Two Governing Bodies

[facthunter]

Thanx. I thought I was losing it. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. is an Incorporated Association set up under the Associations Incoporation Act 1991 of the Australian Capital Territory.

 

It is owned and controlled by the Members

 

An Incoporated Association must contain:

 

(a) Objects and Purposes (aims and objectives) - this is where the members spell out the powers

 

(b) Its own set of Rules - this is where it spells out how those powers will be used to meet the objects and purposes.

 

Since any Purposes and any Rules can be set by the Members it can be an extremely powerful instrument

 

Although Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. is a self administering body, it does act as an instrument of CASA in some matters.

 

"It is not, and never was a "social" club set up by members"

 

As outlined above it was set up by members, and it does contain a social element, otherwise there would be no Natfly.

 

Social elements are important to Sporting or Administering Associations because its the networking where much of the education takes place.

 

"RA-Aus is the authority everyone is answerable to in the first instance, possibly CASA if needed for more serious or far reaching issues."

 

Recreational Aircraft operate in the open aviation world, so the minute you step into a parked aircraft you have a responsibility to comply with Federal Government rules as set down by CASA and its associated Federal Government entities.

 

Just because RAA doesn't teach it or talk about them doesn't mean you don't have to comply with them because you are using the same airspace as General Aviation aircraft.

 

Having said that, it is obvious that as RAA operations have moved toward GA type aircraft with similar ranges and speeds, some RAA rules could do with updating.

 

The Constitutional changes you are being asked to vote on will allow necessary changes to be made faster.

 

 

[M61A1]

Having said that, it is obvious that as RAA operations have moved toward GA type aircraft with similar ranges and speeds, some RAA rules could do with updating.

With that in mind, perhaps two entities, might work (or different categories within one organisation). One for the GA type aircraft with their high speeds long ranges, similarly high maintenance costs and more stringent regulation, with higher fees for the extra admin necessary to provide the level of "safety" expected by those who happily afford $100k+ aircraft from a manufacturer, and another no frills organisation for those of us like pottering around close to home, with our handbuilt or low cost machine, and happy to accept responsibility for our own construction and maintenance, with lower admin costs. As the "where" an "how" one is allowed to fly rules are already in place, the admin is essentially registration and competency assessment.

Maybe I'm just not seeing the big picture, but in the words of Jeremy Clarkson,"the whole place appears to be run by someone whose sole job is to make sure his boss won't get sued". Very unproductive.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

.........One for the GA type aircraft with their high speeds long ranges, similarly high maintenance costs and more stringent regulation, with higher fees for the extra admin necessary to provide the level of "safety" expected by those who happily afford $100k+ aircraft from a manufacturer...........

Sorry but perhaps you could explain "and more stringent regulation" what exactly does that mean? At present we have a set of RAA rules for all RAA fleet and some similar but with slight differences, rules depending on the CAO that applies to the aircraft (CAO's being CASA impossed not RAA obviously). Who said those in HP aircraft need more stringent rules?

 

You also suggested "with higher fees for the extra admin necessary to provide the level of "safety" expected" who said we expected anything extra?

 

What I expect is that the incorporated association I belong to, in order to legally fly my aircraft uses the money it extracts from me as efficiently as possible, always furthering the stated purpose and mission of the organisation. Nothing more, and nothing less.

 

Last I checked LP aircraft could just as easily kill the pilot and passenger as a HP aircraft. In fact I seem to recall that many years ago when an aviation reporter( Ithink?) was reviewing the cub and extolling the virtues of this low and slow aircraft that it could only just kill you...or words to that effect. So, what of the existing safety regeme would you ditch for LP aircraft, and what additional would you add for HP aircraft. My 230 is kit built so do I get into the pay more or payless gang?

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

I ran an Incorporated Association with 30 different types of vehicle, with substantial operating differences , so this is just a matter of administration.

 

 

[M61A1]

Sorry but perhaps you could explain "and more stringent regulation" what exactly does that mean? At present we have a set of RAA rules for all RAA fleet and some similar but with slight differences, rules depending on the CAO that applies to the aircraft (CAO's being CASA impossed not RAA obviously). Who said those in HP aircraft need more stringent rules?You also suggested "with higher fees for the extra admin necessary to provide the level of "safety" expected" who said we expected anything extra?

 

What I expect is that the incorporated association I belong to, in order to legally fly my aircraft uses the money it extracts from me as efficiently as possible, always furthering the stated purpose and mission of the organisation. Nothing more, and nothing less.

 

Last I checked LP aircraft could just as easily kill the pilot and passenger as a HP aircraft. In fact I seem to recall that many years ago when an aviation reporter( Ithink?) was reviewing the cub and extolling the virtues of this low and slow aircraft that it could only just kill you...or words to that effect. So, what of the existing safety regeme would you ditch for LP aircraft, and what additional would you add for HP aircraft. My 230 is kit built so do I get into the pay more or payless gang?

 

Andy

All fair questions- perhaps I should shut my face, I'm not really adept at getting my point accross with a keyboard.A few of the rules have been changed since the introduction of the higher performance aircraft, I am of the understanding that this is because they are more difficult/present more challenges. Apparently RAAus thought more stringent regs were necessary. So it would be reasonable to expect that if you only flew the lower performance stuff that these competancies/regs would be unnecessary. I haven't done any maths, but I haven't seen any real changes in that statistics that would suggest any real improvement.

I seen people on this site also, that expect that because they've handed over a certain amount of money for an aeroplane and a pilot certificate, that someone else will provide them with some safety. To be honest, I cant really see a correlation between paying the regulator money, and personal safety.( I'm not talking GA & RPT, navaids etc).

 

My point was that if you feel that paying they regulator more, to buy more safety, then feel free, but I don't want to. I personally think that things went pretty well, with LP aircraft and a few endorsements, apparently, this all changed with HP aircraft, so now we have extra training requirements and a truckload of endorsments (which require more training), most of which, if you learned in a LP aircraft you were doing anyway. As an example- some years ago I saw a 95-10 that was twin engined, amphibious, with retracts. These days( newer regs)with that machine, you would be expected to hand over large sums of money (over and above your pilot cert) just to learn to fly the machine that you designed and built yourself.

 

I don't think HP aircraft need more regulation, but I do think that the current training requirements for LP aircraft are excessive ( an opinion only), I am well aware that both can be deadly. The regulator has claimed that the changes were necessary because of HP aircraft, so if the HP aircraft are in a different organisation/category, surely we could remove the changes.

 

I wasn't trying to offend anyone, but I guess I put my view accross poorly, and maybe still have.

 

 

[M61A1]

I ran an Incorporated Association with 30 different types of vehicle, with substantial operating differences , so this is just a matter of administration.

Exactly...........so why are they struggling?

 

 

[turboplanner]

They are not focused on bringing the rules up to date.

 

For example, step specifications and rules for each category to cover the issues you mention.

 

 

[Admin]

Please remember that no one is right...or wrong and that everyone is entitled to their opinion...it is not an argument but simply a discussion...and please use smilies

 

 

[68volksy]

A big yes for me. Having only entered the industry 6 years ago it was immediately apparent that there were two very distinct and competing "groups" in the RA-Aus. First group was what i'd term the "traditional ultralight" flyers. The guys out there in their rag-and-tube, home builts and low-cost kits. Then there was the new breed of ultralight guys who took great advantage of the opportunity and started to develop the all-new fast and expensive, yet still ultralight, aircraft that obviously seem to currently carry the majority of the vote in RA-Aus.

 

These two groups need to be seperated in the same manner that RA-Aus was originally separated from the GA regime. It's a no-brainer from where I sit. Your average Drifter/X-Air pilot/owner has about as much interest in a weight increase for RA-Aus aircraft as your average Tecnam/Jabiru owner has in research into the latest fabric wing coverings.

 

However with that said CASA is working to cut a bit of the wind out of the sails of the fast-and-expensive end of RA-Aus with the RPL and other changes on the way. Maybe in the future the fast-and-expensive guys might find the tables turned and they're once again at the mercy of the cheap-and-cheerful end of the spectrum?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

so has anyone had a look @ www.raanz.org.nz ?

 

its a very lean, almost sparse, the monthly magazine is 3-4 pages

 

membership is only $70/30 p/a

 

 

[turboplanner]

The fishing rod, line and tissue paper group just need a 2 lb hammer across the littlest digit to get them out of their seats and standing for election, and even for using the formidable array of public comment sites like this one. If they won't step forward to advance their cause, why should anyone else get excited. It may well be that that era is just history.

 

CASA's RPL will suit a small industry sector, mainly from GA pilots. It's an example of what RAA could do if specialists groups needed specialist/simpler rules.

 

There is absolutely nothing to stop RAA adjusting is objectives and rules at any time, other than the fact that the Constitution needs to be adjust slightly so these expectations can practically get a hearing, and if valid, a vote, which is just a bit impractical now.

 

 

[facthunter]

NZ costs have just taken a giant leap UP. When you talk of RAAus don't forget the insurance that comes with it.

 

The LP/ HP thing. Most of you fly what is called HP and will never fly an LP. LP are more difficult to fly because they are usually,light, draggy unsophistacated, wire braced, basic planes. There are some aberations including the fact that you can have lots of engines on some. LP are probably the most "individual" planes and might have to be the ones most carefully approached, to be competant on. Many are single seat.

 

The weight thing is confusing. Pietenpols can be too heavy, but they might more resemble the LP classification. replica biplanes likewise. Our shortsightedness about the weight limit is imposing a restriction that has no basis in factagainst our basic objectives . We are missing an opportunity to have safer, simple LOW COST 2 seat. homebuilt planes under our umbrella. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

any idea how much the insurance costs per member? I like that the magazine is paired to the bare minimum, makes it easy to keep track of changes that will affect you. sport pilot is great for justifying the fact that the membership fee is almost triple what the kiwis pay but its not very good for keeping people up to date about rule changes.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

why just stop at 2 groups, I think there should be a seperate self administering group for each state and then each colour of aircraft. There was a risk for a period that we would all unite and have a voice that might be heard, but the benefit of more groups than individual flyers is that we will have no voice with all the benefits that will bring........

 

Re the seperate group for LP aircraft. That gets dragged out and aired at least 2-3 times a year but when ever we ask what is it that LP flyers want that the current regeme isnt providing there is effectively silence. Ther are calls for some to say get rid of the magazine....but I suspect there are some in the HP gang that think similarly I dont see that as a LP/HP point of differentiation. I also dont get why most LP folk want to divorce themselves from what happens in HP land. If it were the case that you could do the crystal ball thing and know with certainty that you would never play in the HP arena then I guess I could understand but, if, like me, you have access to both HP and LP aircraft (LP came first) do you really want to have to belong to 2 seperate groups with all the duplication of costs that brings?

 

So, lets try again, what are the things that the LP crowd want removed, or added to what RAA do today? Please make sure that what ever it is that you ask for is truely a LP/HP point of differntiation and not something that could apply equally to both?

 

If I was your RAA rep, what message would you convey to me with a view to change. Try and convince me that its in our best interests?

 

Nev pointed out the insurance just remeber that is for passengers and/or anyone you happen to hit. The benefit of an organisation buying the insurance instead of the individual members is the significant cost reductions due economies of scale. Even if you could cut out a lot of cover elements in a personal policy (beacuse you argue that you dont need them flying 100ft above your own property only) I suspect that teh cost you would pay will be no cheaper.... Dont have insurance at all......there a phrase for that its called self insurance and without fail is better for you when you dont need to claim. Need to claim.......consider bankruptcy.....it may well be cheaper....suggest you have a plausable explaination for your wife and kids already worked out before hitting that point. Wont happen to me!!! I seem to recall that in Avaiation we are taught during training that "wont happen to me" is what happens in fairy tales and bears no resemblence to what happens in aviation. We are also taught that Murphy of the famous Murphys law is alive, well, and real and anytime he doesnt join us in aviating is just a bonus that cannot be expected to continue.

 

Andy

 

(PS,here is the required smilley! . )

 

Just joking Im really

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Choice is important.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes, like fly economically or not fly economically

 

 

[jetjr]

The non commercial aviation sector is way too small to support more governing bodies, there are 4?? already mentioned here plus GA

 

Rec flying sector is fragmented as it is, any smaller groups and we would have no voice at all against CASA or the public pushing new regs our way

 

As they appear largely interested in RPT they can easily price us out of the sky. It would be far better for their safety record. ADSB in by 2020 anyone??

 

Sure RAA needs redeveloping and changing but fees are relatively low. How efficiently they are used will always be for debate and thats why theres elections.

 

Only way to remain relevant is to form links between all the small entities not separate them.

 

We have 3 or more annual fly in events under RAA banner, and not too many attend national one.

 

Join them together with SAAA and others, hold three events at one venue on the same weekend. You will get people and sponsors lined up to support it.

 

No reason RAA cant run maintenance courses like SAAA is at Ausfly. Better way to spend money than sponsoring multiple social events.

 

 

[facthunter]

Or muck it up and not be able to fly at all ( realistically). Two organisations would not rule out both of them being crook. If you believe in democracy. Let's define it as a free vote of "informed, affected, people". Why can't we get together and organise what WE want. You are in one of the best countries to be able to achieve this, on the whole planet.

 

So far you have had a pretty good run with your U/L's. Let's fix things , get smarter and do it better. Nev

 

 

[Admin]

Choices 3 and 4 of the poll is to join ALL recreational aviation bodies, this means RAAus, HGFA, SAAA, Rotorcraft, Soaring etc into one big single governing body or have 2 big governing bodies with both covering all forms of recreational aviation each.

 

My personal choice is Option 4, that being combine ALL recreational aviation groups together and have 2 bodies both coving all forms of recreational aviation...why 2, very simple, at the moment in my opinion is that there is so much that is not getting done in the industry because there is no incentive to do it, no reason to do anything at all and that is where having 2 bodies that each cover the entire range of recreational aviation will bring healthy competition into the fold. We may then start to see recreational aviation being promoted in schools, training classes on different aspects of recreational aviation like maintenance, support given to anyone that has a feasible idea of developing a bigger choice of Australian made aircraft, more social events and the promotion of recreational aviation throughout the land...all because if one governing body doesn't do it then the other will to get a bigger membership base and therefore more membership fees meaning more money to use in fostering recreational aviation. Cause it ain't getting done now with only one 3 Axis and many other bodies

 

Having 2 bodies looking after all recreational aviation groups may actually stop the spreading of membership across many different bodies as it is now but at the same time introduce competition to enhance our industry.

 

At the moment there is no reason for anyone to lift a finger and introduce "more" for us in the industry!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The beauty of having 2 bodies is that the apathetic, the rule breakers and those that are happy with the status quo can stay with the RAA and those that want a better organisation can leave. That's what you call a "win win" situation.

 

 

[facthunter]

Do you really think that makes much of a contribution f t.? I have read it carefully but for as long as I can remember the RAAus can't do a thing right as far as you are concerned. I'm not trying to just have a go here, but what would satisfy you? Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

What I am saying is if you start a new body it is only as good as the members. For it too succeed you need to rekindle that spirit of aviation pioneering. The RAA is what happens in bureaucracy.

 

 

[turboplanner]

For further illuminating and politically exciting comments please refer to the Juliar thread and you'll be reading for weeks

 

 

[Riley]

The beauty of having 2 bodies is that the apathetic, the rule breakers and those that are happy with the status quo can stay with the RAA and those that want a better organisation can leave. That's what you call a "win win" situation.

Put on your hard hat FT, you're gonna cop some flak for that curious statement!