Yep... Your membership fees have gone up.

[Aerochute Kev]

While it is hard to know for sure, as far as I can tell the faster aircraft are causing most of our problems and therefore are costing more for all members. For those who claim this is not so, to me problems include, registration issues (imported LSAs), litigation, other LSA problems, load on the Tech Managers and administration of too many categories

I am going to show my ignorance of the types of fixed wing aircraft available to RAAus registration but will throw this in as a starting point.

AUF then RAAus has always been about safe, affordable flying and "ultralights" but has evolved into much more. What if we chose a common entry level GA aircraft (C150?) and say that to be eligible for RAAus rego the aircraft must be lighter, slower at MTOW, less engine capacity and slower stall speed than that aircraft. In other words if you want to have an aircraft that out-performs an entry level GA aircraft, you go GA. This would then restrict RAAus aircraft to purely "recreational aircraft". Would this be reasonable?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

CAO95.55 extracts:-

 

If you read these and compare against a C150 theres not a whole lot of difference.......

 

Andy

 

1 Application

 

1.1 This Order applies to a single-place or 2-place aeroplane that:

 

(a) is not a weight shift controlled aeroplane or a powered parachute; and

 

(b) has a single engine and a single propeller; and

 

© has a Vso stall speed of not greater than 45 knots, as determined by design standards or certification requirements; and

 

(d) is registered with the RAA; and

 

(e) is mentioned in paragraph 1.2.

 

1.2 For subparagraph 1.1 (e), an aeroplane must be 1 of the following:

 

(a) an aeroplane to which Order 101.28 applies that complies with the design standards specified in that Order, with a maximum take-off weight not exceeding:

 

(i) in the case of an aeroplane not equipped to land on water — 600 kg; or

 

(ii) in the case of an aeroplane equipped to land on water — 650 kg;

 

(b) an aeroplane described in paragraph 1.1 of Order 101.55;

 

© an aeroplane described in paragraph 1.2 of Order 101.55 that meets the design standards in that Order;

 

(d) an old section 95.25 aeroplane that has not been modified except with the approval of a person who is an authorised person for subregulation 35 (1) of CAR 1988;

 

(e) an aeroplane, the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person’s own education or recreation, that has a maximum take-off weight not exceeding:

 

(i) in the case of an aeroplane not equipped to land on water — 600 kg; or

 

(ii) in the case of an aeroplane equipped to land on water — 650 kg;

 

(f) an aeroplane:

 

(i) of a type for which a type certificate, a certificate of type approval or an equivalent document has been issued by CASA, another national airworthiness authority (NAA) or a competent issuing authority; and

 

(ii) that has been manufactured for sale by the holder of a certificate, or an equivalent document, permitting the manufacture of aeroplanes of that type and issued by CASA or another NAA or a competent issuing authority; and

 

(iii) that has a maximum take-off weight not exceeding:

 

(A) in the case of an aeroplane not equipped to land on water — 600 kg; or

 

(B) in the case of an aeroplane equipped to land on water — 650 kg; and

 

(iv) that has a payload that is equal to, or exceeds, the minimum useful load for that aeroplane determined in accordance with paragraph 1.3;

 

(g) a light sport aircraft:

 

(i) manufactured by a qualified manufacturer as defined by regulation 21.172 of CASR 1998; and

 

(ii) for which there is a current special certificate of airworthiness;

 

(h) a light sport aircraft:

 

(i) to which paragraph 21.191 (j) or (k) of CASR 1998 applies; and

 

(ii) for which there is a current experimental certificate of airworthiness.

 

1.3 For the purposes of sub-subparagraph 1.2 (f) (iv), the minimum useful load for an aeroplane is:

 

(a) if the aeroplane’s engine power is rated in kilowatts — the amount in kilograms worked out in accordance with the formula:

 

(80 x S) + 0.3P; or

 

(b) if the aeroplane’s engine power is rated in brake horse power — the amount in pounds worked out in accordance with the formula:

 

(175 x S) + 0.5P

 

where:

 

S is the number of seats in the aeroplane; and

 

P is the aeroplane’s rated engine power.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The argument over whether faster or slower aircraft are a cost issue because of fatalities/injuries at speed on the ground is a dry one, and overseas figures are irrelevant, because we know most of the people who have died in the most recent spike and you can go to threads and see the discussions. It's the minor injury crashes where police were not involved that are the ones which have either not been reported, or the "Pilot Notes" reports don't contain enough detail.

 

On the fatals in the last three years, probably half didn't get to try out their skills on the ground because they lost control the minute the engine failed, and spun or stalled in from altitude. That's the issue which should be addressed, and that's the issue which could prove to be the most costly for RAA..

 

 

[turboplanner]

The subscription increase is not about whether you can pay or not, although some members will drop off

 

There's also no point in quoting huge subscriptions from other Associations which don't have the critical mass of the huge membership of RAA

 

And there's no point in quoting golf subscriptions where so many people have walked that golf clubs are selling off property to survive.

 

The issue is whether it is justified.

 

Increase related to CPI

 

The increase from $160.00 in 2010 to $185, now $210.00 is 31%

 

CPI Increase for about the same period is about 10%, which would make the fees about $176.00

 

The "million" in the bank

 

This could be gone if a few big claims came in, however:

 

If we calculate what it would have earned over the past three years at 15% vs what was pointed out above - 4%, it could have earned $396,000 more, and this discussion wouldn't be occurring. In fact RAA has/had the critical mass without the big expenses/claims to be a zero subscription cost instrument like CASA.

 

The 2010 two year subscriptions

 

The problem wasn't a paper income "shortfall", the problem was a $216,000.00 increase in costs, posted as "office expenses" (previously called "staffing")

 

The two year subscriptions were addressed in the 2010 Annual Report, and had no influence after that.

 

Costs attributed to two individuals added up approximately to the $216,000.00, and this could only be unravelled at board level in camera.

 

Successive Treasurers haven't addressed the split up of costs logged to the vague titles (or haven't published a reconciliation).

 

Because Natfly and the magazine don't have separate profit/loss reports, members don't know how much of their fees may be going into these.

 

These things are well within the bounds of the current RAA structure to correct.

 

Once that is done then a transparent assessment of what the current costs are, and how a subscription increase, if any, could be justified would make the decision routine.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Yep agree with that but there is a downside as well.....and that is that trikes / drifters and other slower but more importantly draggy aircraft will have a higher decent rate glide (less penetration) so the cone of the possible will be closer in and as such the available choices for a landing space become more limited.Still, the time to look for and find appropriate landing locations isn't once the motor has stopped and the lower X:1 glide rates shouldn't have any real impact because you shouldn't be flying where you need X+ to achieve a good out landing.

 

Andy

Not much protection provided for the occupants (?) of a Drifter forced landing amongst trees or rocks or houses...or even a Ferris wheel. It's nice to have something between you and them when the fan stops and I personally prefer not to be the primary component of the crumple zone.

 

Fly an Auster...the original Steel Aeroplane !

 

Kaz

 

 

[johnm]

you create the impression you know the mechanisms of RAA turbo planner ....... thats always encouraging

 

you touch on the subject of 2 year rego and any paper income shortfall was not a problem - it was costs that were the problem

 

what was then the philosophy from going from 2 years rego back to 1 year ................ then ? (any ideas ?)

 

 

[turboplanner]

I can't remember anyone giving an explanation.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I don't believe there has ever been a 2 year option for registration.

 

There was a 2 year option for membership, but despite the fact that financial accounting methods for dealing with prepayment have existed since the stable in Bethlehem was rented for 5 nights in advance, our bunch didn't do that and accounted for the entire payment in the year it was received.......which of course sets you up to have a great year in year 1 and a crap year in year 2......Of course over time it evens out if you ignore it and you have over and understatement occurring every year.......Anyway rather than understand that you book the revenue to prepayments (Balance sheet) and then recognize only every current months worth of revenue from the Prepayments account (so 1 24th every month is transferred) from the balance sheet to the P&L as it occurs they decided to do away with 2 years. You cant shoot yourself in the foot if you cut it off first!

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

It is far easier and safer to have an engine failure in a Drifter or Thruster than a Sting.[/quote

Not much protection provided for the occupants (?) of a Drifter forced landing amongst trees or rocks or houses...or even a Ferris wheel. It's nice to have something between you and them when the fan stops and I personally prefer not to be the primary component of the crumple zone.Fly an Auster...the original Steel Aeroplane !

 

Kaz

Kaz the original steel aeroplane was the Fokker D7 built by Athony Fokker. It had the first welded chromoly fuselage as the primary structure..........but I do agree it is nice to have some steel structure around you on the event of a crash..........Cheers Maj...

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I can't remember anyone giving an explanation.

The two year membership was only an option which not many took up, so it was dropped.. Not much point in offering it if only a few use it.................Maj.......

 

 

[Teckair]

The subscription increase is not about whether you can pay or not, although some members will drop offThere's also no point in quoting huge subscriptions from other Associations which don't have the critical mass of the huge membership of RAA

And there's no point in quoting golf subscriptions where so many people have walked that golf clubs are selling off property to survive.

 

The issue is whether it is justified.

I think that is so correct.

 

 

[Teckair]

I am going to show my ignorance of the types of fixed wing aircraft available to RAAus registration but will throw this in as a starting point. AUF then RAAus has always been about safe, affordable flying and "ultralights" but has evolved into much more. What if we chose a common entry level GA aircraft (C150?) and say that to be eligible for RAAus rego the aircraft must be lighter, slower at MTOW, less engine capacity and slower stall speed than that aircraft. In other words if you want to have an aircraft that out-performs an entry level GA aircraft, you go GA. This would then restrict RAAus aircraft to purely "recreational aircraft". Would this be reasonable?

Yes sounds reasonable to me, the problem is there are those among us who want GA style flying with ultralight conditions and cost

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

The two year membership was only an option which not many took up, so it was dropped.. Not much point in offering it if only a few use it.................Maj.......

Not sure I agree with that...If not many used it then the affect of incorrect accounting treatment in the overall scheme of things would be insignificant. As I understood it the affect was significant enough that Steve Runciman who was the treasurer that inherited the problem was initially concerned as to whether we were covering our costs. That suggests that more than a few were taking the offering. If its discounted to reflect lost interest then its a good way to insure against fee rises next year....not that traditionally they happen too often.......which of itself is surprising because pay rises happen more years than they don't....

 

Andy

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Not much protection provided for the occupants (?) of a Drifter forced landing amongst trees or rocks or houses...or even a Ferris wheel. It's nice to have something between you and them when the fan stops and I personally prefer not to be the primary component of the crumple zone.Fly an Auster...the original Steel Aeroplane !

 

Kaz

A bit off-topic but a worthy subject for comment Kaz.

 

When I was instructing we mainly used Drifters but also had a Skyfox and a Lightwing available. They cost a few dollars more per hour for the student but it was very interesting to observe how the students and hirers flew quite differently in the 'steel' planes compared to their style in the Drifter. When they were seated out front and would be the first thing to be squished against an obstacle in a botched forced landing they were very vigilant about keeping good outlanding options in case they might be needed.

 

In the steel-cage planes they seemed to suddenly become invincible and their precautionary behaviour waned very noticeably. I came to the conclusion that an engine failure was far more likely to result in aircraft damage and/or crew injury when they flew the enclosed planes compared to when they were aware of being so much more vulnerable in an 'arrival' machine like the Drifter. I have often wondered what the damage/injury per engine failure statistics would reveal but of course most Drifter engine failures were/are never reported.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

I don't believe there has ever been a 2 year option for registration. ..... There was a 2 year option for membership

There was an option for 2 year registrations - we paid in Nov 2008 - the offer was $110 for 12 months or $200 for 24 months for a 2 seater.

 

There was an option for 2 year memberships - we paid in May 2008 - $160 (1yr), $300 (2yr). Interestingly the costs were fully dissected on the invoice:-

 

One Year:- Membership fee $85.00, Insurance fee $37.00, Certificate fee $23.45, GST $14.55 = $160.00 (no mention of magazine)

 

 

 

On the annual financial statements the full income of 2 year memberships were recognised in the year it was paid (a bumper year) and the next year appeared very poor. Hence the call to increase fees, because the bottom line said LOSS. The next year the figures were adjusted to correctly recognise these pre-payments. Unfortunately I don't know what formula they used (only the total). I have used: Ex-GST 2yr fee, less one year fee.

 

$78,450 - aircraft (equivalent to approx 958 2seaters or 1,916 seats)

 

$ 159,331 - memberships (approx 1,279 people)

 

 

 

Sue

 

 

[frank marriott]

Sue

 

I don't recall it in as much detail as you but I remember paying both for 2 years as well. I looked at it as I am going to need the rego and membership for the next 2 years so why not get it out of the way in one go.

 

 

[Spriteah]

Fee increase of $25 per year is 50 cents per week. 25% of a cup of coffee (take away) per week.

 

Why? We are spending more than we are generating to combat the problems of the past. We will invest now to strengthen the organisation for the future. We are also looking at other income streams to offset loss. Yes we have some money in the bank but it would be unwise to leave our organisation without a contingency fund.

 

I hope to see us return to profit in the next 24 months. Possibly even this financial year (but that is less likely).

 

Turbo: Successive Treasurers haven't addressed the split up of costs logged to the vague titles (or haven't published a reconciliation).

 

Because Natfly and the magazine don't have separate profit/loss reports, members don't know how much of their fees may be going into these. I address these very issues at the AGM and are included in my presentation. Didn't you read it?

 

Regards and safe flying,

 

Jim Tatlock.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

I hope to see us return to profit in the next 24 months. Possibly even this financial year (but that is less likely).

Now where have I heard this line out of Canberra before....?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I address these very issues at the AGM and are included in my presentation. Didn't you read it?

The document which counts, and allows a comparison from year to year is the Annual report, signed off by the Auditors and lodged with the Department of Justice.

 

That's the one that astute insurers for example would be looking at.

 

If the 2013 Report shows profit/loss analysis for the magazine and Natfly, and costs are broken down to the point where they are transparent, that will be a great step forward.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Trying to set up a chart

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sue,

 

The 24 months membership started in 2008 where, by deduction, membership income and retained earnings were overstated by $230,750.00

 

That produced a surplus shown in the June 2009 Annual Report, of $430,901.00

 

Board members were obviously aware of the problem, since the 2009 column of the 2010 Annual Report then showed a surplus marked down to $200,151.00

 

I couldn't find any notes, either from the Treasurer, or more interestingly from the Auditors referring to this variation, but there endeth the two year subscription issue.

 

What the 2010 Annual Report does show is a major jump in expenses in the form of Office/Employee/Staffing expenses.

 

These figures are direct from the Annual Reports.

 

30/06/2008 30/06/2009 30/06/2010 30/06/2011

 

Subscriptions $ 964,686.00 $ 1,065,423.00 $1,135,364.00 $1,265,880.00

 

Office/Employee/Staff Expenses $ 508,729.00 $ 651,410.00 $ 868,396.00 $ 840,690.00

 

Surplus $ 247,806.00 $430,901.00 #1 $ 64,772.00 $ 253,869.00

 

Surplus $200,151.00 #2

 

#1 Reported in 2009 Annual Report

 

#2 2009 column adjusted in 2010 Annual Report

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

2009 was indeed a messy year (for financial record keeping and interpretation), some of which was corrected on the 2010 report.

 

In 2009 there was $129,750 noted as 50% of two year memberships paid in advance (Note 10). This was changed to $360,500 for 2009 in the 2010 report - with no explanation. A further prepayment by members of $116,150 was recognised in 2010 (Note 10).

 

 

 

There were adjustments made to the 2009 figures:

 

Advertising

 

Aircraft Registrations

 

Flight Crew

 

Member Liability Insurance

 

Member subscriptions

 

Other Expenses

 

Sales of Stock

 

Cash at bank

 

Accrued interest

 

LSL (non current)

 

 

 

I seem to remember an article by Steve R saying how fees had to go up because we only made $65k that year. The two year option was stopped because the system in place at the time could not handle the reporting.

 

 

 

Employee expenses did go up - remember there was a substantial pay rise granted. The 2010 annual report has Key Personnel -

 

"Any person(s) having authority and responsibility for planning, directing and controlling the activities of the association" total compensation increased by 79% to $372,696 (total compensation) + $26,948 (post employment benefit). The ABS analysis of Managerial / Admin wages in Canberra showed a 3.5% increase for that period. Now I don't know if this is CEO, Tech Man, Ops Manager, Office Manager or who.

 

 

 

The overall staff compensation increased 34.9% in 2010, but fell by 2.9% in 2011 (probably due to vacancies not filled) at a time when we should have been throwing staff resources at getting our house in order.

 

 

 

Sue

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[johnm]

good disections Sue and turbo

 

I still find it strange that 2 year time frames for any subs / regos are considered to be to complex or can't be accounted for ..................... my mind is its half the workload so costs should decrease (considerably)

 

half the workload could be relevant to RAA in that they can spend more time doing other things - rather than the annual treadmill

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

good disections Sue and turboI still find it strange that 2 year time frames for any subs / regos are considered to be to complex or can't be accounted for ..................... my mind is its half the workload so costs should decrease (considerably)

 

half the workload could be relevant to RAA in that they can spend more time doing other things - rather than the annual treadmill

Yes sounds simple doesn't it....however when you make a major change like that, especially when other things have been in place for a period of time, it's not necessarily that easy at all. I'm sure with the right IT program, and the right office staff trained to operate it, it is indeed very do-able, and would be a time - saver. BUT....it takes the right people to be in place , and someone with the right commitment and time to do it properly, so it works well right off the back................Maj...

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Fee increase of $25 per year is 50 cents per week. 25% of a cup of coffee (take away) per week.Regards and safe flying,

 

Jim Tatlock.

Jim if you raised the membership from the low rate is now to a very manageable 25 cents per hour, the RAA could really get on top off it's problems