RAAus - Still a debacle

[fly_tornado]

The cost of software development has dropped so much over the last few years.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Andy, this is exactly why a committee is needed to work through those details, appoint a project manager. I'm not suggesting you put a couple IT people together to make the system, but to review our current data and come up with what's needed answering all your questions you've pointed out. You seem to have a good handle of what's required so hopefully if your elected to the board we will see such a resolution from the first board meeting.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

RA-Aus Board and Management are very well aware of how inefficient their systems are for renewal of both membership and registrations. It is high on the priority list for the new CEO. Multiple year membership is back on the agenda as well.

 

Imagine how fortunate RA-Aus would be to have project manager of Andy's experience on the Board. Project Management is a discipline that can benefit greatly any project whether IT or otherwise.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Don the only thing that is really tricky is being able to manage multiuser access rights. the majority of information is static which makes it easy to manage. One of the benefits of a automated system would be monthly payments of fees. That would allow the RAA to raise fees without members getting too irritated

 

 

[rankamateur]

That would allow the RAA to raise fees without members getting too irritated

Most pilots can multiply by twelve, doubt it would cushion the reaction to spiralling fees.

 

 

[Rob Judd]

Wow, I can't believe I just waded through seven pages of this tripe.

 

I think you're all missing a major point underlying this whole argument, that we are over-regulated and living in a nanny state. Read the US FAR 103 and find out what real freedom is, then come back and try to figure out why anyone would want to set up such a complicated system as the ones in Australia and New Zealand in the first place. Control. Empire building.

 

https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-interests/ultralights-and-ultralight-aircraft/getting-started-in-ultralight-flying/about-faa-part-103-for-ultralights

 

We don' need no steenkin' CASA. We don' need no steenkin' RA-Aus. The ultralight "industry" started with a bunch of crazy guys strapping on a rogallo wing and a lawnmower engine and jumping off cliffs at Stanwell Tops. Where the hell did THOSE guys go? We're bloody wimps in comparison.

 

A wit once remarked that you don't need a parachute to skydive, unless you wanted to do it twice. As far as I'm aware skydiving is a self-regulating industry and yet to my mind it's far more dangerous than flying an airplane.

 

If RA-Aus hadn't spent so much time and effort trying to be an ersatz CASA and getting "rights" to controlled airspace, the vast majority of these issues would be simply resolved. Just do away with licencing and registration for single place aircraft (and pilots) engaged in local flying. But you can't build an empire that way. Any organisation that isn't currently arguing for reduced regulations and complexity will never have my support, because they're trying to kill my interest in the sport. I don't give a damn about the internal difficulties of administering an organisation that doesn't protect my right to fly unencumbered by bureacracy and arbitraries.

 

Anyone with a brain the size of a pea could do a better job, as you all have proven here. So why doesn't it improve? Well I'll tell you why, it's because it's being KEPT THAT WAY by someone. I think a good start would be to boot out anyone who has ever worked for CASA, and to require that no RA-Aus employee be hired without agreeing they never will work for CASA. Separation is necessary to remain independent. We are not regulators, we are flyers, and need to keep that in mind.

 

I spent 40 years in electronics and started repairing computers before anyone even knew what a computer was. A membership database such as is needed here is trivial, and requires almost no thought to implement. If we need to apply standards to the integrity of data, let's use the standards of the government that regulates us. Oh wait, my yacht registration from DoT QLD says that I'm sitting in a white yacht, but it's been beige for 6 years and this data was provided at change of ownership. Not my problem any more. You want to put a ship on the Australian register? All communication must be by mail. That's the standard they're setting - INCOMPETENCE AND INEFFICIENCY.

 

You want that? Screw 'em, I say.

 

And with such a high crossover between CASA and RA-Aus you're wondering why it's all pear shaped. Sheesh.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Wow,

 

Quite a dissertation there Rob. Whilst I understand some of your sentiment, it simply won't happen. Of course if you think you can do it, why not stand for the Board of RAAus, then of course if anarchy is your preferred method, why not just go fly anyway .....

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Rob

 

You sort out the CASA bit, get them out of the picture and the rest will, as Keith suggests fall into place..... Come back and let us know when your done

 

Andy

 

 

[Camel]

In any organisation, once someone wants to push their weight around everyone becomes unhappy, when all work together in harmony you will have peace. CASA want to push their weight around and let everyone know who is boss.

 

Raa must work together in harmony and let CASA self destruct.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Rob Judd,

 

If you are wondering where those unarguably great and brave early ultralighters went, have a look in the Tasman sea at the foot of Stanwell tops. That sort of flying was courageous because it came with real risks of dying and a frightening number were killed. That many survived is due in equal measure to good luck and the hard work of the original AUF. The AUF (long before my time) got recognition and support for what they were trying to do and that was go flying in the most basic and fun way with the lowest possible cost and the least possible regulation. The AUF achieved the most important change that has ever been achieved - two persons on board and that allowed for people to be taught to fly as opposed to being self-taught, frequently with very unattractive outcomes. I taught myself to water ski without quite managing to inhale too much of the lake I was learning on. My very young (at the time) daughter was taught to ski and never fell off once during the 30 minute very controlled lesson during which she became a competent skier.

 

Because of our pioneers, I can now fly an aircraft that is as safe or more safe than many GA aircraft at a still affordable cost.

 

The administration of our form of aviation hasn't been great but is in a real upswing at the moment. If you asked around, I doubt you'd find any branch of aviation that has been well administered with a few notable exceptions that I know of like the Skydivers. I personally believe that putting the S in CAA was the root of the problems identified by the recent Av Safety Review. CASA to me seemed to forget about promoting aviation and concentrated on strangling it to death with its approach to snail pace regulation development and neanderthal enforcement attitudes.

 

For all that CASA is the Regulator provided by the Australian people. The current Board is working hard to achieve an adult to adult relationship with CASA. And CASA is responding to that approach positively. It is well understood at the highest levels in CASA that RA-Aus operated within good governance and efficient administration will make their life a great deal easier than an RA-Aus in uproar over poor governance and sloppy administration.

 

RA-Aus has a long way to go to build faith in the membership but I am confident, for the first time in five years, that we are definitely headed in the right direction. To reinforce that direction we need people like Andy Saywell elected to the Board. People like Andy have the clear view of where we need to head and the skills and experience to get us there.

 

 

[Russ]

Ok.....if Raa shoot me a PM, I shall direct them to person/s that put together the type of data base we are discussing here, I'm reliably told SAAA are meeting ASRA folks to possibly get onboard with this system as well, meeting in a few weeks I'm told.

 

If......Raa get into this above meeting jointly, bouncing thoughts/ideas etc etc, could only be a good thing.

 

This member access data base system really does work, it's proven, it cost a penny or 2, offsetting the building costs x 2 more participants can only be a good thing for everyone.

 

However that call is not mine.

 

If Raa wish to go it alone, and reinvent the wheel.....so be it.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The problem with the RAA: Middleton and Reid. The sooner they move on the better

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Russ, I expect the RAA will want to roll out their own system, just to show everyone who the big dog is in aviation organisations is.

 

 

[johnm]

Don Ramsey

 

you seem active on this thread and I think you are part of the RAA office .............................. has 2 yearly registration been considered for aircraft ......................... is there a possibility this may happen - or is filling coffers the primary objective ?

 

thanks JM

 

 

[RickH]

I would like to hear comments from Ross Millard AKA Maj on this thread he seems to be fairly active on this forum

 

and yet on this thread he has been strangely silent. I recently emailed him re this subject and my suggestion on the thread I started labled Can we fix it. I gathered from his reply to me that he was less than enthusiastic about my suggestion, mostly, I figured, because this would give too much control to the rank and file in the organisation.

 

In fact his final comment to me was "talk is cheap and it costs money to buy whiskey" which left me wondering is that what our board does use our fees to buy whiskey to drink whilst talking about what they are giong to do to or for us. He also stated that the discussions on this site are either ill informed or months behind what is actually happening.

 

He also accused me of not being willing to put my hand up to do anything to help the organisation. well Ross I'm putting up my hand to volunteer to do whatever is required to see my suggestion implemented and to help to hand control of RAA back to the members.

 

RickH

 

 

[Rob Judd]

If you are wondering where those unarguably great and brave early ultralighters went, have a look in the Tasman sea at the foot of Stanwell tops. That sort of flying was courageous because it came with real risks of dying and a frightening number were killed. That many survived is due in equal measure to good luck and the hard work of the original AUF.

Don,

 

Predictable reply. Many of the early pioneers died because of the ruling that we weren't to fly above 500 ft. That's the sort of governance that we've had, which then allowed the noose to be tightened in the name of "safety."

 

And yet in the USA they still fly across country in Part 103 aircraft, built at home and maintained by a pilot with no medical testing requirements. I don't think we can thank the AUF - or its successor - for much in retrospect, given that grassroots aviation died on their watch.

 

There are times I've wanted to build my own aircraft, but the rules are designed for rich people with years of spare time to waste on compliance with administrative minutiae. In conversation with old Charlie Lambert - if you can remember that far back - I gained the impression that regardless for their enthusiasm for the sport, even the build inspectors were resigned to generating mountains of paperwork as part of the process.

 

The government handling of private aviation has gone something like this: If you slow something down enough it will eventually die off, which is cynically what was expected to happen. If that doesn't work, interfere with the organisations responsible for overseeing it until they're in chaos, then take them over internally. Standard black ops stuff really.

 

 

[Rob Judd]

Wow,Quite a dissertation there Rob. Whilst I understand some of your sentiment, it simply won't happen. Of course if you think you can do it, why not stand for the Board of RAAus, then of course if anarchy is your preferred method, why not just go fly anyway .....

No, of course it won't happen, the moving finger having writ. Since I'm no longer a member of RA-Aus I'm probably not eligible to stand, and anyhow I'm not that masochistic.

 

I'm moving to NZ in retirement, and "go fly(ing) anyway" is fairly common there but I'll work within the law anyhow. That's just the kind of guy I am.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Move to America, problem solved. The RAA really is just being run for the benefit of the flying schools, which reflects the years flying instructors where on the board.

 

 

[Rob Judd]

Actually that would make a good holiday. Go to the USA, buy a Legal Eagle and fly the old Route 66 at low level. Might just do that when I've finished my sailing trip to Brazil.

 

 

[jetjr]

Expected 4 to 5 weeks delay for std registration currently was told today

 

 

[DonRamsay]

The problem with the RAA: Middleton and Reid. The sooner they move on the better

Paul Middleton is not contesting a Board position this time. Effectively, Paul retires by the AGM after a very lengthy service to RA-Aus. It is no secret that I did not always agree with Paul but there could be no argument that he meant anything but the best for RA-Aus.

Eugene Reid, unfortunately, is running again in Tasmania. In my experience and judgement, he was/is the least effective Board Member. He has been on the Board for an awfully long time and it would be a big step forward if one of the other candidates for the Tasmania seat were successful.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . you seem active on this thread and I think you are part of the RAA office .............................. has 2 yearly registration been considered for aircraft ......................... is there a possibility this may happen - or is filling coffers the primary objective ? . . .

John, I am not employed by RA-Aus nor on the Board but I remain close to most of the Board Members and the Staff. I speak often with Board Members and the Managers and occasionally with the Office staff.

 

Everything I am told is anything that any member wanting to know could be told - if they asked. It is easier for me because of the personal contacts and knowledge of how it all works.

 

For all that I can't say definitively that multiple year registrations are on the cards. Multiple year membership is quite feasible and will happen. The only complication is the declaration of health standard. But, there is an obligation on every member to report immediately if their health standard drops below the current RA-Aus drivers licence medical standard.

 

What is happening with registrations is that the aircraft files are in the process of being scrubbed yet again. Once immaculate, then we will have something to work with.

 

Both registrations and membership fees are there simply to fill the coffers. The BFR is there to keep the Pilots current and the Annual/100 hourly intended to ensure the aircraft remain airworthy. If the aircraft records are in top notch order then I can't think of a reason why two-year registration renewals would be a bad idea. If you think motor vehicle licences can be renewed for a five year period why not Pilot Certificates? Much more efficient use of office staff time.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I would like to hear comments from Ross Millard AKA Maj on this thread he seems to be fairly active on this forum and yet on this thread he has been strangely silent. I recently emailed him re this subject and my suggestion on the thread I started labled Can we fix it. I gathered from his reply to me that he was less than enthusiastic about my suggestion, mostly, I figured, because this would give too much control to the rank and file in the organisation.In fact his final comment to me was "talk is cheap and it costs money to buy whiskey" which left me wondering is that what our board does use our fees to buy whiskey to drink whilst talking about what they are giong to do to or for us. He also stated that the discussions on this site are either ill informed or months behind what is actually happening.

He also accused me of not being willing to put my hand up to do anything to help the organisation. well Ross I'm putting up my hand to volunteer to do whatever is required to see my suggestion implemented and to help to hand control of RAA back to the members.

 

RickH

Rick,

 

Unfortunately, I don't understand a lot of your post particularly what your suggestion might be.

 

As for the members being in control of the Board we had a Special Resolution passed at the 2012 AGM that reduced the number of ordinary members required to requisition a General Meeting of RA-Aus from approx 500 to 100. That was a timely amendment to the Constitution and, in February 2013, the first such extraordinary General Meeting was called and the Board put firmly on notice to lift their game or they would be removed from office. Since then, most of the Board Members that had provoked concerned members to call for the General Meeting have left the Board or are retiring at the next AGM and been replaced by Board Members who are committed to proper governance and to fixing the efficiency and effectiveness problems of RA-Aus systems and to build a better working relationship with CASA.

 

What this says to me is that members who are prepared to take an interest and, when necessary, take action, can make a real difference.

 

Ross in my experience is a hard working Board Member who is highly motivated to see RA-Aus turn around. He has copped a bit of (in my view unwarranted) flak on here from time to time but is still prepared to come back and provide information on the Board's activities.

 

Having spent time on the Board I can assure you that the Board Members who give it a good go are very busy. There is a constant flow of emails amongst Board Members on current issues, strategy and policy matters. The last few years have been the most challenging experienced by any Board of RA-Aus, ever.

 

As for discussions on here being ill informed and/or months behind that can be the situation. Often when we are left in the dark we deduce what we think is going on or not going on. Natural enough. RA-Aus communications have improved but still have a long way to go and the Board is well aware of that and keen to keep improving. If you look at the President Mick Monck's monthly column in the SportPilot you will see some very useful information.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . Many of the early pioneers died because of the ruling that we weren't to fly above 500 ft. That's the sort of governance that we've had, which then allowed the noose to be tightened in the name of "safety."

Rob,

 

The AUF got the 300 ft limit raised to 500 ft and, eventually to 10,000 ft. These concessions were achieved by lobbying governments and persuading the CAA/CASA that such concessions would reduce risks.

 

. . . I don't think we can thank the AUF - or its successor - for much in retrospect, given that grassroots aviation died on their watch.

As to why grassroots died to the extent that it has cannot logically be ascribed to AUF/RA-Aus. The simple fact is that pilots walked away from rag and tube to Jabirus and the like because that was the sort of flying that they wanted to do. The AUF/RA-Aus have never taken any action to make grassroots flying less accessible.

 

There are times I've wanted to build my own aircraft, but the rules are designed for rich people with years of spare time to waste on compliance with administrative minutiae. In conversation with old Charlie Lambert - if you can remember that far back - I gained the impression that regardless for their enthusiasm for the sport, even the build inspectors were resigned to generating mountains of paperwork as part of the process.

Can't comment much on this other than to say that such impositions were from CASA not RA-Aus.

 

The government handling of private aviation has gone something like this: If you slow something down enough it will eventually die off, which is cynically what was expected to happen. If that doesn't work, interfere with the organisations responsible for overseeing it until they're in chaos, then take them over internally. Standard black ops stuff really.

Interesting theory. Hard to argue against the feeling that CASA would have a perfect safety record if no aircraft ever left the hangar. That sort of thing has been said of your beloved FAA as well. The recent Av Safety review has called for a dramatic change in culture for CASA and hopefully that will happen.

From the little I know of it, NZ has a better aviation experience than Australia from a regulation point of view. Plenty of fabulous scenery to fly over as long a the weather doesn't get you or you have to land on any of those rocky bits. Good luck with that.

 

 

[winsor68]

The pilots didn't walk away...commercial interests dragged them away. No accident.