Sport Pilot Magazine

[fly_tornado]

Sounds like you know FT. Why do you need your other hand free?

to turn the pages mate

 

 

[robinsm]

Very interesting that the people who are arguing to retain the magazine are reading the posts and putting up their arguments here, on line, ADSL or not, but not in the magazine they're arguing for.Sort of decides the issue doesn't it.

The magazine is very selective on what they publish. A flying travelogue was sent to them a couple of years ago and was not published possibly because of the type of aircraft (mine) involved. No reply, no communication just no publish.

 

 

[robinsm]

Has anyone else has problems getting to the motions that andy points to on the RAA Aus website or is it just me?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

The magazine is very selective on what they publish. A flying travelogue was sent to them a couple of years ago and was not published possibly because of the type of aircraft (mine) involved. No reply, no communication just no publish.

I heard (unsubstantiated) that There are nearly 10years worth of articles and photos and such that the Editor has available to him. Anything that isn't time critical on when its published may not have been tossed, simply added to the store of things available for the future.....

 

What the editor publishes, other than mandated RAAus content is entirely up to the editor

 

Andy

 

 

[robinsm]

Thanks for that Andy, didnt know.

 

 

[planesmaker]

Andy, thanks for your input and communication here , I and others I am sure appreciate just the fact that somebody is trying to tell it as it is, so we can understand better why some things are done. Tom

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hi All

 

I have just read through the whole thread and I have detected a couple of inaccuracies namely:- (i) Part of our membership funds go to the mag --- this was the case when I joint the AUF. The deal was -- part of the membership buys the mag as yet I have seen where that is rescinded. Have you seen that Andy?

 

(ii) In the AUF days it was an arrangement with CASA that the mag was the instrument to inform member of safety briefs and all other briefs associated with aviation interests.

 

The other good thing as I see the situation --- it was a good idea to develop a surplus in the yester years. Imagine the mess if there was no surplus.

 

Regards

 

KP

 

 

[coljones]

GentsJust in case some of you are thinking this is a surprise, I would draw your attention to a thread I started October the 26th last year, specifically http://recreationalflying.com/threads/board-meeting-motions.126016/#post-454664 where the emagazine concept was introduced and reported on to the membership.

 

The bit of that post of relevance to this debate is:-

 

Sport Pilot Magazine

 

Sport Pilot accounts for some 14% of our overall expenditure. After

 

Snip snip snip

And I said back then "The cost of the magazine is a smoke screen. Unless the cost benefits in other areas of RAA are rapidly established, and dealt with our financial deja vu will keep on repeating itself. If you can the magazine then I want my $60 back!!!"

 

 

[Captain]

...... The cost of the magazine is a smoke screen ................ If you can the magazine then I want my $60 back!!!"

And to think that you put yourself forward for the Board ........... eh Col?

 

 

 

That's what the RAA needs at this time of considerable stress and financial pressure. A pragmatic real-world problem solver.

 

 

 

Based on the above post, it appears that the members may have dodged a bullet.

 

 

[planedriver]

As for me, I have purchased numerous flying magazines in recent months, but sadly not the Sport Pilot, which I normally passed on to someone else who showed a little bit of enthusiasm about learning to fly.

 

Looks like I might have to take up knitting instead.

 

I would not have objected to a reasonable increase in the price of it either.

 

 

[coljones]

And to think that you put yourself forward for the Board ........... eh Col? 

 

That's what the RAA needs at this time of considerable stress and financial pressure. A pragmatic real-world problem solver.

 

 

 

Based on the above post, it appears that the members may have dodged a bullet.

Not at all Captain.

My point is the board should ask for a fee increase by cogent arguments rather than hacking a member benefit.

 

The board hasn't explained where the expenditure hole is and sought to rectify it, by mitigating the cost or by increasing the hypothecated component of the fee, or some other fee if it is a rego issue or an FTF issue.

 

We do have reserves which can be used to even out cyclical cashflows, if required. To continue to demand continual supluses, year on year, without reserve targets and policies is clearly ridiculous but until recently that was the only game the board would play in fiscal responsibility.

 

I have consistently said I don't have a problem with a well documented argument for a fee increase and will willingly pay up on that.

 

You, I am sure, would understand that the shareholders would, and do, get very agitated, if companies reduce the dividends and benefits, without good reason, without growing shareholder wealth.

 

There needs to be more hypothecation of the RAA fees and their allocation to cost centres so that the board and members can see where the organisation is headed and where the holes are and who is paying for what.

 

Fx. Rather than allowing the confiscation of the kids' pocket money society generally demands that the old man give up booze and betting (and beating the wife). A much better way to balance the family budget.

 

Are you happy about the fee increase?

 

Keep well

 

 

[planedriver]

FOR SALE! (Not a genuine ad)

 

Numerous copies of Sport Pilot and earlier RaAus magazines.

 

Sure to considerably appreciate in value, due to their rarity.

 

Too valuable to respond to Nigerian scammers:yikes: but they would look great framed, and hanging on the club house wall.

 

 

[rankamateur]

The board hasn't explained where the expenditure hole is and sought to rectify it

I thought the board has on many occasions explained than the hemorrhage is in staffing costs to meet ever increasing and onerous CASA compliance, so not possible to just rectify it. Complying with CASA is considered more important core business than providing member services.

 

To continue to demand continual supluses, year on year, without reserve targets and policies is clearly ridiculous but until recently that was the only game the board would play in fiscal responsibility.

Seems a blessing that they have done this even though they knew not what they saved for, although an insurance shortfall was a much mentioned motivator. Even if the motivation was only empire building and filling the coffers to empower the empire it has probably averted the downfall of the empire of late.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Hi AllI have just read through the whole thread and I have detected a couple of inaccuracies namely:- (i) Part of our membership funds go to the mag --- this was the case when I joint the AUF. The deal was -- part of the membership buys the mag as yet I have seen where that is rescinded. Have you seen that Andy?

 

(ii) In the AUF days it was an arrangement with CASA that the mag was the instrument to inform member of safety briefs and all other briefs associated with aviation interests.

 

The other good thing as I see the situation --- it was a good idea to develop a surplus in the yester years. Imagine the mess if there was no surplus.

 

Regards

 

KP

1) why would we need to do that, we aren't killing it completely, just changing it

 

2) and so it will continue, but not as the only mechanism as it was back then.....if we have something urgent or vital to say we'll use multiple mechanisms including the incredibly slow magazine.

 

3) yes.....what's that saying, even a broken watch is correct twice a day comes to mind as does good luck rather than good management. Good management would have seen us doing what we contractually agreed each year in our deed, and buying the organisation The tools it needed to execute its business. Had we done that, and maintained the same member costs then the surpluses would likely be double what they are now and we wouldn't have been grounded by CASA and have had and continue to have to deal with tech skeletons in the fleet closet!....and even at the end of that era no clear idea what the surpluses were for....... Rose coloured glasses Keith!!!

 

 

[coljones]

I thought the board has on many occasions explained than the hemorrhage is in staffing costs to meet ever increasing and onerous CASA compliance, so not possible to just rectify it. Complying with CASA is considered more important core business than providing member services.

 

Seems a blessing that they have done this even though they knew not what they saved for, although an insurance shortfall was a much mentioned motivator. Even if the motivation was only empire building and filling the coffers to empower the empire it has probably averted the downfall of the empire of late.

Labour is a resource just like money. Staff are employed to satisfy outcomes in Ops, in Tech, in membership, in ASIC, in General Admin, in the Board Support, in Relationships Management, in Member Services and other areas. It is not just staff costs it is where the costs (including staff costs) are expended in each area.

The CASA fiasco was not really about CASA demanding more but CASA demanding that we do the job we were supposed to be doing in the first place. RAA didn't insist on quality staff to do a quality job on quality systems. This failure has meant that it is going to cost us much more than it should have. But things are changing.

 

If past boards and CEOs had had their eyes on the ball and had established systems rather than surpluses and ever growing reserves then RAA may have dodged the bullets It is pleasing to note that the board is put up $300,00 from reserves (previously so tightly guarded) to establish management systems. This should, hopefully, bring light to dark corners, improve the way RAA does business, establish protocols, reduce the revolving door in senior and other staff and reduce the cost of expensive consultants whenever there is a hiccup.

 

Keep well.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I agree coljones, it's good to see the board making the decision to spend now to save later. Hopefully we will get some more details in the next few months regarding the costings. It's another reason we need to reexamine the cost cutting exercise, can we afford a loss this year (using the reserves) if we are budgeting less expenses in the years to come (following this new system). I'm sure these are the questions being asked at HQ and at the Board, hopefully we as members will be privy to it too.

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

If you are interested in seeing how well an electronic Aviation magazine can work take the time to visit the App Store and download a free copy of Trike Mag. It is aimed at the trike, microlight segment and contains tech, safety, touring and biographic articles. It is a true electronic mag, easy to access and read also containing video and pod casts. Published here in Australia by "Toucan" Peter from Moruya.

 

Well worth a look.

 

 

[facthunter]

I completed a survey on the magazine recently . I also recall when the members "complained" of too many travel articles in the magazine. (They were OK but too many to the exclusion of other topics) That was a while ago

 

I thought the magazine advertising income came off the cost of printing it. It was even suggested not that long ago that it COULD make a profit or be self sustaining. What IS the situation? Nev

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I completed a survey on the magazine recently . I also recall when the members "complained" of too many travel articles in the magazine. (They were OK but too many to the exclusion of other topics) That was a while agoI thought the magazine advertising income came off the cost of printing it. It was even suggested not that long ago that it COULD make a profit or be self sustaining. What IS the situation? Nev

I believe RA-AUS pays an amount for the company to produce and mail out the magazine, any advertising raised goes straight to that company. I have no idea why it would have been setup this way or when it could be changed (contract periods), but surely another more favourable arrangement could be made in the future (i.e. RA-AUS produce the mag to the printers and collect the advertising).

 

 

[facthunter]

That was the way it was done earlier. Why would anyone do otherwise? The advertising revenue must be taken into account surely. It was discussed as being capable of being self supporting or even making a profit. What gives? Nev

 

 

[rankamateur]

Follow the money? Look after your mates? The possibilities are .... numerous.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Any magazine with the quantity of advertising that ours has should be able to fund itself. If it cant then someone has stuffed up somewhere. Looking at that may have been a better solution than putting the funding back on the users. It seems to me that someone is being paid twice.

 

 

[jetjr]

Wouldnt the price paid take onto account advertising revenue AND the risk involved?

 

In such a small industry dont assume the advertising space is worth a lot.

 

Also it could be an advantage not to have a further 2 or more staff tied up running advertising and magazine.

 

Having someone with a vested interest runnng it could be the most efficient and yes they deserve to make some money from taking that job and risk on.

 

I thought ot took a big step forward under sport pilot name and changes

 

 

[rhysmcc]

The way it was explained to me was RA-AUS pay an amount per member to have the magazine produced and mailed out. Any money the publisher gets from selling ads in the magazine went into their pocket. This could be completely wrong, the only way to confirm would be directly with the CEO.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

From my recollection, some years ago, the magazine contract was awarded to the same group (Brian Bigg's Stampils Publishing) who produce the AOPA magazine. Kreisha Ballantyne went from contributor to Deputy Editor Sport Pilot, and is now Editor of AOPA. It was hoped that an aviation based publisher would be better placed to vet articles; a few doubtful ones had slipped through previously; and produce some savings in production and attracting advertisers. It was in the minutes or the magazine, I can't remember but could possibly find it.

 

 

 

I will have a look at the financials and post soon.

 

 

 

Sue