Natfly 2014

[Gnarly Gnu]

OK, #226 is a joke but why couldn't CASA do something like this - instead of just bugging people they still bug people but also offer rapid ASIC processing with $50 cards printed on the spot for pilots at Natfly. Just too radical I guess.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Don you need to read my post again . . .

Done that and read 225. And the penny hasn't dropped. All we are saying is that if the Government funds CASA to administer GA (from Avgas levy?) then it should fund RA the same way. Why should RA-Aus pilots, whether they fly rag & tube or plastic fantastic pay for the right to register and fly their aircraft when GA does not? And CASA reports surpluses!

 

. . . there is at least one person who is now a board member who has pushed for this to happen.

Sorry, what is "this"? Who has pushed for what to happen?

 

. . . The members have done this to themselves.

Have done what to themselves?

 

No where did I state it is a requirement our our association.

True. That was just to emphasise that RA-Aus is not to blame for the aircraft their members chose to build and buy.

And RA-Aus is not going broke because it's members choose to buy high performance aircraft. It is going broke because CASA is imposing million dollar requirements on RA-Aus to do CASA's job without providing the million dollars.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I hadn't realised there was no entry fee for spectators.Without that there is no great trauma whether numbers are up or down, other than whether members want to be out of cost if the budget isn't covered.

As may have been mentioned, SAAA charge $5 for each aircraft that flies into Ausfly. Iirc, it is a donation or a raffle ticket but whatever you call it, it's $5. I doubt ant Natfly pilot would object to a $5 charge.

One reason there has been no charge is because the event has been revenue neutral. If it were not break even it would be unfair to WA, NT pilots who may never get to a Natfly.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I was gobsmacked to see that potential income is lost here to say the least.

 

One of the great principles of free enterprise is that if you have a product that people want to see, you can charge them a fee THEN you have non members contributing to members costs, helping to reduce subscriptions and or provide greater benefits for no extra cost.

 

 

[coljones]

The cost to register a plastic fantastic or any factory produced aircraft should be no more than that for any other aircraft - including homebuilt and designed.

 

The influx of plastics and ex-GA has enabled RAA to spread its fixed costs over a greater number of shoulders. Most Australian factory built planes have prior certification paid by the manufacturer before that hit the RAA register at no cost to RAA.

 

Most foreign built planes are certified under an international convention. These, too, can hit the RAA register at little cost to RAA. The only time issues arise with foreign planes occur when they are made under a non recognised convention or where the manufacturer or importer accidentally or deliberately misrepresents certain plane attributes. Cleaning up these few messes does cost but can be minimised by refusing registration.

 

Part of the problem would appear to be that RAA was unable to react to the need to increase the "variable" part of the equation, more pilots and more planes, to meet the increased demands on RAA - part of the reason for years of surpluses in the past and the high rate of expenditure now to satisfy CASA and institute process into our systems.

 

 

[Teckair]

All we are saying is that if the Government funds CASA to administer GA (from Avgas levy?) then it should fund RA the same way.

Good luck with that.

 

 

[jetjr]

Current losses and poor financials can be averaged out over last 5-10 yrs???

 

It hasnt happened in the last 12 months, thats just where the cost was paid to fix up the shortcuts taken previously. Very common occurrence in business too, cost cutting and cut maintenence makes numbers look good....for a while.

 

Re Natfly or any other event, the concept that cost neutral is OK is a poor stance. In this case its just volunteers donating to the cause, not fair and unsustainable.

 

SO in order to have it make money then either need more income or less costs. One way is to charge everyone through the gates - will definitely reduce numbers attending - or to stand down from sponsoring the whole event ourselves and carrying all the risk.

 

Great to see RAA meeting with Minister, imagine how strong it would be if all RAAO went together.

 

 

[Captain]

If people are unable to understand what was in post 215, then it is no real surprise they do not understand what is happening to RAAus. How bad do things need to get before the penny will drop?

Tecky,

 

 

 

I question whether the average young person who is paying off a residence & breeding etc is RAA's main target audience.

 

 

 

I was heavily involved in motorsport and we had exactly the same issue. Young blokes loved it until they got married and most then couldn't afford to stay racing, however many came back again at around 40 - 45 if/when they had got on top of their finances.

 

 

 

Same issue applies for RAA, I reckon, unless that young person is flush or wants to fly basic lower cost aircraft, which they have the right and access to do if that is the way that they want to go during those house buying/child rearing years.

 

 

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[SDQDI]

I was gobsmacked to see that potential income is lost here to say the least.One of the great principles of free enterprise is that if you have a product that people want to see, you can charge them a fee THEN you have non members contributing to members costs, helping to reduce subscriptions and or provide greater benefits for no extra cost.

 

Current losses and poor financials can be averaged out over last 5-10 yrs???It hasnt happened in the last 12 months, thats just where the cost was paid to fix up the shortcuts taken previously. Very common occurrence in business too, cost cutting and cut maintenence makes numbers look good....for a while.

Re Natfly or any other event, the concept that cost neutral is OK is a poor stance. In this case its just volunteers donating to the cause, not fair and unsustainable.

 

SO in order to have it make money then either need more income or less costs. One way is to charge everyone through the gates - will definitely reduce numbers attending - or to stand down from sponsoring the whole event ourselves and carrying all the risk.

 

Great to see RAA meeting with Minister, imagine how strong it would be if all RAAO went together.

The problem I see with charging people through the gate is it will put further pressure on numbers.

 

I love going to ag quip the biggest field days in oz with no entry fees I've been to a few other field days that charge but only the once as I don't really want to pay to have a look. Call me stingy if you like but I guarantee I'm not the only one who feels that way. Been to other flyins that have a gold coin donation at the gate which was going to a charity which was ok but if you still want to attract a good crowd why charge. You never know who will wander in for a look and get bitten by the bug.

 

So if its revenue neutral and getting our name and sport out there for the greater public to see in a good light I don't see a great need to put further pressure on attendance rates by charging everyone entry fees

 

 

[Teckair]

Tecky, 

 

I question whether the average young person who is paying off a residence & breeding etc is RAA's main target audience.

 

 

 

I was heavily involved in motorsport and we had exactly the same issue. Young blokes loved it until they got married and most then couldn't afford to stay racing, however many came back again at around 40 - 45 if/when they had got on top of their finances.

 

 

 

Same issue applies for RAA, I reckon, unless that young person is flush or wants to fly basic lower cost aircraft, which they have the right and access to do if that is the way that they want to go during those house buying/child rearing years.

 

 

 

Regards Geoff

You may be right Geoff, but I was a bit over 30 when I started flying in 1986 and I could afford to. I became an instructor and many people I introduced to ultralight flying were young and it was affordable to them. Now we are all getting old and the cycle is not continuing. How would someone get started in basic lower cost affordable aviation now? How is RAAus supposed to survive without new blood coming up through the ranks? It is common to see aircraft such as Thrusters ridiculed on these forums. The supporters of LSA are only thinking of themselves and their immediate desires.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Done that and read 225. And the penny hasn't dropped. All we are saying is that if the Government funds CASA to administer GA (from Avgas levy?) then it should fund RA the same way. Why should RA-Aus pilots, whether they fly rag & tube or plastic fantastic pay for the right to register and fly their aircraft when GA does not? And CASA reports surpluses!

 

Sorry, what is "this"? Who has pushed for what to happen?

 

Have done what to themselves?

 

True. That was just to emphasise that RA-Aus is not to blame for the aircraft their members chose to build and buy.

 

And RA-Aus is not going broke because it's members choose to buy high performance aircraft. It is going broke because CASA is imposing million dollar requirements on RA-Aus to do CASA's job without providing the million dollars.

Hello Don

 

This is pre me taking an active interest in the RAAus happenings.

 

Your last paragraph you mentioned high performanace aircraft.. Would this be regarding the LSA?

 

If so could CASA have treated these like a hot potato and like a brilliant 5/8th flick passed them to RAAus?

 

Now the admistration of them is costing buckets?

 

I am I correct in thinking in that line?

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[Teckair]

Now the admistration of them is costing buckets?

Regards

 

Keith Page.

I suspect you are right about that bit at least Keith. I would like to know what aircraft are involved in the pending court cases.

 

 

[rankamateur]

The problem I see with charging people through the gate is it will put further pressure on numbers.I love going to ag quip the biggest field days in oz with no entry fees I've been to a few other field days that charge but only the once as I don't really want to pay to have a look. Call me stingy if you like but I guarantee I'm not the only one who feels that way. Been to other flyins that have a gold coin donation at the gate which was going to a charity which was ok but if you still want to attract a good crowd why charge. You never know who will wander in for a look and get bitten by the bug.

 

So if its revenue neutral and getting our name and sport out there for the greater public to see in a good light I don't see a great need to put further pressure on attendance rates by charging everyone entry fees

But the public EXPECT to pay to get in, BUT when the planes are the show there is no way that pilots should be charged admission fees, camping is bad enough. The funniest thing I have ever seen was people lining the fence at Evan's Head to watch an areobatics display which was straight above their heads, what they didn't know was that parking and entry was free and the viewing angle was a lot more comfortable form the fly-in area.

 

 

[robinsm]

I was gobsmacked to see that potential income is lost here to say the least.One of the great principles of free enterprise is that if you have a product that people want to see, you can charge them a fee THEN you have non members contributing to members costs, helping to reduce subscriptions and or provide greater benefits for no extra cost.

You have to be kidding, that's how you kill an organisation such as RAA stone dead. After all we pay rego fees, certificate (membership ) fees, and we also pay to camp under wing albeit that payment goes to the local council.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Please read the detail of the post, particularly the NON members bit.

 

 

[robinsm]

So you would penalise those that may become flyers to support us. I thought the idea of RECREATIONAL was to have fun for all, not have others pay for our pleasure. Read the post. Disagree.

 

 

[spacesailor]

(If people are unable to understand what was in post 215, then it is no real surprise they do not understand what is happening to RAAus. How bad do things need to get before the penny will drop?)

 

Do we have to pay lawyers to read lawyerspeak. each time a bureaucrat writes a sentence it gets veted so that only lawyers can understand it.

 

What's killing 95-10, PAPERWORK.

 

Dream a dream machine, build it, Then break it to check its stress \ G force levels

 

EG, the Hummelbird in the UK has now got stingers in the rear fuselage, BUT the design is monocoque, therefor Not a Hummelbird, but it passed the bureaucrats' paperwork test.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[poteroo]

Once you charge the general public an entry fee - no matter how small, or how well disguised it is - the fly-in becomes an Airshow. With that goes the requirement for astronomical insurances, CASA approvals, detailed safety plans, crowd control, toilet facilities, food facilities, demo flying only by experienced pilots, and so on....ad nauseum. Under SAAA's banner, we recently organised the WA State Fly-in at Denmark. We deliberately excluded the public from all of the 'airside' areas for several hours of activity because of liability and inability to be certain of providing 100% supervision. Yes, some were miffed because they wanted to let little Jonny run wild in the parking area because he had QF aspirations - but most were only there to see aircraft taxy past, and fly around the area. Our costs were within estimates for the weekend, our members were not run off their feet, and we enjoyed the fly-in for what it was - a members get together - not a public event. We actually did slightly better than breakeven. So, I'm not in favour of charging the general public even a contribution to the RFDS. There are smarter ways to attract aspiring pilots. happy days,

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Current losses and poor financials can be averaged out over last 5-10 yrs??? It hasn't happened in the last 12 months, thats just where the cost was paid to fix up the shortcuts taken previously.

Absolutely right in my view that a lot of our current cost pressures result from unprofessional management over the last 5-10 years. This is particularly so of what I see as poor decisions relating to registrations. There was also a missed opportunity to gain the cost-benefits of growing membership. Cost per member should have been falling with economies of scale but I haven't seen any evidence of that with our fess continuing to rise much faster than CPI.

 

But poor cost management by RA-Aus is only part of the problem. CASA has been imposing massive cost increases on RA-Aus without any corresponding funding. The inequity between GA and RA funding is increasing. For example CASA is insisting that RA-Aus has a formal Safety Management System to CASA's specification but has made it optional for GA! Nobody is saying RA-Aus should not have a Safety Management System but we are saying that the third letter of CASA stands for Safety. CASA wants us to do their job for free while they make the savings and claim the credit. A great deal for CASA but, it seems to me, that RA-Aus is getting shafted by CASA's cost shifting, the latest trend in Government administration circles.

 

Very common occurrence in business too, cost cutting and cut maintenence makes numbers look good....for a while.

True but not the issue for RA-Aus. Just a lack, in my opinion, of attention to rules and regulations with regard to registration issues and inattention to commercial, technical and operations systems cost reductions.

 

Re Natfly or any other event, the concept that cost neutral is OK is a poor stance. In this case its just volunteers donating to the cause, not fair and unsustainable.

I agree in principle but a lot of the people who do volunteer enjoy the work and the contribution that they make and like being a part of the team that puts on the show for their fellow members. They do deserve a lot more recognition for their untiring efforts.

 

 

[coljones]

Hello DonThis is pre me taking an active interest in the RAAus happenings.

Your last paragraph you mentioned high performanace aircraft.. Would this be regarding the LSA?

 

If so could CASA have treated these like a hot potato and like a brilliant 5/8th flick passed them to RAAus?

 

Now the admistration of them is costing buckets?

 

I am I correct in thinking in that line?

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

Administration of LSA costing buckets? A bold statement, Keith. Probably no more than the buckets of cash poured into RAA by the LSA owners and pilots.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

G'day Keith,

 

. . . This is pre me taking an active interest in the RAAus happenings.Your last paragraph you mentioned high performanace aircraft.. Would this be regarding the LSA?

Any aircraft with a cruise speed greater than about 70 knots whether Type Certified, LSA or home build, gets a gong as HP in RA-Aus.

 

If so could CASA have treated these like a hot potato and like a brilliant 5/8th flick passed them to RAAus?

Interesting thought but there are LSA in GA and RA. The GA LSA aircraft are registered once - not every year for a fee, and the PPLs that fly them have a licence for life - not renewed every year for a fee like a Pilot Cert.

 

Now the administration of them is costing buckets?

Not really. LSA are very easy to Administer for RA. Either a SLSA or ELSA Certificate of Airworthiness is issued by the Manufacturer and the owner can't make any changes without the Manufacturer's permission. Compare that to Type Certified aircraft and owner built. Much more complex.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I suspect you are right about that bit at least Keith. I would like to know what aircraft are involved in the pending court cases.

I don't know but I suspect they will be aircraft that were once registered by RA-Aus and then cancelled or registered at 540 or 600 kg and then reduced to 450 kg or registered as factory built and then forced to revert to experimental.

If you want to know the facts though feel free to ask your Board Rep. However, it is likely that he may not be able to say a lot about cases that are before the Courts.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hi Don

 

Very interesting point regarding LSA (GA or RAAus). One has not got to be a rocket scientist to understand the vocational direction.

 

Thanks for the thought.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

CASA keeps saying that they want RA-Aus to be around for the long haul. And, why wouldn't they when they are getting 10,00 pilots administered for about $10 per pilot per year? And 3,500 aircraft administered for no extra cost. As somebody said that has to be the bargain of the Century for CASA.

 

CASA also talks about parallel pathways and the LSA is a good example as is RA-Aus and HGFA both administering Trikes. The next step for them is Part 61 and the RPL as an alternative to the Pilot Certificate. If they had been more sensible about the RPL medical it might actually have been a competitor for a Pilot Certificate. At the moment it is only a competitor for a PPL and a very weak competitor at that.

 

 

[jetjr]

Don, i agree CASA is getting value for money BUT youre assuming they want the 10000 pilots and 3500 extra aircraft flying at all

 

As i expect they (us) are not seen as an assett then whats the interest in making it easy or cheap to keep us going

 

Comes back to the arguement that they have no direction to promote and develop aviation as a whole.