What did your grounding cost you?

[johnm]

I'm with you Andy & GG (there no point in an annual registration - every 2 years would be less of a burden but still irrelevant)

 

My main gripe is the laborious annual event ..................... I was trying to get rid of one ground hog day

 

I wonder if we should try reverse physcology and suggest that registrations should be 6 or even 4 monthly .............. 2 or even 3 times a year !

 

Imagine that administrative utopia

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I did see a histoirical copy of a Deed of Arrangement between CASA and RAAus, I'm pretty sure there was an obligation from CASA to RAAus to register annually aircraft, it was called "Organisational Oversight Activities" in the Deed, but it wasnt clear if they mandated them to us, or we set them up, they agreed and then mandated them to us...

 

So it might be easyish (if we wrote them up in our procedures and they agreed) or bloody hard (if they mandated annual registrations as an activity we must perform) to have that removed.

 

In any event possibly not just as simple as deciding we dont want to play that game any more.

 

GG regarding the organisations excess funding....it was suggested at the EGM on the 9th of Feb (and ask nothing more please) that the surplus we have at present is for a specific risk mitigation purpose and isnt just there waiting for a rainy day...Your points regarding a reduction of revenue offset by a reduction of the costs of doing business is valid but I have no way of knowing whether they would net, or if there will be an ongoing deficit or excess as a result.... From memory the revenue relating to Aircraft registration was circa $350k pa..... "On cost" adjusted manager/transactional staff are likely to be circa $80k pa ea so probably 4 in value Im guessing...... I doubt you could get rid of 4 given that you still need to deal with Adds/moves and deletions..... albeit thats a much smaller transactional number but likely much more labour intensive for the adds and changes...

 

Andy

 

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

From memory the revenue relating to Aircraft registration was circa $350k pa

That would be including the insurance component? I was talking only about registration which - after the initial one - is a charge for doing nothing.

 

Public Liability Insurance could remain annual or be offered bi-annual for convenience / cost saving. Also owners should always be free to source their own of course.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

That would be including the insurance component? I was talking only about registration which - after the initial one - is a charge for doing nothing.Public Liability Insurance could remain annual or be offered bi-annual for convenience / cost saving. Also owners should always be free to source their own of course.

No, insurance was a seperate identifiable line item in the revenue section of the audited report and its tied to pilot certificate not to aircraft registration

 

I agree that its simply a source of revenue, albeit with a set of costs attributable to its collection.

 

The EOFY reports can be found here http://www.raa.asn.au/2013/01/financial-report-year-ended-30th-june-2012-2/ and the part you want is Note 2 on page 16 of the PDF report. BTW my memory was wrong I said I thought income attributable to aircraft registration was $350k and from the report its $420k which is 5 staff worth, perhaps 6 as the employee benefits costs was $1,075k and again from memory employees are between 10 and 13 from memory again but of course the transactional staff will be paid less than the managers / CEO/GM etc so perhaps $80k on cost adjusted might well be too high.

 

Anyway....given the talk of restructure that is on the agenda at present its an appropriate time to question the status quo.....Assuming the debate actually gets going! instead of being dead in the water as it is at present. Im sure it will be raised tomorrow at 11am!!

 

Andy

 

 

[dazza 38]

IMO rego should be a one off, like GA. If the RAA doesn't get enough revenue, then get it from the government like CASA does. Same for us having to pay a membership fee every year for a Pilot certificate/membership. Last I saw, GA guys don't pay any yearly rego fees and don't have to pay a fee per year for their licences. A level playing field for all I say.

 

 

[boingk]

Guys, we're paying a pittance and being allowed to have the skies under 10,000ft more or less on a whim.

 

I, for one, will not be protesting a $100 certificate fee and $100 aircraft registration per year, especially when I currently pay around $700 yearly to register and greenslip my 30 year old Chrysler Valiant that I drive perhaps 5,000km annually.

 

Get a grip - boingk

 

 

[alf jessup]

Guys, we're paying a pittance and being allowed to have the skies under 10,000ft more or less on a whim.I, for one, will not be protesting a $100 certificate fee and $100 aircraft registration per year, especially when I currently pay around $700 yearly to register and greenslip my 30 year old Chrysler Valiant that I drive perhaps 5,000km annually.

 

Get a grip - boingk

Boingk,

 

Spot on mate with what you say, also I would happily pay 700 a year to to drive a Valiant, had 3 of them in my younger years and loved every one of them.

 

$200 bucks a year is pittance, people complaining just need to give up the winnie blues and the grog for a couple of weeks and that's paid for it.

 

Alf

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I think if you read the thread, people are complaining about not being able to fly due to the RAA c0cking up the registration process. Paying $185 a year is nothing if you are actually able to fly your plane, alas the RAA c0cked it up.

 

Old cars = no airbags + questionable seatbelts + non collapsing steering columns.

 

 

[johnm]

Agree with you there FT - its the time

 

(mind you it's nice not to have money falling out of the holes in your pockets)

 

...................................... the hearse does not stop at the bank on the way to the cemetery

 

 

[boingk]

Unfortunately I think people just don't want annual condition reports and an expense.

 

I think we do need the annuals, if for nothing more than to help prevent people falling out of the sky in unsafe craft.

 

 

[M61A1]

Unfortunately I think people just don't want annual condition reports and an expense.I think we do need the annuals, if for nothing more than to help prevent people falling out of the sky in unsafe craft.

In my opinion, if you want annuals, go and fly GA. If you are not competent to assess your own aircraft, there is nothing stopping you from seeking professional help.

Over 80% of crashes are CFIT. Pilots, not aircraft are causing most of the crashes.

 

 

[boingk]

You really think people would do an annual if it wasn't required?

 

I'm well aware that most crashes are CFIT... and its these very people who don't follow flight procedure - leading to CFIT - that you want to trust with doing a non-mandatory annual?

 

Doesnt seem right to me.

 

- boingk

 

 

[johnm]

The information that you supply for annual registration does not include any safety requirement - apart from hours flown and number of landings

 

I don't think the current RAAI annual registration regime is a safety mechanism ?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well why not stand up then and help change it?

 

Making people take photos of their aircraft, while at the same time they are dropping out of the sky, photos or not does not look like Duty of Care to me.

 

 

[johnm]

TP - have sent in 2 sets of different photo's over the past 2 annual rego events and you could be right - my aeroplane does feel less prone to drop from the sky

 

Come mid april if there is no rego renewal in the post - aeroplane definietly won't be able to drop from the sky

 

 

[Guest Escadrille]

Its just the culture at CASA.. Safety first at all costs ( yours) and they are mandated by Govt that way..the only thing that CASA can really influence is the paperwork trail.. so more paperwork ...that they can then show the Govt. of the day"see we are doing something about it".

 

In fact if RA Aus had had the staff with the time and resources ( e.g. adequate storage of files) to oversee the fidelity of the registration system, coupled with the willingness and ability to actually follow up on the obvious gaps ( with people supplying aircraft paperwork)then we may not have been in this position.

 

It could be said that CASA was put in this position( of auditing all the regos) by the RA AUS being unwilling or (more likely) unable to fund the resources to carry out the Tech Airworthiness audit requirements adequately.

 

Further then, if CASA wants RA AUS (or similar self regulating bodies)to regulate (so CASA doesn't have/want to) then CASA should ensure that we are funded adequately in order to have enough qualified staff (paid commensurately)and resources to allow RA Aus to do just that.

 

IMHO

 

Andy

 

( Remember the (not so) Secret CASA Motto "We are not happy until you are not happy")

 

Just kiddin!

 

 

[johnm]

( Remember the (not so) Secret CASA Motto "We are not happy until you are not happy")

 

............. and ......................... 'the floggings shall continue until morale improves'

 

 

[flyhi]

( Remember the (not so) Secret CASA Motto "We are not happy until you are not happy")

 

And the other one "I am from CASA and I am here to help you" Now let us get on with the audit

 

 

[turboplanner]

TP - have sent in 2 sets of different photo's over the past 2 annual rego events and you could be right - my aeroplane does feel less prone to drop from the skyCome mid april if there is no rego renewal in the post - aeroplane definietly won't be able to drop from the sky

Yes, I can see the strategy now - already 400 safe pilots!

 

 

[alf jessup]

We share the same sky as everyone else that flys, GA & Airline and they have annual inspections so I cannot see the problem, we want the same privelages in part as they have so we should be following suit.

 

I believe there should be a once off registration for the aircraft and annuals done, problem i see if RAA doesn't have rego yearly they would have less contact with us than they already do and have no way of tracking the annuals.

 

I agree that most accidents are pilot error in most parts but if no one ever inspects or maintains their aircraft to factory standards we might see the trend increasing from our aircraft actually start falling out of the sky.

 

I don't have a problem with it, my view is if you can't afford the 100hrly you can't afford the plane in the first place.

 

Alf

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Alf

 

I do the 100 hourly or 12 months inspection whichever comes first. If all were to do this I believe that there would not be sufficient lame's available.

 

I have to book up well in advance or ground myself, even then it's usually touch and go.

 

Another point. How does anyone know that I have complied to the rules? An entry in the maintenance manual, ok but I have never been asked to produce it.

 

Sorry for straying off thread, this may fix. Moree last month, I taxied to a partly X run way as the rpt was loading. Got to the keys and gave calls. Rpt asked my intentions, my radio was not transmitting, all he could hear was a carrier wave. So there I was a K and a half away with him holding,using heaps of fuel. I pulled out the hand held to tell him I had some problem but he couldn't get a clear signal. I have Zulu headsets with Wifi and gave the connections near the battery cage a wiggle and all fired up. I oppologised for the glitch and he was very gracious saying have a good trip.

 

I will buy him a beer if I run into him.

 

 

[M61A1]

You really think people would do an annual if it wasn't required?I'm well aware that most crashes are CFIT... and its these very people who don't follow flight procedure - leading to CFIT - that you want to trust with doing a non-mandatory annual?

 

Doesnt seem right to me.

 

- boingk

If you check the tech manual section 4.2.4 on periodic inspections, it clearly lays out what is required and includes an annexed checklist. A significant part of recreational aviation is doing what you can yourself, and then, being responsible for what you have done.

And yes, most recreational pilots (the ones I know anyway) ie: those not trying to make a dollar out of it, do far more than an annual inspection, and take a lot of pride in their workmanship.

 

Seems damn near perfect to me....

 

 

[M61A1]

We share the same sky as everyone else that flys, GA & Airline and they have annual inspections so I cannot see the problem, we want the same privelages in part as they have so we should be following suit.I believe there should be a once off registration for the aircraft and annuals done, problem i see if RAA doesn't have rego yearly they would have less contact with us than they already do and have no way of tracking the annuals.

I agree that most accidents are pilot error in most parts but if no one ever inspects or maintains their aircraft to factory standards we might see the trend increasing from our aircraft actually start falling out of the sky.

 

I don't have a problem with it, my view is if you can't afford the 100hrly you can't afford the plane in the first place.

 

Alf

About the reason I would agree with an annual , is that if you consider it necessary to traverse controlled airspace, then maybe, your aircraft should be inspected by a LAME to make sure all your nav, comms and indicators meet the standard.

I have no problem affording my aircraft maintenance, but I would have a problem affording someone else to do my maintenance.

 

The attitude that "if you can't afford to pay someone to do your maintenance, then you can't afford the aircraft", has no place in recreational flying.

 

I don't know why you would suggest that no-one here carefully carries out all necessary maintenance, but I find it utterly offensive.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I jus got my renewal by email. Yippee! My file is in order and all is right with the world. My thanks to the renewal team, I hope the backlog goes away soon.

 

 

[boingk]

We share the same sky as everyone else that flys, GA & Airline and they have annual inspections so I cannot see the problem, we want the same privelages in part as they have so we should be following suit.I believe there should be a once off registration for the aircraft and annuals done, problem i see if RAA doesn't have rego yearly they would have less contact with us than they already do and have no way of tracking the annuals.

I agree that most accidents are pilot error in most parts but if no one ever inspects or maintains their aircraft to factory standards we might see the trend increasing from our aircraft actually start falling out of the sky.

 

I don't have a problem with it, my view is if you can't afford the 100hrly you can't afford the plane in the first place.

F***ing bingo. Well said, sir.

 

If you check the tech manual section 4.2.4 on periodic inspections' date=' it clearly lays out what is required and includes an annexed checklist. A significant part of recreational aviation is doing what you can yourself, and then, being responsible for what you have done. And yes, most recreational pilots (the ones I know anyway) ie: those not trying to make a dollar out of it, do far more than an annual inspection, and take a lot of pride in their workmanship.[/quote']That makes me all warm and fuzzy inside, but it doesn't make me feel safe. I could personally give a stuff what people think they and others are doing. Unless its mandated by law then it doesn't count for squat - we don't want a 90% compliance rate, we want a 100% compliance rate. I'm not trying to get irate here but I really do think we need mandated checks, including annuals. The big boys have them so why not us?

- boingk