Yep... Your membership fees have gone up.

[David Isaac]

It isnt a monopoly, whole concept is that RAA is a parallel pathGo to GA and see how far $25 goes on an annual inspection.

Your definitions of parallel path for GA and RA Aus are far from parallel jetr. They are two different paths with two different requirements. CASA has the monopoly on GA and at the moment RA Aus has the monopoly on Ultralights. You cannot fly a C150 on an RA aus license and you cant fly a 95-10 on a GA license. You need a Class 2 minimum license for a GA which is not required for Ultralights. If it were true parallel anyone could swap from one to the other. Clearly there are different requirements.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

I had to choose between my bike and my plane; I could not afford to register both. The plane cost 1/10th as much as the bike would have. Even after the increase in membership fee, this pensioner is far ahead.

Tough choice to make. There are those that no longer have those choices. You may now be in the same boat as them when they increase the fees again. I hope not. We should not be increasing the pot of money for the Board to play with until we see real results of what they can do with what they already have. - Kev

 

 

[facthunter]

Kev I don't see the point of using emotive phrases like pot of" money for the board to play with" etc. perhaps you know a lot more than I do. They would have a good reason for keeping a buffer and I am sure they take advice. The board and the show have been through a lot in the last few years and mistakes have been made but not by all the same people all the time. If I was working my guts out in the office I would appreciate some positive comment. As I've pointed out, Board members only get costs reimbursed and none of the current staff are overpaid. Nev

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Kev I don't see the point of using emotive phrases like pot of" money for the board to play with" etc. perhaps you know a lot more than I do. They would have a good reason for keeping a buffer and I am sure they take advice. The board and the show have been through a lot in the last few years and mistakes have been made but not by all the same people all the time. If I was working my guts out in the office I would appreciate some positive comment. As I've pointed out, Board members only get costs reimbursed and none of the current staff are overpaid. Nev

I agree with Maj that is is nice to have that cash reserve "for a rainy day" but in my view it's already pouring. If the reserves cant be used to get us out of this mess I really don't know what it is being saved for. Can anyone tell me just what we are saving it for if preventing the total collapse of RAAus is not a good reason to access it? We have the potential to be the richest organisation to no longer exist, because our Board does not want to use the resources we have.

A pot of money is just what it is, more than enough to employ temp staff and put in place the processes we need to become a great organisation, and there is no need to increase fees at this stage. I have not claimed the membership fee is too high. I don't think there would be many complaints if we were getting value for money and everyone was enjoying their flying. With aircraft grounded (some permanently), Rego's expired, flight schools going broke, manufacturers not selling aircraft......... someone please convince me we are getting value for money and the fee increase is necessary. I doubt you would be able to justify it to yourself, let alone me.

 

I in no way blame the staff or think they are overpaid. They can only do so much with what they have. The problem is the Board not giving the resources needed to fix this. (resources they already have). Whether the board are paid or not is in no way a justification for poor performance and allowing this mess to continue, and I hope you are not claiming it is?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I think its safe to assume that management has no vision of where they are taking the RAA, the money will sit there and opportunities will be missed.

 

 

[Robert]

Membership fees up !!!!! Does this mean registration fees up as well the cost of a biannual hmmm and the rich guys are saying if you cant afford it than just go away and play bowls. Make one wonder where we are heading. I think the trouble is RAA has been hiJacked by GA wanttabes Gee how i would like to see the good old fun days back

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Membership fees up !!!!! Does this mean registration fees up as well the cost of a biannual hmmm and the rich guys are saying if you cant afford it than just go away and play bowls. Make one wonder where we are heading. I think the trouble is RAA has been hiJacked by GA wanttabes Gee how i would like to see the good old fun days back

I think you nailed it Robert. We have spent so much time and resources chasing more benefits for those few that want to fly GA on a RAAus budget that we have dropped the ball and allowed our core business, recreational aviation, to fail. - Kev

 

 

[johnm]

It would of been interesting if RAA had of decreased their fees ..................... the comments in this forum would then have been also interesting to read (and no doubt every comment would not have been positive)

 

.................. having said that all bureaucracies (and monopolies) seem to have this insatiable need for money and any price increase is only a minor anoouncement or letter away - usually their % age cost increase bears no relevance to the state of the economy or the cost of living

 

I've always thought these organisations and their required fee increases are one of the 'pillar stones' of gauranteed inflation in the community and it's comforting to see that RAA is toeing the line with the rest of 'em

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Perhaps we should be pushing for a graduated scale dependent on the aircraft type/category. Say, 95-10...$125, less than 90knots...$150, up to 110knots...$175, above and beyond, $200. Deciding on the different classes would be difficult but not impossible.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

the guys flying above 110 knots can afford at least $500 if not more

 

 

[facthunter]

Graduated fees could easily be justified as fee for service. You pay for what you want and the COST of supplying it. That concept would never be opposed and people of good intent would be more than capable of getting it right, or close to it. Wishful thinking and speculation are just that though. This organisation doesn't need more factions, and IF you have really good ideas communicate them to those who are actively trying to keep the show on the road. In this organisation you have some chance of influencing what is done on your behalf. If you operate under the CASA directly you take what the AUTHORITY applies to your situation without much power to change it by yourself. Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

We cant even manage to register aircraft to the degree of accuracy CASA wanted, what makes you think we can suddenly introduce a bunch of additional complexity at this point in time??????

 

I regularly see people suggest that the more the aircraft costs the more you should pay in Rego (because speed is generally a function of cost in the commercial world)

 

Can anyone who subscribes to that view tell me what it is about speed that means I need to pay more.....Is it that I fly more hours (Nope!) or that I need more RAAus servicing (Nope!) or that SMS's will be written with me in mind (Nope!) perhaps a Jab is harder to register than a homebuilt scratch designed aircraft (Nope in fact the reverse!) so what other than the initial cost of the aircraft is driving a need for me to pay more as compared to another participant who chooses for a whole plethora of reasons to have a cheaper or different plane, where the main reason may well have been completely independent of costs ( my decision for aircraft type was because at the time I regularly wanted to go Gawler-Grafton...these days I just play locally and if choosing again a slower aircraft would be perfectly acceptable) ?

 

If it is to be speed based what speed is it that you are measuring to determine the cost? A number of aircraft deisgns have differing speeds depending on the motor fitted, but may well all have the same VNE....... If I take the spats off mine I cruise at 108.....great I get to drop a category..... Who will be the arbiter of category and on what basis will it be set.....

 

The questions above can be simplified down to the following statement for me:-

 

RAAus cant do what we need to do correctly today to keep CASA fully satisfied. Any evolution in RAAus today needs to address those points of dissatisfaction because it is those points alone that twill ultimately hreaten our ability to fly (all of us, not just fast or slow or any other arbitrary determinant you can come up with) so any other form of evolution should not occur until we have the basics under control!

 

Andy

 

 

[Admin]

@@facthunter if it will cost $210 to be a member to fly with the RAAus restrictions, is the RPL now becoming a real alternative given the cost of a medical now with your local doctor is sort of free (with bulk billing) and hiring say a Jab that has VH rego...I haven't kept up on all this so I am most probably wrong as there must be some catch some where with costs

[facthunter]

For some it will be an option Ian . I don't think it is for me. I don't want to fly a plane I have no part of servicing, ( But that's me). Till we know where the RAAus finishes up we will not be able to make an assessment. Having some say in how the show is run is OK as long as we don't spend the time fighting each other. We must realise the potential of what we have here.... Meanwhile time passes on. Nev

 

 

[frank marriott]

Xhiring in the north is very limited and a C172 @ plus $300/hr makes the options small. Basically nothing available to take on a trip.

 

 

[M61A1]

Perhaps we should be pushing for a graduated scale dependent on the aircraft type/category. Say, 95-10...$125, less than 90knots...$150, up to 110knots...$175, above and beyond, $200. Deciding on the different classes would be difficult but not impossible.

I would have to ask, how does how fast your aeroplane goes affect the cost of administering it's registration?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

so $200 a year to register your plane regardless of how fast it goes but $500 for that year the RAA loses your paper work

 

 

[Teckair]

I would have to ask, how does how fast your aeroplane goes affect the cost of administering it's registration?

It is quite simple actually the faster the aircraft the more complications and problems you get and the more expensive they are to fix. It does not take genius to understand the faster the plane the more skill you need to survive an engine failure, hence the type of court case we have recently had.

 

 

[facthunter]

If they are all restricted to a set stall speed I can't really see your point to any great extent. The organisation would be entitled to recover processing and other costs . Like landing fees etc. We don't have an upper airspeed limit but it is almost trapped by weight and stall speed limits. We should be wary of allowing limits that just stall(inhibit) progress. We grew through them in the early days when most planes were single seat. I think I could safely state the biggest increase in Liability comes with carrying a PASSENGER.

 

Perhaps we could accept the inevitable and realise that most people WANT to carry a passenger and work out the cheapest and safest and simplest way to do that. One way to cover it was to placard the dash and insist the pax was INFORMED of all the deficiencies the plane had vs a commercial airliner. This doesn't seem to have sunk in universally so that is why we are where we are with the accident in question. Nev

 

 

[johnm]

agreeance - sort of - to the all above but keep out class distinction ............. we all fly little, lighter than air planes - GA & P51 pilots must snigger when we think we can chop our modest fleet into classes

 

............... also don't forget the concept of extending rego to 2 years - this must surely be an 'administrative' saving that can / must be considered by RAA - when RAA get all rego's up to speed

 

 

[Teckair]

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

 

 

[Teckair]

GA & P51 pilots must snigger

Yep that's been going on for a while.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

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

What was that statement made many years ago when the cub was first released "Its so safe it can only barely kill you" or words to that effect......

 

 

[David Isaac]

Well the slower the stall speed means the lower the impact deceleration energy, slow stall coupled with high drag means if you know what you are doing you can put them into shorter rougher paddocks and increase your chance of survival.

 

The same thing applies to putting a J1B Auster into the a tree canopy at 25knots (VSo) and probably survive compared to putting something like a Tobago or Glassair into the trees at 60 +knots (VSo). Double the speed and quadruple the impact energy. Basic physics really.

 

So theoretically it is safer to have to land a Drifter or Thruster under engine failure in the scrub than some slippery much faster machine ... but then again engine failures in Drifters and Thrusters are more likely and you are more likely to be somewhat practiced in the skill. Give me a Drifter or an Auster any day under engine failure conditions thanks especially over rough country.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

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