Evolution, Where to from here

[Guest Andys@coffs]

It has been suggested that evolution within RAA has occured at the ultimate detriment of those that fly low performance Aircraft (another thread).

 

Evolution will continue (or maybe it shouldn't)

 

What evolution should RAA be chasing for the future.

 

What would you be prepared to pay for that evolution, using the nothings for nothing analogy, if you are prepared to pay something quantify in $ what the something is. Remeber thay if the membership increases as a result of that evolution the potential funds available are larger, but on the otherhand the responsibilities are greater too.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

For me I voted for VFR Class G transit lanes through CTA where it adss to safety and "Other" where other for me is a step increase in fiscal control and overall governance of RAA.

 

 

[facthunter]

Simple ( to design and build and service 2 place aeroplanes , not restricted by a totally arbitrary AUW, that would prevent you building your own version of a Piper Cub ot Pietenpol, with transit CTA areas where it is shorter and safer. Good standard of pilotage achieved. Ne3v

 

 

[winsor68]

I would like Ra-Aus to get back to basic Ultralight Aircraft... Perhaps you should ask this question on the SAAA site? They already offer many of the privileges... with a little tweaking and with the addition of the Restricted PPL it would fit.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

There are people who would like to see ALL non commercial pilots and planes included in RAAus (or equivalent). This makes some sense, leaving CASA to cover the fare paying public, and reduce costs for the weekend warrior, farmer, flying vet etc. CASA would continue to oversee the self regulating body and subsidise it (as it now subsidises & oversees RAAus). If this segment of the market does come up for grabs then RAAus would be expected to make a bid. There would have to be some negotiation - I would expect any CTA or night flying would still require LAME & CASA medical & certified engine, but outside that, fit to drive. The cut off point wouldn't be too difficult - no All Up Weight limitations, stall characteristics, seats etc & keep the VH-rego. The criteria would be non commercial use only. So if farmer Joe had a 6 seater he used to get the family to town and the groceries back, he would pay for 6 seats. It might reduce the per seat amount we pay now. There are some cheap C150's and this might be a way for people to own a plane - one in the RAA mag for about $23,000 - and afford to fly.

 

I just hope that the market does not get fragmented in such a way that recreational pilots have to belong to more than one organisation to fly. Take our case - if there is a Minimum Aircraft organisation, RAAus, and then CASA we would have to belong to all three and have three different pilot certificates / licences (that's 6 tickets if we both fly our planes) and two or three medical standards. Then there's home building - SAAA. CASA would miss out on some income for User Pays (they charge to process your medical etc) but would recoup some through less admin, staff etc. RAAus (or whoever takes it on) would cover admin and inspections.

 

Not sure what the rest of the world do for private GA type pilots and planes.

 

Sue

 

 

[facthunter]

I believe New Zealand do it better but I am not across all the details. Perhaps a Kiwi may enlighten us there. CASA could do it, but the problem in australia is that CASA is THE regulator, unlike the FAA which DOES have a duty to look after the Aviation scene in the US, and CASA will still be the regulator, but perhaps even more removed from what we do day by day than they are now.

 

It does require a change to the relavent act of Parliament to change the way CASA operates..( Their ROLE)

 

Regarding going back to the basics, I am a little skeptical about this. I can't see what is really stopping anyone doing all that could be done in the past. NOW.. Some of the changes that have happened may be here to stay , anyhow, nothing is immune from change.

 

I don't get a good feeling when some say to get rid of such and such group, and we can go back to being what we used to be. You might be a bit lonely.

 

As to having RAAus do all of it for most of the non-paying pax aviation sector, you might have to sell that idea amongst some of the other groups. who may not be too impressed with the way things have been and are being done.

 

Long term it is desireable, certainly Being divided is not a good thing, but we are a looong way from being united, and need a show of vision and maturity. One does hope.. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

.....Regarding going back to the basics, I am a little skeptical about this. I can't see what is really stopping anyone doing all that could be done in the past. NOW.. Some of the changes that have happened may be here to stay , anyhow, nothing is immune from change......

I totally agree Nev; the only things that have changed are:

we now have to pay aircraft registration, get a pilot certificate and cannot fly below 500' without permission and a LL endorsement.

 

BUT we now have insurance and a powerful lobbying organisation that cannot be ignored by the government. Put us back 30 years and we could have been shutdown, that wont happen today.

 

Otherwise nothing prevents us doing what we did back in the early 80s with 95-10 aircraft (well there might have been some 'stuff' done by some that we shouldn't do today right ...).

 

 

[turboplanner]

I did the training to do all of that with a PPL, so no need to tear RAA apart.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Im not sure, but I think that the C150,s and the V8, V6 MK26 spitfires have been taken off the RAA register.