Yep... Your membership fees have gone up.

[greybeard]

The stall speed doesn't determine the speed in which an aircraft impacts with an immovable object. The stall speed may indicate when an aircrafts wing ceases to have sufficient lift to sustain flight but its the highly skilled and non-panicking gifted individual in charge of steering that has the greatest impact ( pun intended ) on the rate of deceleration.

 

 

[503]

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

Rego's up to speed funny, there is nobody that can sign off there all week

 

 

[Bubbleboy]

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

Its the same principle the RTA uses for road registration. It costs several hundred dollars a year more to register my ute than my wifes sedan. The sedan goes faster, I dont use the road any more than she does......explain that one!

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Differential pricing for motor vehicles hasn't always been the case, rather it was a "government initiative" to try and force people to replace big and thirsty beasts with smaller and more fuel efficient cars. It was never put in place because V8 Drivers were clearly richer than 4 cyl drivers...... Its just as artificial as what has been suggested here and I don't propose that because something else is wrong that we must make ours wrong as well.....

 

In fact for vehicles I cant remember the exact percentage but a fair chunk of what you pay at the bowsers is gov tax....therefore if you have a thirsty beast you are already choosing to pay more tax....

 

It should be called what it is, just like the carbon tax should have been called what it is "A Behaviour Modification tax" which incidentally the carbon tax did and current does very well....... but that's another story. Question is do we need behaviour modification for those that fly aircraft with a faster top end speed?

 

Andy

 

 

[David Isaac]

The stall speed doesn't determine the speed in which an aircraft impacts with an immovable object. The stall speed may indicate when an aircrafts wing ceases to have sufficient lift to sustain flight but its the highly skilled and non-panicking gifted individual in charge of steering that has the greatest impact ( pun intended ) on the rate of deceleration.

Not sure of your point Greybeard. My point was that if you hold off till the absolute minimum speed possible (VSo) just before impact, your impact speed (regardless of what you hit) will be the lowest possible. Therefore using basic physics, in identical object impact scenarios, the slower the stall speed the lower the impact and that difference is significant when comparing the two different aircraft stall speeds I gave as an example when you consider that the impact forces go up by the square of the speed.

If what you are landing in is inhospitable the lowest impact speed is ideal for survival.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

It seems no one has any answers to my questions as to what our reserves are for. I believe we have a Board member or 2 that post regularly here so perhaps they would like to offer an explanation as to why the reserves cannot be used to recover the organisation and what the reasoning was to increase the membership fees before any plan for our future has been put in place? - Kev

 

 

[greybeard]

Not sure of your point Greybeard. My point was that if you hold off till the absolute minimum speed possible (VSo) your impact speed (regardless of what you hit) will be the lowest possible. Therefore using basic physics, in identical object impact scenarios, the slower the stall speed the lower the impact and that difference is significant when comparing the two different aircraft stall speeds I gave as an example when you consider that the impact forces go up by the square of the speed.If what you are landing in is inhospitable the lowest impact speed is ideal for survival.

My point is that it's the pilot who can influence the impact speed. The law of physics determines the stall speed ( and the kinetic energy ) but the pilot has the option of a determining what and how the aircraft comes to a halt. ie stall the aircraft at 5000 feet and do nothing, fly the aircraft down to zero feet and aim between the trees/rocks. Stall speed isn't the major factor in the above. If you read the crash comics and other impact analysis it's the pilot who has the major influence on the impact speed. I don't remember any accident report suggesting that VSo was a contributing factor in an incident.

 

Yes, in theory, a lower stall speed give the pilot the potential for a lower starting speed for the incident but I'm talking reality of an aircraft impact.

 

You could hold off to VSo and smack into a rock or you could force the aircraft down earlier and use wings/fuselage/trees to wipe of speed before hitting the rock. What you hit, when you hit, how you hit, regardless of the stall speed is significant when heading towards the same object. All depends on the circumstances and when the fan stops.

 

I agree, basing registration costs on VSo seems a bit daft as there is a max value set by the regs.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I give up ....

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Neville Shute wrote that accidents decreased as landing speeds increased in streamlined aircraft in the late 1920s and early 1930s because the effect of wind gusting became relatively less important.

 

 

[M61A1]

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.

So, are you saying, in essence that the faster aircraft has higher insurance cost, and because of this , they should be charged more? As far as engine failures go, are they not all legislated to the same maximum stall speed? So there shouldn't be any that are outstandingly fast when landing. As far as fixing them, that is the owner's personal responsibility. There may be some substance if there is proof that any particular group is driving up insurance costs through personal injury. Otherwise, it's just a lame as QLD's rego by number of cylinders rort.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Neville Shute wrote that accidents decreased as landing speeds increased in streamlined aircraft in the late 1920s and early 1930s because the effect of wind gusting became relatively less important.

That would be true of landing accidents because of higher wing loading in modern aircraft and therefore less gust susceptible. What I was talking about is forced landings into rough terrain and in that situation the slower the speed you impact the terrain in the forced landing the higher the chance of survival and the slower the stall speed the slower the impact speed can be.

 

 

[Thirsty]

we all fly little, lighter than air planes

I don't! My J160 weighs quite a bit more than air :)

 

 

[johnm]

sorry thirsty .......................... should have said excluding all pokeawallabies (jabirus)

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Gee I seem to have got the pot boiling. Bowing out now

 

 

[Mark11]

HGFA (NSW) just jumped to $352/yr

 

 

[Yenn]

How do you campare ti with GA? GA has no membership fees, nor does it have annual registration.

 

If you think RAAus is too expensive you can go to GA. Work out the numbers for yourself.

 

As far as I am concerned RAAus still gives good value if the plane you fly can be registered there.

 

 

[Teckair]

There may be some substance if there is proof that any particular group is driving up insurance costs through personal injury. .

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 catagories

 

 

[Teckair]

Neville Shute wrote that accidents decreased as landing speeds increased in streamlined aircraft in the late 1920s and early 1930s because the effect of wind gusting became relatively less important.

I thought Neville Shute was a fiction writer?

 

 

[David Isaac]

I have to agree with Richard in this argument.

 

Most of the deaths have been in HP aircraft. Petrel (2), Sting (2), Hughes SP2000 (1 + injury), RV (1) as just four examples. These same aircarft were all subject to debate on registration and weight issues. We have had a couple of deaths in Drifters (illegal flying).

 

The bulk of the admin work, legal issues and weight and registration issues centre around LSA and certified HP aircraft ... it is hard to argue against that. We would not have been in court if it wasn't for LSA weight issues on the Sting.

 

 

[facthunter]

LSA was always a dog of a formula. It could only be considered as some interim thing. Cessna's Skycatcher obviously has higher weights in its sights. NEv

 

 

[dodo]

I thought Neville Shute was a fiction writer?

He was an engineer who worked under Barnes Wallis building the R100, and then a founder of Airspeed. He knew his stuff on aircraft design and manufacture ,and a keen private pilot.

He was also an author.

 

dodo

 

 

[frank marriott]

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 catagories

1. Some imported LSA do not comply (manufacturer & owner problem)

 

2. Insurance - I insure my aircraft, public liability myself, the RAA insurance could be dropped with no effect to me and save the premiums. (I don't consider the RAA coverage adequate)

 

3. Other LSA problems? - LSA operate on a SCoA, if the aircraft has not been modified then RAA is only rubber stamping the paper work. Where is the extra work.

 

4. Work ensuring that home builts and other variations of kit built requires more effort. I am not suggesting that this should not be done (one of the primary functions of RAA) but be realistic about how hard it is to register a fully complying LSA and recognise where the time is being spent & don't try to push it somewhere else.

 

5. Locally we have just renewed registration on, I think it is up to 6 now, all seamless in the last couple of months. I know where the extra work is and where the problem started - it has NOTHING to to do with cruise speed.

 

6. If you feel good blaming LSAs, go for it, but if you are interested in addressing the situation then dealing in facts would be more constructive.

 

 

[David Isaac]

LSA in itself is NOT the problem in terms of RA Aus management. It is the way RA Aus failed to manage the category that started the problem. E.g registering certain aircraft as LSA that did not comply, increasing the weight of certain LSA aircraft based on non allowed procedure. Unfortunately some of these aircarft technically flying illegally had fatalities as I mentioned above. RA Aus was embroiled in litigation that had its roots in an illegally approved weight increase in an LSA.

 

So Frank it is hard to deny that an immense amount of RA Aus resource has now been embroiled in what was allowed to occur in the past in these categories. The Sting case alone is a screaming example of that.

 

Again LSA is NOT the problem, it was what we allowed with LSAs that has bitten us. LSAs just happen to be faster aircarft in a very generalist sense.

 

 

[frank marriott]

"Again LSA is NOT the problem"

 

David

 

Exacty - that is what I spent 6 paragraphs trying to say. Some of the opinions here seemed to indicate otherwise. Non-complying LSA should not be registered as such. Although I can sympathise with owners of non-complying aircraft it is the case of buyer be ware. A friend of mine got caught up in this with a non-approved inflight adjustable prop on an imported aircraft and he got around it by registering it as a E24-0000. I am not sure what that limitation entails exactly but in his case he is not interested in Xhire/training or CTA so other then an extra letter on his rego [possibly an extra sign on the dash] he is unaffected.

 

 

[M61A1]

I have to agree with Richard in this argument.Most of the deaths have been in HP aircraft. Petrel (2), Sting (2), Hughes SP2000 (1 + injury), RV (1) as just four examples. These same aircarft were all subject to debate on registration and weight issues. We have had a couple of deaths in Drifters (illegal flying).

 

The bulk of the admin work, legal issues and weight and registration issues centre around LSA and certified HP aircraft ... it is hard to argue against that. We would not have been in court if it wasn't for LSA weight issues on the Sting.

I'm not completely certain, but isn't the RV the only one that isn't factory built? Let's not confuse "fast" with "expensive", there are Hummel Birds out there that are quite quick, but homebuilt, and inexpensive. As far as I know they haven't had issues.