RAAus Future

[old pilot]

Hi pylon 500

 

That is by far the best write up I have seen on this site straight to the point and the truth in every way it's such a pity the powers above hadn't seen it this way great reading

 

Cheers

 

Old pilot

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Hi CrezziWork has been in my way hence the slow reply.

The RTO will cover training and the basis for the SMS is taining and education.

 

There is no organisation about which has a base to start a RTO which can educate and develop recreational aviation.

 

How I was looking at the situation RAAus owns the training packages and the trainers would use the RAAus packages to teach, e.g. *TIG welding, wood and fabric construction, Metal work, Composite construction, Engine maintanance, Flight training, Navigation and etc. etc. realy all the things we do now, only in a structured formal way which can be audited.

 

The SMS is not a big deal, as of now we are handing the knowledge along verbally instead under SMS situation the knowledge will be in a documented form and verified by competancy tests.

 

Crezzi.. This is as brief as I can make the explanation with out writing a novel.

 

I can not see how the STCC position is claimed to be small, as I am looking at it, it is huge.

 

We must be visionary and be looking forward at the big picture.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

Organisations are only required to become RTO to deliver Vocational Education & Training (VET). The key word is Vocational i.e. for employment not recreational. There are very few, if any, existing training packages which are relevent to recreational flying or maintenance - the costs of setting all this up in addition to the costs of getting and maintaining RTO registration (particularly across multiple sites eg each FTF) would be immense. Even most CASA GA flight schools aren't RTO's. Who would pay for all this ?

 

I'm all for improving standards but the way to achieve this doesn't need to include the extra costs, bureaucracy and overheads associated with ASQA IMO

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[planet47]

Such uncertainty!!!! A question for pylon 500.

 

Do I keep building?

 

 

[pylon500]

Do I keep building?

Last I heard, we can still build 19-xxxx.

 

 

[Guest Escadrille]

As soon as I cannot maintain my own aircraft and have to give it to a thieving, devious LAME or L2 then I will give up flying, give my Jabiru to Fly_Tornado and build and use a boat to take my wife away from the mess that is now our overly bureaucratic society for a few days at a time...

 

Andy

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Your Jabiru would make a very safe airboat

 

 

[farri]

RAAus Future???.....Who would really know?........Maybe it`s begining to become obvious, why many of us who started off in the early days of the AUF, wanted to keep it as simple as possible!

 

Frank.

 

 

[Teckair]

The question is, do you trust your skills as a mechanic?

For some reason some people will fiddle around with an aircraft when they are not up to the job. The same people cannot work on their car and get a professional to do it

 

 

[old pilot]

RAAus Future???.....Who would really know?........Maybe it`s begining to become obvious, why many of us who started off in the early days of the AUF, wanted to keep it as simple as possible!Frank.

Hi frank

That sure is the truth they were the days when flying the true ultralight was fun with not to many regs

 

Old pilot

 

 

[David Isaac]

Yep,

 

But I think there were a lot more of us then. They were certainly exciting fun days in the arly 80s and when they lifted the max 300ft rule we could much more readily travel cross country if we wanted to. I personally don't like where this is potentially going

 

Some how today things are a lot different, we don't have the numbers anymore and I think we would marginalized if we tried to go it alone.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Marginali

 

Yep,But I think there were a lot more of us then. They were certainly exciting fun days in the arly 80s and when they lifted the max 300ft rule we could much more readily travel cross country if we wanted to. I personally don't like where this is potentially going

Some how today things are a lot different, we don't have the numbers anymore and I think we would marginalized if we tried to go it alone.

Marginalised? Maybe but if you put all the sub 50kt aircraft together, PPC's Trikes, 95:10 etc I would think you would have a fairly decent group. Let the others fight over more airspace, heavier aircraft etc and all the extra regulations that might go with it.

I don't know about anyone else but i'm pretty happy being able to do what I can now and don't need MORE'(more height, more weight, more airspace, more regs, more cost)

 

Kev

 

 

[Teckair]

Kev sub 50kt would cut out an awful lot of planes that the movement was built on, Thrusters, Drifters, Lightwings, Skyfoxs, Trikes most 95:10s and even my Chinook.

 

Richard.

 

 

[M61A1]

PylonI take it you would also be happy with a 500ft limit, not flying over built up areas/highways, and private unregistered airstrips only. A membership of 1000 possibly. Best of luck. If you think bringing back restrictions will remove regulation in 2013 again best of luck - You can't even ride a bicycle these days without a helmet.

I don't believe that he suggested any of that....

It's called "recreational flying", it was never meant to make a living. Some of the rules have improved safety, but I think he is right inasmuch as we have become another GA, with people buying expensive aircraft, and not many building any more. When factories make stuff then a whole new set of rules apply, so that consumers are protected. New rules, more complexity, more cost, more risk of things going wrong, not necessarily with the aircraft, but legally, and organisationally.

 

How many posts are there on this website about suing someone? It's something that shouldn't be happening in recreational aviation.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

O

 

Kev sub 50kt would cut out an awful lot of planes that the movement was built on, Thrusters, Drifters, Lightwings, Skyfoxs, Trikes most 95:10s and even my Chinook.Richard.

OK, does not really matter where the line is drawn, could be 60knts, 70kts, 400kg or 450kg, whatever. The point being that it would not necessarily be a marginal group. I think we now have too many different classes/types of aircraft all trying to fit into one set of Regs. Why not draw a line somewhere and fix regs for that group. You want to fly faster, heavier, more airspace ...... Move to the next group and pay for the benefits you want. Oh hang on, we already have that.... RAAus/GA.

Every additional increase in weight, airspace etc costs all members, for a benefit only a few will want or use. The sooner RAAus dies and we start again as a purely recreational aviation body with realistic regs for RECREATION the better. Maybe even the HGFA could change (become AUF?) and become a second major player accepting the true "ultralights". Maybe then the "marginal" group would be the ones always wanting more?

 

Kev

 

 

[M61A1]

OOK, does not really matter where the line is drawn, could be 60knts, 70kts, 400kg or 450kg, whatever. The point being that it would not necessarily be a marginal group. I think we now have too many different classes/types of aircraft all trying to fit into one set of Regs. Why not draw a line somewhere and fix regs for that group. You want to fly faster, heavier, more airspace ...... Move to the next group and pay for the benefits you want. Oh hang on, we already have that.... RAAus/GA.

 

Every additional increase in weight, airspace etc costs all members, for a benefit only a few will want or use. The sooner RAAus dies and we start again as a purely recreational aviation body with realistic regs for RECREATION the better. Maybe even the HGFA could change (become AUF?) and become a second major player accepting the true "ultralights". Maybe then the "marginal" group would be the ones always wanting more?

 

Kev

I think the line should be between factory built and homebuilt. Not weight (within reason) or speed (maybe stall speed though).

 

 

[frank marriott]

"Every additional increase in weight, airspace etc costs all members"

 

Kev

 

Without buying into the debate in all it's various details, can you explain the above? If you don't want to make use of the greater weight or airspace I am at a loss as to why it costs more. I must be missing your point, if you want to fly around the paddock in an aerochute I didn't think there was any greater costs?

 

 

[David Isaac]

The 95-10 category is still the most flexible in design limitations. As long as you don't exceed 1 POB, 300Kg MTOW, and the specified wing loading (which determines stall speed) you can have as many engines as you like, have wind up wheels, in flight adjustable props or a jet turbine or two and go as fast as you like. This is the ultimate experimental category.

 

We can still do all that under our current system in Australia, BUT ... no one is doing it since the sad demise of Charles Legetti and Scott Winton. Bloody sad, I would love the opportunity to fly Scott's Facet Opel (which incidentally has been rebuilt by Scott's brother.

 

 

[M61A1]

The question is, do you trust your skills as a mechanic?

Anyone can educate themselves to the level necessary to maintain their aircraft, especially if you've gone to the trouble of building one. The question is more, are they willing to?

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

It

 

"Every additional increase in weight, airspace etc costs all members"Kev

 

Without buying into the debate in all it's various details, can you explain the above? If you don't want to make use of the greater weight or airspace I am at a loss as to why it costs more. I must be missing your point, if you want to fly around the paddock in an aerochute I didn't think there was any greater costs?

All the new regs, weights and airspace "needs" don't just magically appear. They are achieved through a lot of time and effort spent by OUR tireless staff at RAAus. Our rego's and membership fees pay for the mammoth amount of time our paid staff put into these projects. That's why it costs more. My membership or rego is no cheaper just because i might choose to fly around a paddock. Those that do not need or even want all the extra things we push for are in effect subsidising the cost for those that do. If we were not chasing more and more all the time, then having to hire more staff to administer all the extra requirements it would cost us all less. Those staff are paid by all members, regardless of whether or not they will, or can, use it. Even with the continual push for more, we have still amassed a small fortune of over $1m which tells me we are paying too much anyway for rego and membership.

Kev

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

I

 

I think the line should be between factory built and homebuilt. Not weight (within reason) or speed (maybe stall speed though).

I don't think the divider can be between factory built and homebuilt. I think weight/performance would be the key. An Aerochute with 300kg MTOW, 35kts and factory built would be in the same class as a Factory Built Jab or similar? And a kit built plastic fantastic with 912 and capable of 13okts in the same class as a rag and tube capable of 50kts just because they are homebuilt. Doesn't make sense to me to head that way.

As a group, and an organisation we seem to forget about aircraft other than the fast fixed wings when making/changing the rules!

 

Kev

 

 

[Teckair]

There are many different opinions about this but the idea has a lot of support maybe the easiest way would be to just use the already in place high and low performance categories.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I give up, I guess the majority will decide in the long run and whoever that majority might be would be the ones supplying the bulk money to run the show anyway.

 

 

[M61A1]

Kev

 

II don't think the divider can be between factory built and homebuilt. I think weight/performance would be the key. An Aerochute with 300kg MTOW, 35kts and factory built would be in the same class as a Factory Built Jab or similar? And a kit built plastic fantastic with 912 and capable of 13okts in the same class as a rag and tube capable of 50kts just because they are homebuilt. Doesn't make sense to me to head that way.

 

As a group, and an organisation we seem to forget about aircraft other than the fast fixed wings when making/changing the rules!

 

Kev

I'm not talking about licensing/skills required, Just who should control it. Generally, if it was built in a factory, or used to make a dollar, it is required to meet significantly different certification, in construction and maintenance for the safety of the paying customer. These might as well be GA. An organization dealing only in homebuilts, would have no certification related issues.

[turboplanner]

Anyone can educate themselves to the level necessary to maintain their aircraft, especially if you've gone to the trouble of building one. The question is more, are they willing to?

If you're suggesting someone can teach themselves from reading books and getting questionable tips on forums - No.

 

The professionals don't teach themselves, they need to be trained hands on.

 

 

[M61A1]

If you're suggesting someone can teach themselves from reading books and getting questionable tips on forums - No.The professionals don't teach themselves, they need to be trained hands on.

No, I'm suggesting that if they really want to they will find a way to ensure they have sufficient knowledge and skills. I'm not talking about professionals. Still, professionals need to be willing and have some drive to continuously improve their skills and knowledge. I'm talking about taking the initiative, you have to want to do it.