Are we losing our heritage??

[winsor68]

I would be happy with no Passengers in order to have less regulation and it's associated BS.

 

 

[facthunter]

You would be a small minority if you set up a separate organisaation. Your position is protected within the RAAus if the right rules are maintained. Your costs are lower and you have a good argument for maintaining that situation. Some extra complexity (like radio carriage etc ) might still be inevitable. Going separate doesn't look like a good idea to me. You are out on your own and vulnerable and a small isolated group. There is NOTHING to stop you flying your type of plane. You are not really loaded with costs , that would force you to give it up. All sections of aviation are looking at increased requirements , some of which may be misdirected, but it's always been like that. You have privileges never dreamed of 40 years ago. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

two seaters are handy

 

 

 

[M61A1]

Bigger doesn't have to be more expensive or complex. It could be less expensive and less complex. Pietenpol for instance. Nev

I agree with you there.........and I've never really understood why 95.10 need to have a 300 kg mtow. A low wing loading I can understand, but as long as it flys/lands slow and can only kill it's pilot (no settled areas for 95.10) why could it not be heavier. You could build a more durable safey structure that way, also plenty of automotive engines that provide good power, but way too heavy for 95.10. Not pushing for it, but if there's an answer for it tell me. Otherwise it's just a dumb limit made by the same sort of people who administer car registration costs by the number of engine cylinders.

 

 

[M61A1]

The problem is the 95.10 ppl won't get off their bums and start their own organisation. its the only VIABLE solution.

Which, roughly translated means......

The 95..10/grass roots people are too mild mannered and understanding to remove the noisy expensive crowd from THEIR organisation.

 

 

[turboplanner]

20 posts and no one really wants to get involved in it.

 

The above of course is only a small sample, but a good indicator that there isn't a market demand for grass roots flying today any more than there's a market for Gottleib Daimler's machine replicas or Henry Ford's Quadricycle, even those these cars could be built for a song.

 

Under those circumstances its time to stop whining about 95.10 and move on into the activity of the present.

 

 

[408059]

I find this an interesting debate so I’ll add my 2 cents worth.

 

The RAA is what the members want it to be. If the focus is on aircraft with cruise speeds in excess of 100 knots rather than 50 knots then it reflects what the members want. Yes I am a plastic fantastic driver but I started in a much earlier time. I can remember jumping into factory fresh SV farmates and sapphires and thinking them the bees knees.

 

Tomorrow there will be a serious debate about the structure and governance of the RAA. It is a debate that is much needed and I hope the outcome will be positive. I sincerely hope there is not too much blood spilled because at the end of the day, the staff, the Board and members have the best interests of the RAA at heart, irrespective of competence. This said, I still harbor concerns that we will be addressing the symptoms of our problem and not the virus.

 

Yes we have had lackluster staff and Board members but I still hold to the view that RAAs biggest problem has been growth. The RAA structures, processes and culture reflect that of an aero club and not that expected of a peak entity that supports recreation flying. They have not grown with the increase in size of membership so it is hardly surprising that systems and processes have let the RAA down through failed audits. Growth has also diluted those values that the young AUF so fervently held onto in its early days.

 

The marketing of RAA, the defection of pilots from other flying disciplines including gliding and GA, and its monopoly position are some of the reasons why RAA has had this extraordinary growth.

 

The RAA cannot turn back the clock nor should it. Services must reflect what the majority of what membership wants. But, then again, perhaps the tap could be turned off so the garden can soak up the water. RAA needs time to appoint decent people and get its systems upgraded and even look at those values it wants to promote without the pressure of growth. Perhaps it’s time for CASA to stop playing with its recreation license, which it has since 1997, and pass the draft legislation. An election year is a good time for stakeholders to make noises. The influx of GA deflections to RAA may then slow to a trickle and growth may be tempered to a sustainable level. Whatever the case, there is no easy answer.

 

Cheers

 

Steve

 

 

[408059]

Hmmmm ........it should have been 'defections' from GA to RAA not 'deflections' above. Mind you 'deflections' almost works if you think in terms of the change in RAA values brought about by the influx of GA pilots.

 

Steve

 

 

[turboplanner]

Hmmmm ........it should have been 'defections' from GA to RAA not 'deflections' above. Mind you 'deflections' almost works if you think in terms of the change in RAA values brought about by the influx of GA pilots.Steve

If it was as simple as GA people changing the agenda this thread would have seen a healthy volume of noise; I'd suggest that if, overnight, all the pseudo GA type aircraft were removed from RAA, it would fold very quickly, simply because, as we've seen there's no market demand for grass roots flying any more.

 

Why that is would probably be the more interesting discussion; that's what Companies do when one of the products in their mix begins to fail in the market place, and they often manage to identify the marketing weaknesses and fix them. In the case of grass roots flying, the only people interested in doing that would be the people engaged in it now, otherwise it's gone.

 

 

[M61A1]

Just to be clear, Turbo, when I talk of "grass roots" flying, I am not necessarily meaning a few bits of tube and some sails with a Victa attached. I mean the concept of building it yourself (maybe even designing), accepting all that comes with building, ie: you are responsible for it's construction, certification(if any), maintenanance, operation and any of the outcomes from such activities (good or bad). What I mean by GA style flying, is going to a manufacturer/dealer, handing over cash, flying away in an aircraft and having them to blame when it all goes wrong. In "grass roots" you calculate and accept the risk, the other type, you pay someone else to accept your risk, and that, is bloody expensive.

 

I do agree though, that the tendency these days is to want to walk in with cash or credit and walk/fly /drive away with an expensive toy.

 

 

[facthunter]

I am in furious agreement with that concept M61A1. Most of us buy and fly. Lots of dough and not much effort. A bit more effort in the building ,more ingenuity more knowledge/skill and less cost. Not trying to stop the others. All the early stuff can still fly,(which it can now) but there is not much action in that camp, just nostalgia, and blame for the invaders from GA. Are they real or imaginary? I don't know. Many of them flew primitive planes BEFORE they went GA. I have a long time friend ( since we were both fifteen years old) who used to test fly stuff that wasn't even on any register who was going to come back to "this " scene, but thinks there is too much carry on, (fair enough) That's his judgement but as for experience few here could match it and if "he" is considered as Ex-GA and considered a problem , something is crook in tallarook as they say. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Nothing is wrong, just dancing at shadows.

 

 

[M61A1]

I am in furious agreement with that concept M61A1. Most of us buy and fly. Lots of dough and not much effort. A bit more effort in the building ,more ingenuity more knowledge/skill and less cost. Not trying to stop the others. All the early stuff can still fly,(which it can now) but there is not much action in that camp, just nostalgia, and blame for the invaders from GA. Are they real or imaginary? I don't know. Many of them flew primitive planes BEFORE they went GA. I have a long time friend ( since we were both fifteen years old) who used to test fly stuff that wasn't even on any register who was going to come back to "this " scene, but thinks there is too much carry on, (fair enough) That's his judgement but as for experience few here could match it and if "he" is considered as Ex-GA and considered a problem , something is crook in tallarook as they say. Nev

I suspect that the problem if I call it that, is the whole of our society is going that way, where you just hand over dollars, take your product, and sue someone if it didnt work out. I've worked on aircraft most of my life, even there, qualified mechs are so inept they have no idea how to change the brake pads on their commodore. They pay someone else, then whinge if they think it wasn't done right, not that they'd know. I don't htink it will change in a hurry, if at all. So essentially, I'm just one of a few older (over 30....or maybe 40+) ones having a bleat, I don't expect it to change back, but I'd like to think I have the right to say that I liked it the way it was.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Its not the strongest or the smartest of the species that survives, its the ones most adaptable to change....Charles Darwin.:)

Actually its the most reproductively successful variations of a species which survive. Not so easy to apply that idea in the context of aviation though ;-)

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[facthunter]

M61A1 maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I think we are not far apart as I, me, myself, am not a buy and fly person but "WE" collectively. The bunch, group, most of the people, Do buy and fly.

 

I want to modify, service, repair and fly My plane. I am in a minority and I have expressed an opinion on that, and uphold the right, that you should feel free to do that too. Nev

 

 

[Doug Evans]

My two bob worth "

 

Yes I feel we have lost our way they sum it up with the story in the sport mag " the Original Goals"

 

I think any aircraft that is faster then 80 kn should be a lsa or expemental class eg : LP / HP defines the difference pretty straight foward to me.

 

u only have to look at the sport pilot mag to see what I am talking about Eg : your flat out finding story or information on an ultralight aircraft most are LSA or expermental

 

I think we have come along way with our flying priviledges and rights that is a good thing but I think that we should be looking at the way we are classing our aircraft eg a Super cub is no ultralight aircraft to my way of thinking .

 

thanks

 

"just my two bob worth "

 

Doug Evans

 

 

 

[facthunter]

It is simple affordable and safe, easy to repair and cheaper than many "smaller" planes.( and tailwheel). Isn't choice making the dynamic. The stuff is there to be had. It wasn't once. Anyhow change is inevitable. The big challenge is to make sure it goes in the right direction. Just longing for the past will only create a divide that isn't necesary. You need support to maintain the past as a going thing,, so let's stick together. Nev

 

 

[farri]

The original question is, " Are we losing our heritage?"

 

My question is, How many RAA Members/pilots are there who know what our heritage is/was and how many realy care?

 

Frank.

 

 

[facthunter]

Not a lot I would say frank, but they were the only ones available so you had to like them. Nev

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

How many RAA Members/pilots are there who know what our heritage is/was and how many realy care?

I do, and I do, so that's one...

 

I started building ultralights in the late 1970s and still want to be able to build similar kinds now. OK I'll qualify it and say I'm aimed more at the Drifter/Gemini basic 2 seat paddock flyer than the ultra simple one seat 95:10 variety, but they are still far more oriented to local flying than national touring. I don't feel that the LSA class is really a development from our heritage although some might have hankered for something like them even back then. LSAs are far more a result of the lower medical standards allowing the development of a junior GA class for senior aged (wealthier) failed medical GA pilots to keep flying. Now that there's a 'sport' licence available with only a car driver's health required then most of them could go back to a 2 seat GA licence and leave the RAA to go back to the original AUF intentions...

 

I'm saying this as one who sits on both sides of the fence since I hold a commercial GA licence as well as sport GA medical and RAA certificate.

 

Don't worry I have a kevlar vest.

 

 

[dazza 38]

The original question is, " Are we losing our heritage?"My question is, How many RAA Members/pilots are there who know what our heritage is/was and how many realy care?

 

Frank.

I know our heritage from 1987 onwards when I joined the AUF. There is nothing stopping Drifter/Thruster type designs from going into full production now. But there has to be a large market for them so the manufacturer can have a profitable business. Thrusters are still made in the UK & Drifters are allegedly still made in Dalby. But the price for them new is expensive IMO.

 

 

[frank marriott]

HIC

 

I think the attraction to LSA is the affordability with CTA access. I still maintain a class 1 for my GA lic so medical was not the attraction for me (might be as age keeps moving on)

 

I can justify owning an LSA but could not afford a GA equivalent .

 

I freely admit I am not a builder.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Surely one of the ultimate experimental categories is 95-10.

 

Look what Scott Winton did with the Facet Opel which has been rebuilt by his brother Dean; and

 

Look what Charles Liggetti did with the Stratos.

 

Both tragically killed in their prototypes. Did we lose all that gift and creativity in just these two great dreamers?

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Did we lose all that gift and creativity in just these two great dreamers?

No, many more than that sadly, Sander Veenstra, Robbie Labahn, Gordon Bedson, to name just a few, all designer/producers

 

 

[David Isaac]

That is really sad Alan, I don't recall the other guys you mentioned, but I remember Scott and Charles well.

 

Scott died not far up the road from my house, I remember his accident well and I have run my hands over the rebuilt Facet Opal, I really hope it flies one day soon. In fact I would love to fly it.

 

Is there anyone like any of these guys still out there breaking boundaries.