. Is that they are not getting utilized enough to be profitable.

 

 

[Guest bullrout]

If we had a class of 95.10 aircraft for cheaply getting hours up and for fun flying but at a realistic cost,What the AUF was started for in the first place /and sport aircraft class for the ga wannabees ,the members signing up for training to fly their own single seater fun aircraft will increase because of cheaper training eg,cheaper buying costs for schools thruster/drifter type, less fuel cheaper running costs/solo time in own machine.You should be allowed to train in the aircraft that you intend to fly common sence .cheaper to buy/build for younger pilots.

 

 

[robinsm]

I fly LP rag and tube, I have no problems with paying the licence and rego fees that we do now. I dont care what you fly as long as you enjoy it. If you can afford a golden Jab or a HP rocket then good on you. If we all stick together and just go by the current endorsement system and the rules pertaining to them we will have some clout. Leave the CTA and GA style stuff to GA pilots. We are "recreational pilots", I for one do not want to go head to head with a 747, 182, 310 or any other number larger than I am. Transit lanes are great, it enables us to travel around CTA areas instead of having to take huge detours. I love the sport (hobby) or whatever you call it. If you want to go bigger, faster, get the licence and aircraft to do it. Aircraft are aircraft, be it a 95.10 single seater or a 2 seater morgan or jab. The name of the game is fun and enjoyment, not comparing things to see who has the biggest (fastest and most expensive) one.

 

I don't feel disadvantaged. I get where I'm going eventually. I dont need a mortgage to service my aircraft and I drink m,y coffee white with one if I ever drop in on you

 

Cheers

 

 

[pudestcon]

I fly LP rag and tube, I have no problems with paying the licence and rego fees that we do now. I dont care what you fly as long as you enjoy it. If you can afford a golden Jab or a HP rocket then good on you. If we all stick together and just go by the current endorsement system and the rules pertaining to them we will have some clout. Leave the CTA and GA style stuff to GA pilots. We are "recreational pilots", I for one do not want to go head to head with a 747, 182, 310 or any other number larger than I am. Transit lanes are great, it enables us to travel around CTA areas instead of having to take huge detours. I love the sport (hobby) or whatever you call it. If you want to go bigger, faster, get the licence and aircraft to do it. Aircraft are aircraft, be it a 95.10 single seater or a 2 seater morgan or jab. The name of the game is fun and enjoyment, not comparing things to see who has the biggest (fastest and most expensive) one.I don't feel disadvantaged. I get where I'm going eventually. I dont need a mortgage to service my aircraft and I drink m,y coffee white with one if I ever drop in on you

Cheers

Come on over robinsm and I'll shout you that coffee!!

Your post is on the mark for mine.

 

Pud

 

 

[Teckair]

Andy,

I feel if you do not get my drift by now you never will, I have explained my thoughts fairly clearly, if you do not understand them then so be it.

 

Is what is being said on this forum actually going to count or really make a difference in any way?

 

From what I can tell some want what they want and not much else counts, some want to sit on the fence and agree with everybody and not make waves and a very small amount are prepared to stand up and be counted, this is probably a rule thumb for life in general.

 

I would like to make clear it I have nothing against the HP aircraft or their pilots I have mentioned, the only issue for me is the conditions they bring being imposed on minimum aircraft owners. For all those who reckon these conditions don't exist I would say 'there are none so blind as those who don't want to see'.

 

Richard.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Andy,

 

Just to throw some perspective on this from a great advocate of LP minimum aircraft.

 

When we flew ANO 95-10 aircraft in the 80s, we had NO license or certificate ... although I was an unrestricted PPL then, there were no requirements. (no cost)

 

There was NO registration. (no cost).

 

We were NOT members of the AUF or anything. (no cost)

 

There was NO insurance. (no cost)

 

You could buy a Scout or STOLaero, or Condor or Mustang and take it to your mates farm and fly or crash it to your hearts content. (cost of the plane only $3-5K from memory)

 

The only rules were in ANO 95-10:

 

Max empty weight 115Kgs ... did NOT matter how heavy you were, the empty weight was all that counted.

 

NOT above 300' agl

 

NOT allowed to cross a public road.

 

Now if you compare that with the requirements of today can you see what Richard is upset about ... I can.

 

Why can't we have a US FAR 103 type category in Australia? It would put us back to the old ANO 95-10 days and reduce all costs, admittedly the liability would rise to the pilot personally but hell today we are MAUW 300Kgs and one bum in the 95-10 category ... who cares????

 

I still am uncertain whether if you fly any contraption below 500' on your own property that you need anything other than balls? You don't need a drivers license to drive the unregistered Ute on the farm, so why would it be any different if you had an unregistered ultralight and an uncertificated pilot on his own property???

 

I don't know the answers to that question ... Kaz might.

 

 

[winsor68]

It is my observation (I don't know I have just been watching from the sidelines for over 20 years until I recently got my cert) that Ra-Aus was set up to bring some structure and a few safety and common sense improvements (i.e. a little regulation but not too much)... but that the Federation was highjacked (someone mentions 9 years ago- sound about right) by a small group (board members?) and turned into a commercial interest to benefit their own pockets... they built the market that exists.

 

P.S. I am sure they thought they were doing the right thing... BUT...

 

 

[David Isaac]

Hell Donny, that's big grenade to throw ... LOL

 

 

[David Isaac]

So I guess to add to my post, if all you want to do is fly 95-10 contraptions from some farm strip, what benefit does all the additional regulation and RA Aus cost bring to the table?

 

BTW just to clarify, I am not advocating that position personally, but I can certainly see why a 95-10 owner could reason to adopt that position.

 

 

[Methusala]

I think that the elephant in the room here is the cost to revenue of the AUF...errr,sorry( I just hate the acronym) RAAus, involved in operations officers travelling around the countryside inspecting commercial training schools. By all means, if this is required, charge the costs (remember"user pays") directly to the schools. I also think that the quality and size of the magazine is a joke! Why not have a simple newsletter containing operational material and leave the entertainment/glamor media to some private entepreneur. Regards, Don

 

 

[coljones]

So, when did the rot set in

 

a) when the Jab owners wanted to land on their 1/4 acre blocks?

 

or

 

b) when the 95-10 people wanted to flit to the other side of Parramatta Rd?

 

Col

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy,Just to throw some perspective on this from a great advocate of LP minimum aircraft.

When we flew ANO 95-10 aircarft in the 80s, we had NO license or certificate ... although I was an unrestricted PPL then, there were no requirements. (no cost)

 

There was NO registration. (no cost).

 

We were NOT members of the AUF or anything. (no cost)

 

There was NO insurance. (no cost)

 

You could buy a Scout or STOLaero, or Condor or Mustang and take it to your mates farm and fly or crash it to your hearts content. (cost of the plane only)

 

The only rules were in ANO 95-10:

 

Max empty weight 115Kgs ... did NOT matter how heavy you were, the empty weight was all that counted.

 

NOT above 300' agl

 

NOT allowed to cross a public road.

 

Now if you compare that with the requirements of today can you see what Richard is upset about ... I can.

 

Why can't we have a US FAR 103 type category in Australia? It would put us back to the old ANO 95-10 days and reduce all costs, admitedley the liability would rise to the pilot personaly but hell today we are MAUW 300Kgs and one bum ... who cares????

 

I still am uncertain whether if you fly any contraption below 500' on your own property that you need anything other than balls? You don't need a drivers license to drive the unregistered Ute on the farm, so why would it be any different if you had an unregistered ultralight and an uncertificated pilot on his own property???

 

I don't know the answers to that question ... Kaz might.

David

 

There are times I look at life and wish we could roll back. As stated previously the cost of electricity is growing at rates far in excess of my pay increases (as a percentage) so I wish for that aspect I could roll back but overall, the benefits of now to back then are such that I live with what we have, the good outweighing the bad....not to mention the lack of an appropriate delorian and flux capacitor to take me back to the past......

 

I'm also equally confident that if we go back far enough there would be no rules at all and no costs at all and no class or style of aeroplane other than to say they were probably all LP aircraft. Interestingly enough I pressume most would call the change between then and the period your talking evolution (No problems with it), and somehow since then its not evolution but rather the fault of a specific subset of the RAA membership. Im a subset of that group and I dont believe I did anything to force that change other than be interested when the circumstances and rules allowed me to be (whuch is a long winded way od saying what Pete has been saying)and equally tjose that facilitated the change I just see them as having vision for the future. Im yet to see any evolution that doesnt have winners and loosers, Im sure the automobile did a real job on those that sold horses.....equally long distance buses and railways are only a shadow of their former selves as a result of passenger aircraft, in the same way I think LP aircraft owners that cant, wont or dont need to take advantage of the broader opportunities are much like the horse sellers of old.......but on balance for the entire community we have moved to a better place.

 

All that high falutin waffle aside so where to from here?

 

Do you believe for one moment that a breakaway group from RAA and or other existing groups will somehow manage to push back time? I cant see it myself? Are there enough of you to enable any traction towards achieving a FAR103 equivalence?

 

And Richard, do I believe that anything we discuss here will affect anything....Yes I do, just go back to the last board elections. I suspect that the changes that occured, occured because there was a facility like this where the broad membership could be brought up to speed on what was happening, or more specifically what wasnt happening.

 

Andy

 

 

[robinsm]

Andy, the "better place" is a matter of opinion. Please explain what was wrong with the LP aircraft. Trying to split rec aircraft owners into LP and HP owners is trying to set up a them and us situation and this brings the elitist attitudes into play. Why must everything be bigger, faster, flashier and more expensive. If you want a pi...ng contest then you are going the right way about generating one. I see LP rag and tube as the ideal way that new people can enjoy aircraft ownership, and experience our hobby without the large outlay/cost of the faster, more expensive aircraft. Not everyone has large incomes, not everyone can afford to pay 60 - 100,00o for an aircraft. I purchased my kit and assembled it for a touch over 28000 in the air. I could not have owned an aircraft if the price was not this low. Renting an aircraft at $100 - $200 per hour is out of the question for me. I fly my aircraft at least once a fortnight, I have done some large cross country flights (6 - 8 hrs). I dont have ulcers and I dont have accountants pushing me to spend less on the aircraft. I still work for a living and will be doing so for a number of years yet as I can't afford to retire.

 

I think all Rec aircraft, no matter what they are, should be covered in the same organisation as we then have volume membership. Stop being so bloody elitist and just enjoy tour flying, in no matter what type of aircraft.

 

 

[Teckair]

Robinsm, As can so easily happen on these forums I think you may have taken Andy the wrong way.

 

Andy, I think to continue this debate may be counter productive so I am going sit back and let things sort them selves out I have put my thoughts forward and you have done the same, which is probably is all we can hope for.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy, the "better place" is a matter of opinion. Please explain what was wrong with the LP aircraft. Trying to split rec aircraft owners into LP and HP owners is trying to set up a them and us situation and this brings the elitist attitudes into play. Why must everything be bigger, faster, flashier and more expensive. If you want a pi...ng contest then you are going the right way about generating one. I see LP rag and tube as the ideal way that new people can enjoy aircraft ownership, and experience our hobby without the large outlay/cost of the faster, more expensive aircraft. Not everyone has large incomes, not everyone can afford to pay 60 - 100,00o for an aircraft. I purchased my kit and assembled it for a touch over 28000 in the air. I could not have owned an aircraft if the price was not this low. Renting an aircraft at $100 - $200 per hour is out of the question for me. I fly my aircraft at least once a fortnight, I have done some large cross country flights (6 - 8 hrs). I dont have ulcers and I dont have accountants pushing me to spend less on the aircraft. I still work for a living and will be doing so for a number of years yet as I can't afford to retire.I think all Rec aircraft, no matter what they are, should be covered in the same organisation as we then have volume membership. Stop being so bloody elitist and just enjoy tour flying, in no matter what type of aircraft.

Well then Ive seriously failed if Im coming across elitist as it was never my intent to do so. Ultimately what I wanted was 100% aligned with what you say. As I ve said before I have a trike and I percieve it fits more into the LP than the HP Camp, even though there should as you say merely be just a camp of all. Perhaps by refering to the 2 subsetsi was just perpetuating something that was started elsewhere, if so Im sorry. Again for absolute clarity there is nothing wrong with any aircraft after all we are recreational flyers and all aircraft within the gamit of what RAA covers do nothing other than provide recreation. In fact the opnly aircraft that we should look down on, quite literally is the one that doesnt break contact with earth.......

 

 

[David Isaac]

Andy mate, I follow your reasoning. There is one slight difference; 95-10 machines, although of lower performance are not made redundant by plastic fantastics, unlike a horse which was made redundant by the car. They are simply a different application. Robinson made an extremely valid point in terms of cost of ownership and in a sense we have possibly all missed that point. I fly relatively high performance GA aircraft from time to time, but there is nothing quite like fence hopping on a farm property in an early single surface wing ultralight

 

Back to the key point ... Cost of ownership. That is where LP has an advantage, and the advantage is not marketed very well. You can get into a good Drifter for $15K, a Sapphire for half that. Can't get into an HP aircraft for that.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy mate, I follow your reasoning. There is one slight difference; 95-10 machines, although of lower performance are not made redundant by plastic fantastics, unlike a horse which was made redundant by the car. They are simply a different application. Robinson made an extremely valid point in terms of cost of ownership and in a sense we have possibly all missed that point. I fly relatively high performance GA aircraft from time to time, but there is nothing quite like fence hopping on a farm property in an early single surface wing ultralightBack to the key point ... Cost of ownership. That is where LP has an advantage, and the advantage is not marketed very well. You can get into a good Drifter for $15K, a Sapphire for half that. Can't get into an HP aircraft for that.

David preaching to the converted, in my case. If I truely felt that somehow the J was superior to LP then I would have ditched my trike wouldnt I? Its like I said earlier in the thread a carpenter doesnt ditch a hammer because he gets an airgun nailer, both are relevenat and appropriate for different things. Triking around on a warm summers afternoon is just majic, but I wouldnt for example fly it alone and by choice from Grafton to Adelaide, the J does that well and is not at all the fun of tooling around burning holes in the sky that the trike is. However both for me provide recreation, just different. I'd be the poorer if I lost access to either.

 

 

[Methusala]

G'day again, I am just wondering whether anyone has information on how much it costs the membership to have personnel travelling around the place checking on flying schools. I suspect the cost would be significant but don't have any access to information. I think that this is an appropriate question in light of the discussion. Don

 

 

[winsor68]

What personnel Methusala? You mean the Ops Manager and Assistant?

 

Very little... very, very little.

 

 

[winsor68]

P.S. Gotta say this IMO (again-we all have 'em) has been a fruitful discussion. I think we are learning here.

 

 

[David Isaac]

It is good discussion and enlightening if we are open minded.