R.A.A. Pilot certificate is it correct?

[Keith Page]

If you have no access to ADSL and poor wireless you then have the option of govt subsidised satellite broadband.Currently not as fast as the other two but is fairly reliable

Satellite is not good either, it has drop out then stays out.. Basically useless however when you are out in the diglies it will something. I had it home and it was useless, bless the NBN little hearts there is a tower out in the scrub and here is hoping that this will be better.. There is stuffing about getting it connected.

Do not get excited about satellite it is useless.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[rankamateur]

After a marathon with the Telstra level 3 engineer this afternoon it looks like a break-through may have come by turning the network mode on the phone to 3G only instead of allowing it to search through 4G/3G/2G looking for the best signal. Data speed tests are considerably better at peak congestion times than previously, if that continues I will be a much happier camper. If not, tonight is a freakishly good night for internetting.

 

 

[pudestcon]

It's a pity Andy that most of those (government and individuals) who tried to stop the executions in Indonesia didn't have your slant on the situation.That is, what is inevitable will happen and can't be changed. So therefore, it follows doesn't it, that those with the reigns who have a mind set whether good or bad won't be diverted from their course or purpose. I suppose that's why we have elections in politics so if the majority view is against the mind set of the ones holding the reigns, the ones holding the reigns at the time can be toppled.

Holy shit!!! Give it up will you Rick.

 

Pud

 

 

[Keith Page]

Now the big question:- Why was the magazine survey completely ignored? - KP When was it and what were the results? If you know, please tell.I seem to remember criticism that AUF/RAA were just stockpiling money (ie overcharging members for services) which led to this "reserve". I also remember that our fees went up under SR & ST's administration. The level of compliance went down. The magazine was outsourced. Members were asking "why?" The organisation should have been keeping abreast of 'best practice' to ensure compliance and to keep costs down. Instead it was neglected and cost us a lot in extra wages etc to get back to compliance. Remember all those failed audits that we didn't hear about?

 

 

 

Some of the language from SR on this forum was strident - remember the remark about 'the real Major'? I can see frustration, and I can understand some people upset about having to pay for a print magazine, but is it just a resistance to change, or is there a valid reason. I am on a very slow internet connection, yet I am happy to get an emailed PDF (it may take some time to download) and I can print & bind a copy for my husband, which we can then leave at the clinic or hangar.

 

 

 

I think this Board is doing a very good job with what they inherited. Rego & Pilot Certs are turning around promptly. Costs centres are being dissected much better than they had been previously. One thing I will give SR, is that he started to get costs allocated to rough cost centres, but until now, no one could say how much each function cost (Ops, Tech, Mag, etc), all they could say was Wages & Salaries cost this much.

Hello Sue I am back from my tour of duty and I am in a position to reply to some of this magazine issue.

 

Sue save me the effort of typing the magazine survey summery, it is displayed in full in the latest magazine so it can be read by all and sundry.

 

See Andy has a lot to say about the magazine being tooooooooo expensive..must save money.

 

I have to ask, " Has there been a look at alternative print which is not too expensive"? There are less expensive forms of print out there. I have not seen anywhere where these alternatives have been considered.

 

Seeing the magazine is going digital I thing there will be a big reduction in advertising because it is now going out only to the converted.

 

Sue is going to print the mag off from her computer, what is the cost of the print ink and paper?

 

To those people with slow data speed, the exercise will take these people days to get a print out.

 

Do not get excited about satellite connection it is not that good has a lot of outage time.

 

The mind set is, "We all have super data speed". Just look on this thread and see all the people with slow data speed.

 

We will be up for buying data to get out digital magazine. Sue has to go to town with her dongle just to get down loads. How many other people are in the same boat?

 

We hear from the noisey ones here what about the quiet ones?

 

I think rick-p is OK he can reply quickly to the experts.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[Keith Page]

I have been out and about and quite busy..

 

Has anyone heard how the audit panned out?

 

To be specific:- What is good? What needs fixing?

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[rick-p]

Holy ****!!! Give it up will you Rick.Pud

Well it's about the same amount of crap as some others in this thread have been espousing. It's what you call sarcasm but obviously for some it's just to them like standing at the end of the runway at Mascot whilst the jets go over their heads.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I think the RAAus has proven pretty well to what happens to all the over regulation paperwork that exists today. They keep losing it!

 

 

[rankamateur]

They will be too busy to lose paperwork now, with 1000+ members rushing in to secure their bonus six issues of their paper magazine for $90, before it's too late.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

$7.50 per issue to print and post ($90 p.a.) seems high when magazines from the US can print and post over here to Australia for less than $3 per issue.

 

Anyway, I'm done with it. Perhaps you folk can let us non-readers know if there are any interesting or controversial articles.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

It all comes back to a very simple fact. RAAus needs to raise more revenue from its members or cut costs to avoid continuing to trade in deficit. Unlike the ALP, RAAus can not count on being able to run deficits forever. So, how do you do that?

 

Well, you could simply raise the fees for all members. That would seem fair. But, what if you had some members who were prepared to have a low cost magazine and some who want to continue to receive the high cost magazine?

 

Then you are in a position to offer all members to have *no* membership subscription increase and a low cost magazine delivered over the internet while also offering to all members to receive the high cost format but with their having to cover that high cost with a higher subscription than those willing to go the low cost way.

 

This is the classic "user pays" approach. Where I come from, low cost users of water pay low water rates. High water consumers pay more - a very novel concept when first introduced. What could be fairer?

 

With regard to the fact that some people in Australia have high speed internet available and some live in locations where that is not currently available is very unfortunate. However, if you want that problem fixed, you might want to have a word with Malcolm Turnbull because it is a bit outside the job description for the RAAus Board.

 

It would not be fair to those who are happy to accept a low cost magazine to pay for those who want (for whatever reason) a high cost magazine.

 

If the Board tried to do otherwise, it could be illegal on the basis that the Corporations Law prohibits the oppression of minority members by majority members. Board Members could be in jeopardy of breaching their duty as a Director to inflict costs on members for a service enjoyed by other members. Just my 'umble view.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

$7.50 per issue to print and post ($90 p.a.) seems high when magazines from the US can print and post over here to Australia for less than $3 per issue.Anyway, I'm done with it. Perhaps you folk can let us non-readers know if there are any interesting or controversial articles.

My EAA mag Sport Aviation is now printed in Melbourne by Imex Global Solutions

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

It would not be fair to those who are happy to accept a low cost magazine to pay for those who want (for whatever reason) a high cost magazine. If the Board tried to do otherwise, it could be illegal on the basis that the Corporations Law prohibits the oppression of minority members by majority members. Board Members could be in jeopardy of breaching their duty as a Director to inflict costs on members for a service enjoyed by other members.

Good to know, so the RaAus decision to grant the first 1000 subscribers a 33% discount is apparently illegal then. Thus all members are eligible to receive the proper magazine for $5 delivered if they apply.

 

 

[rick-p]

Seeing that there is so much dissention on the magazine issue maybe the Board should run another survey and act accordingly, on the results of the fresh survey. The first survey was misleading because it didn't actually give a scenario based on certain results of the survey. For example it didn't say hey guys whether you like it or not we are going to now jam you for an extra $90 if you wish to continue to enjoy a hard copy of the magazine delivered to your front door. This way we backdoor you on a membership increase of $45 because half of the membership will continue to get a hard copy whilst the other half will ride the coat tails of those paying. Just increase the membership, leave us with our hard copy magazine and make all members pay for a membership increase.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Seeing that there is so much dissention on the magazine issue maybe the Board should run another survey and act accordingly, on the results of the fresh survey. The first survey was misleading because it didn't actually give a scenario based on certain results of the survey. For example it didn't say hay guys whether you like it or not we are going to now jam you for an extra $90 if you wish to continue enjoy a hard copy of the magazine delivered to your front door. This way we backdoor you on a membership increase of $45 because half of the membership will continue to get a hard copy whilst the other half will ride the coat tails of those paying. Just increase the membership, leave us with our hard copy magazine and make all members pay for a membership increase.

IMO it shouldnt be about either lose the magazine or cop a extra $90 in yearly fees. It should be about " hey CASA, we have 10 000 members and 3000 aircraft and we are sick of paying through the nose every year to register and fly under aircraft WHEN GA do not have to pay jack $hit. Cough up some more money otherwise everyone will fly regardless.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Danza 38,

 

A portion of our registration and membership goes to paying our insurance.

 

Be careful with the portion size as it could bounce about like the magazine part of our membership and eventually we may have digital insurance.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Danza 38,A portion of our registration and membership goes to paying our insurance.

Be careful with the portion size as it could bounce about like the magazine part of our membership and eventually we may have digital insurance.

 

Regards

 

KP.

Yup at a over inflated cost and GA guys dont have liability insurance forced on them. It is up to the individual to pay for it or not.

 

 

[gandalph]

I wonder how to quantify "so much dissention"?

 

Should it be the ratio of forum members who have voiced their concerns compared to those who haven't said anything one way or the other?

 

Should the ratio be those who have voiced concerns here compared to the sum of RAA members?

 

How should one judge the validity of any survey, past or mooted. Should it be the number of Aye's vs No's, or the number of members who respond vs the number who didn't or couldn't be bothered?

 

A further question: Is the RAA about flying or about publishing? Suppose the Board buckled to the pressure of 'so much dissention' and decided to axe the magazine entirely but reduced the membership fee by say $48.00. How many of us would resign in disgust and stop flying?

 

For my part, I enjoy and prefer the print version over the digital version. Will I pay the extra to keep receiving the print version? Yes probably, for a while at least, but more than likely only until the cost of providing the print version to an ever decreasing number of subscribers pushes it from an emotion decision to a rational economic decision.

 

I have enough confidence in most of the Board to believe (hope) that they have fully investigated the pros and cons of contracting the Mag to other publishers and have also exercised due diligence by examining ways to raise more advertising revenue or get a bigger share of the existing revenue. And having done those things they came up their decision to change the Mag format and try to hold fees down. Isn't that what the Board is meant to do? Plan strategically in the best interests of the membership? The Treasurer, at the last NatFly, spelled out the financial future of the Association pretty bluntly. If I recall correctly he said the Association would be broke in 3 years if no changes were made. ell the Board is making changes and those changes will cause some pain to members. But how much more pain would be caused if/when the Association folds?

 

I'm a grumpy old curmudgeon and I probably only have about 20 years left before my Parent's genes play havoc. I enjoy reading about flying but if it comes to the choice between having a magazine I can hold in my hands or not having my flying curtailed because the RAA has gone belly up, I do believe I'd rather be flying.

 

I can always continue to subscribe to Australian Flying Mag.

 

 

[dazza 38]

If for arguments sake the RAA 'went belly up', CASA would have no other choice but to take over the running of ultralight flying. 10 000 members and 3000 plus aircraft simply cannot be ignored.

 

 

[facthunter]

No other choice? WHY would they have to take over ultralight flying? The members have already been ignored and having 3,000 aeroplanes (they don't like) on the ground might be a plus for them. WE have no political clout in this matter. IF they cared they would fund us at the appropriate level and not be as destructive. Nev

 

 

[gandalph]

If for arguments sake the RAA 'went belly up', CASA would have no other choice but to take over the running of ultralight flying. 10 000 members and 3000 plus aircraft simply cannot be ignored.

Maybe true Daz. But if that happened CASA would be unlikely to publish either version of the Mag. What would we have to complain about then??? Ah I know... we could go back to Jab bashing... Just sayin....

 

 

[jetjr]

Wouldnt CASA just demand they all move over to VH experimental?

 

Making it all SAAA problem

 

 

[Geoff13]

Or wouldn't a group of intelligent like minded individuals get together and create something else?

 

 

[facthunter]

In which country.? Here, Qantas never crashes and CASA never changes. SAAA wouldn't have 1800 members. They don't train pilots. Nev

 

 

[dazza 38]

No other choice? WHY would they have to take over ultralight flying? The members have already been ignored and having 3,000 aeroplanes (they don't like) on the ground might be a plus for them. WE have no political clout in this matter. IF they cared they would fund us at the appropriate level and not be as destructive. Nev

Because Im pretty sure 3000 aircraft owners wont just lay down and not fly their aeroplanes. They will fly them anyway.

 

 

[biggles]

Because Im pretty sure 3000 aircraft owners wont just lay down and not fly their aeroplanes. They will fly them anyway.

Yes Dazz , and all of them would end up up in court also ...... broke , the Government have deep pockets ! .... Bob