RAAus - Still a debacle

[fly_tornado]

Don did you forget middos proxy stunt? Apart from the opportunity to reform, didn't that cost the RAA $7k in printing and postage?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Don did you forget middos proxy stunt? Apart from the opportunity to reform, didn't that cost the RAA $7k in printing and postage?

Fortunately for RA-Aus, those days are behind us. Action by the members who have taken an interest and voted has resulted in a quality Board and about to get better.

 

 

[Rob Judd]

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.

Those concessions were achieved by handing over the running of grassroots aviation to government, AFTER government had caused the problem with a shortsighted policy. Some record of achievement there, not.

 

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.

Oh twaddle. If you deal with the devil (CASA) then you should only expect hell in return. Early pilots dried up through legislative complexity, and were replaced by yuppies who could afford Jabirus. The bottom end of aviation has been decimated in Australia. As I said earlier, RA-Aus became ersatz CASA and merely another smaller arm of GA. Meanwhile CASA offloaded much of its administrative work in the process. Who got the better end of that deal?

 

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.

Easier to design and build your own airplane, but there are still hoops to jump through getting it type approved and tested if it's an own design. Their requirement for type approval for microlight aircraft and type ratings for pilots was borrowed from the poms (like much of NZ culture) and is completely out of place in a sparsely populated county. It tends to defeat training and concentrate flying to a small subset of popular aircraft types, as witness the large number of illegal pilots and airplanes extant in NZ. Still, it beats Australia hands down as far as I can tell, because kiwis still have that unreasonable optimism that we've had knocked out of us for so long by oppressive regulations.

 

As for the rocky bits, I'm considering a ballistic parachute. :-)

 

 

[RickH]

Robb Judd

 

I totally agree with your comments

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Rob

 

Ok let's make you king for a day rather than the historian. What would you do to fix the problems as you see it? After all we are where we are so what steps from here

 

Andy

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Robb Judd, I totally agree with your comments

Rick (and Rob),

I still contend that the ownership of RA-Aus is in the hands of the members. Not just one member - this is a democracy. If you don't like things the way they are you need to become political. What I mean by "political" is that you have to build support for your ideas on how things should go. You need in ordinary language to campaign for the changes you wish to see.

 

A number of people who read this section of RecFlying and who agreed that things were not as they should be did just that and in the last two or three years, that disparate group have campaigned for and had 25 amendments to the RA-Aus Constitution put to the members at Annual General Meetings. Some of those changes were opposed by the Board of the day and some supported. None were initiated by the Board just by ordinary members who cared and were prepared to work for change. Out of that has come, I believe, some positive changes. Firstly, the Board was brought to account for poor governance at the EGM in February 2013 and promised to do a lot better. Instead of just the one meeting of members each year (the AGM) we now have a second one in conjunction with Natfly. It is likely more members can get to the Natfly General Meeting than can get to the AGMs. We now get the opportunity to have items added to the AGM Agenda; we will get the full Annual Financial Statements at least 3 weeks before the AGM not a one page summary during the AGM as happened at the 2012 AGM and formal Notices can now be sent by email.

 

RA-Aus is where it is today because of the overwhelming apathy of most members:

 

- "don't want to be involved in politics just want to fly" -

 

and then those members are disappointed that RA-Aus has gone a direction they are not happy about. Plenty are prepared to say they don't like the way RA-Aus went but what have they done to have it go a different way?

 

So, for example, Eugene Reid has been on the Board for something like 25 years. For most of that time he was elected or returned unopposed. For much of that time he was President or on the Executive. He was the prime mover in having Steve Tizzard gifted the job of CEO (and look how well that turned out). He was a prime mover in having MTOW lifted to where it is today, in having the height restriction lifted to 10,000 feet. If you don't like those things what are you doing about getting some other Taswiegan elected instead. The fact that you don't live in Tassie is no excuse - if you want change you have to get off your butt and do something about it not whinge after it has happened.

 

There are two kinds of people - those who wonder what just happened and those who make things happen.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I wouldn't have called our friends Taswegians

 

 

[facthunter]

Van DEMON's LAND or DEVIL's Islanders, then? Nev

 

 

[Russ]

Little black critters, 4 legs, mouth full of incisors, and attitude.......don't pick on a tazweegan.

 

( goes for the 2 legged critter as well )

 

 

[Rob Judd]

Robb JuddI totally agree with your comments

Hmm ... RickH? Is that you, Biggus?

 

 

[Rob Judd]

RobOk let's make you king for a day rather than the historian. What would you do to fix the problems as you see it? After all we are where we are so what steps from here

 

Andy

King of what? RA-Aus? CASA? The world? (Hey, the job is still open, if you ignore the reptile aliens.)

 

 

[Rob Judd]

I still contend that the ownership of RA-Aus is in the hands of the members. Not just one member - this is a democracy. If you don't like things the way they are you need to become political. What I mean by "political" is that you have to build support for your ideas on how things should go. You need in ordinary language to campaign for the changes you wish to see.

Master of the bleedin' obvious, 'e is.

 

I already have one firm supporter. :-)

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

King of what? RA-Aus? CASA? The world? (Hey, the job is still open, if you ignore the reptile aliens.)

well lets stick to the possible for the moment.....lets say King of RAAus...... So...within the realms of the possible what will you do?

Andy

 

 

[Rob Judd]

well lets stick to the possible for the moment.....lets say King of RAAus...... So...within the realms of the possible what will you do?Andy

I'd need about a week observing how it works internally before I could answer that with any reality. Certainly I'd get the registration records onto computer as a priority, since that seems to be quite a bottleneck. Biennial registration as raised here is also an option, although perhaps unnecessary if the system is fixed.

 

I'd also lobby government to introduce a way for low-end flying to happen again. The NZ system seems to have a good balance of care and freedom, and would be more likely to succeed than FAR 103 style, which only exists due to its age and user base. However, legitimizing unlicenced solo flight over remote private land is a possibility, and I'm sure it happens a lot in country areas.

 

Security requirements for small country airfields have gone mad since 9-11, they need to be backed off. We all know that was a con job by now, or should.

 

Meh. Don't get me starterd, I'm retired.

 

 

[Rob Judd]

Further thoughts:

 

I'd immediately revamp their website so that it doesn't look like it was designed by a mortician. Way too much emphasis on safety and accidents there.

 

A rule that requires all office bearers to permanently retire after, say, 5 years wouldn't hurt either. They could be awarded a certificate of meritorious service and kept on the side as occasional consultants if that appeases the career bureaucrats.

 

 

[facthunter]

With your diplomatic skills, you should go far. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Rob you need to accept that the RAA will never achieve its potential.

 

 

[Rob Judd]

With your diplomatic skills, you should go far. Nev

"I've been to Collingwood, I've been to Ringwood

 

I crossed the ocean for a Heart of Gold"

 

With apologies to Niel Young

 

Rob you need to accept that the RAA will never achieve its potential.

To be serious for a moment, an organisation can never realize its full potential until the individuals within it have done so first. Garbage in, garbage out. The RA-Aus is just a collection of ordinary people, most of whom I imagine (not knowing them personally at all) are trying to make it work. They are limited by the definitions of CASA as to what can be done, which must be tiresome. It would be like having an overbearing parent around all the time.

 

I don't think RA-Aus is really the problem here. Our attitudes to it might be.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Its worse than "ordinary people", mostly liberal party voters

 

 

[David Isaac]

Hey ... FT has a sense of humour ... LOL

 

 

[Rob Judd]

Its worse than "ordinary people", mostly liberal party voters

I don't vote, it only encourages the bastards. Seriously, living on a yacht and being officially "homeless" has its advantages. I have about as much interest into politics as I'd have to a train wreck, and for the same reasons. Ewww, nasty.

 

I'm pretty sure politics is where they put all the truly crazy people so the rest of us can get on with it.

 

 

[facthunter]

The crazy people want to get there and we don't scrutinise them well, and vote them in. It's not anyone's fault but the apathetic. (In a democratic system). Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

Hmmm ... crazy people governing us ... we let that happen?????

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Its a bit of a worry when the RAA President wants more CASA involvement in RAA affairs, I always thought liberal voters wanted less government not more.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

It seems to me that, more or less of police being involved in your life, is more a function of your behaviours and attitudes than whether you like them or not. We might well wish less of CASA, but realistically we have pretty well zero ability on a day to day basis of making that come true so if they must be there, and RAAus must exist so that we can all get our hit of flying, then I personally see no detriment in making the relationship as effective as we can.

 

Michael has already shown that in addition to a reasonable working relationship (talk softly) he is prepared to react if the requests are in the boards opinion unreasonable (carry big stick...metaphorically) as discussions with the minister and Dr Jonathan Alec have already shown. What more can we expect in this relationship?

 

Andy