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

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Am I reading it correctly that we have to pay for the magazine now $90 per annum?

No you are reading it completely wrong. You don't have to, but you can choose to if you want. Also note that there are 12 issues per year now not the 11 of previous year ends.

If you choose not to pay for the printing and post then you'll get all 12 copies as a PDF file

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy. This is all very good for those with the internet and an email address.I even know of an L2 who is not on line nor intends to do so.

Yep and I know of people who refuse to get in a car cause they've still got their horse....oh hang on...no I don't!

 

I'm sorry but arguing that people cant get online....on an online forum, surely people can see the irony in that.....

 

Can you please explain to me how a L2 can fulfil his obligations if he is unable or unwilling to understand what directives apply to airframe and power plants of the things he works on......Can you identify a single OEM or importer who will provide that type of info in any way other than online....... I don't know who he is but I sure hope I never need his services!

 

Arguing that RAAus or CASA should do X or shouldn't do Y is one thing but importers and OEM's will meet their obligations (or not!) as cheaply as they can, anything but online is not in any way cheap and they simply wont do it! Jabiru have my home address and my email. In the last 5 years they have never written to me using AusPost, but they sure have emailed me heaps and pointed me to online documentation...I doubt they are any different to any other pty ltd company...

 

Can you please explain to me how an RAAus pilot can be fully briefed and across all CASA obligations (because RAAus only manage the exemptions, not the things we aren't exempt from) without having access to an online capability....How can they research area briefings, airfields, facilities beyond ERSA, R and D designated area activity's........ I suppose it might be possible, but it sure isn't intended to be the way of choice these days...... I suppose those that want to fight it can put on their Don Quixote's chain mail armour and knock out a quick windmill tilt or 2, before failing to have any effect at all.....or they can accept that change can either be harnessed for your benefit, or ignored to your likely peril

 

Andy

 

 

[facthunter]

It is virtually compulsory to be on line. Is that fair? People on line can argue the case for those who aren't on line. Why not? Self interest isn't totally universal ..YET. Nev

 

 

[rick-p]

No you are reading it completely wrong. You don't have to, but you can choose to if you want. Also note that there are 12 issues per year now not the 11 of previous year ends.If you choose not to pay for the printing and post then you'll get all 12 copies as a PDF file

 

Andy

Well you have read my question incorrectly, it would appear that if we want the printed copy ie; magazine then we HAVE to pay for it. Yes you have a choice but it doesn't really count when one has to pay for what they have been getting for decades, the price being included in the membership. What will happen is that the hard copy distribution will go down and because of this, the per copy price will creep up due to a lower circulation in that format.

 

When one is given a chalk and cheese choice it's quite obvious which way most will choose to go, that is hardly good deal.

 

In fact it may even border on being a deceptive practice under the Trade Practices legislation.

 

A con in other words.

 

It speaks for itself!

 

 

[ave8rr]

Am I reading it correctly that we have to pay for the magazine now $90 per annum?

Yep.....

 

 

[David Isaac]

Well you have read my question incorrectly, it would appear that if we want the printed copy ie; magazine then we HAVE to pay for it. Yes you have a choice but it doesn't really count when one has to pay for what they have been getting for decades, the price being included in the membership. What will happen is that the hard copy distribution will go down and because of this, the per copy price will creep up due to a lower circulation in that format.When one is given a chalk and cheese choice it's quite obvious which way most will choose to go, that is hardly good deal.

In fact it may even border on being a deceptive practice under the Trade Practices legislation.

 

A con in other words.

 

It speaks for itself!

Rick, I think what you have said is a very harsh and biased assessment.

If you had taken the opportunity to attend the GM either in person or via the live web link online (which I did and can attest to the exceptionally high video and audio quality) or took the opportunity to watch the your GM on the link that was emailed to all members who have provided their email addresses, you would have been privy to the detailed explanation from our CEO on the methodology behind the changed magazine distribution. I fully support what they have done. The magazine was costing the organization a fortune, and we have all been winging about the costs.

 

The new board have made huge steps forward. We are a quantum leap ahead of where we were in the not so distant past. You get the sense that we are in good hands. This new facility of web link for meetings is absolutely huge. Hopefully they will enhance this with the ability to ask questions on line as well soon and it will be almost as good as being in the room except for the camaraderie when there in person. This really is the only path forward for proper member attendance and representation for such a large number of members spread across this great land. I am hopeful that eventually we will all be able to attend and even vote on line for any special resolutions. This is all possibel, hell some countries are doing online voting these days.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

It is virtually impossible to be without a credit card these days...is that fair?

 

Well you have read my question incorrectly, it would appear that if we want the printed copy ie; magazine then we HAVE to pay for it. Yes you have a choice but it doesn't really count when one has to pay for what they have been getting for decades, the price being included in the membership. What will happen is that the hard copy distribution will go down and because of this, the per copy price will creep up due to a lower circulation in that format.When one is given a chalk and cheese choice it's quite obvious which way most will choose to go, that is hardly good deal.

In fact it may even border on being a deceptive practice under the Trade Practices legislation.

 

A con in other words.

 

It speaks for itself!

Ive said it before I'll say it again, for the membership and aircraft registration fees we pay today you can have an organisation (which allows us to fly) or a paper based magazine. You cant have both.

 

People have said so just put the membership fees up......that penalises members who are happy with digital only which by our polling and again on a poll on this site are > 50% of the members, why should they pay more? Please tell me why?

 

Arguments that in the past you got it......in what way does mentioning history somehow affect the present? If you want to mention history then what about the realities of the running of the organisation by previous boards that meant that CASA imposed a whole new function on our team which in turn raised significantly our staffing costs.... We also had to start doing back office stuff to the level that we promised but in the past weren't delivering...... Are they, because historically not provided also subject to review, that is lets go back to not providing them......impossible and stupid to contemplate!

 

Andy

 

 

[facthunter]

People should still get posted any airwothiness instruction/ directive. Not everyone backs up files either. Printed material is the best reference for required information. Still works when the computer goes poof or the lights go out. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

People should still get posted any airwothiness instruction/ directive. Not everyone backs up files either. Printed material is the best reference for required information. Still works when the computer goes poof or the lights go out. Nev

People who don't back up critical files are pretty much the same as those who never kept copies of critical Bulletins.

 

All you have to do is have an external hard drive (for big volumes) or flash drive (for small) volumes and when the computer goes poof you buy another one.

 

The PC came into active use 30 years ago.

 

 

[Keith Page]

No you are reading it completely wrong. You don't have to, but you can choose to if you want. Also note that there are 12 issues per year now not the 11 of previous year ends.If you choose not to pay for the printing and post then you'll get all 12 copies as a PDF file

 

Andy

Hello ---- I can remember not that long ago (Steve Runciman times)you would have had a continual yell regarding the magazine change. How is now different?

These were the times you were very vocal about everything the board did, must have changed since you are a board member.

 

This magazine issue is a case of membership increase by way of stealth, could it be fraud?

 

When I first joined AUF my membership subscription was broken down in parts to show where our membership was distributed --- to this day I have not heard anything regarding recinding the magazine portion of the membership, until now.

 

You are correct Rick-P the paper magazine is going to cost $90.00 how can it be said that is not correct.

 

Could be a case for Fair Trading?

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You aren't customers, you OWN THE BLOODY ASSOCIATION!!! This is not a consumer issue.

 

If you don't like the idea of trying to reduce the cost of $300,000.00 per year for a paper magazine then:

 

1. VOTE IN THE ELECTIONS

 

2. VOTE AGAINST IT IN THE MEETINGS

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Hello ---- I can remember not that long ago (Steve Runciman times)you would have had a continual yell regarding the magazine change. How is now different?These were the times you were very vocal about everything the board did, must have changed since you are a board member.

This magazine issue is a case of membership increase by way of stealth, could it be fraud?

 

When I first joined AUF my membership subscription was broken down in parts to show where our membership was distributed --- to this day I have not heard anything regarding recinding the magazine portion of the membership, until now.

 

You are correct Rick-P the paper magazine is going to cost $90.00 how can it be said that is not correct.

 

Could be a case for Fair Trading?

 

Regards,

 

KP.

Keith

 

Too bloody right I was vocal.....4 failed audits! CASA ready to shut us down......No real understanding of financials and membership details......board meetings that were more like a meeting of gladiators than people with a common purpose.....you and I at real and imminent danger of loosing the ability to fly at all...too right I was vocal!

 

Today, imho we have no failed audits, we have CASA well pleased with association progress, our ability to do what we promised we would do, and well understood financials and membership... board meetings take 1/2 to 1 day, not the 3 days of years gone by where in many cases even then not everything was covered...board members today have and make their view known but the decisions made are for the betterment of the organisation.....we have staff stability (No one in any senior role has left us in the last 12 months..... Our budget for next year will go close to expenditure = revenue....CASA relationships are viable and respectful

 

Chalk and cheese!! so is it any wonder things are different WRT me speaking about board failure!

 

Fair Trading....Con??????......Are you guys on drugs? In what way is what we are doing deceptive? What exactly is it that we are hiding from you....you may not like the reality that we have been living beyond our means for some time, but like it or not its reality!

 

Lastly answer the bloody question Do you want to fly, or do you want to read a paper magazine....YOU CANT DO BOTH!!!!! (for what we charge you today!)

 

Andy

 

PS Keith the Question Rick asked was, and I quote "Am I reading it correctly that we have to pay for the magazine now $90 per annum?" Where as you have slipped in the word paper that wasn't there in the original question and substantially changes the question...that's how I can say his point was incorrect. I still believe that the PDF or the online ISSUU web version of the magazine is still a magazine where as you don't. that's fine, your entitled to your view where as mine aligns with reality...The PDF you will be provided is the same pdf that goes to the printer for him to print...nothing is changed by the printer therefore the content must be exactly the same...... What people are charged for the printing of the pdf to glossy paper and its delivery are related to the real costs of doing so.....RAAus doesn't make a profit from the cost recovery charges to members that choose to go that way.......Is Rick correct that as people look at the price and don't personally feel that its value for money then the print run will decrease, and the per magazine costs will rise....yes I personally feel that is probably correct....will that ultimately result in the retirement of the paper version....when people feel that it is no longer value for their money that will possibly be the case........and so be it!

 

 

[David Isaac]

Hello ---- I can remember not that long ago (Steve Runciman times)you would have had a continual yell regarding the magazine change. How is now different?These were the times you were very vocal about everything the board did, must have changed since you are a board member.

This magazine issue is a case of membership increase by way of stealth, could it be fraud?

 

When I first joined AUF my membership subscription was broken down in parts to show where our membership was distributed --- to this day I have not heard anything regarding recinding the magazine portion of the membership, until now.

 

You are correct Rick-P the paper magazine is going to cost $90.00 how can it be said that is not correct.

 

Could be a case for Fair Trading?

 

Regards,

 

KP.

Keith,

Did you read my post above in relation To Rick P's comments?

 

Did you attend YOUR associations GM either in person or online?

 

Did you watch the meeting video link that was sent to all members?

 

If you had taken the time to attend or watch the video you would have had all the answers to your questions regarding the magazine ...

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People with respect to the magazine you folk are thinking in terms only of RAAus.....we do X then in isolation Y happens....please think more broadly.

 

Today a printer has fixed and variable costs. In the longer term (ie ignoring short term contracted prices) his fixed costs are shared equally across the volume he prints. If he prints 200,000 magazines a month then the cost per mag is A, if over time the volume shrinks to 50,000 per month then his fixed cost share must be 4A per magazine.

 

If we look at the whole print business the volumes are dropping, if you go into your local newsagent then in the main its obvious that is occurring. Newsagents today are 1/2 the size they were 10 years back.....In fact back then they were newsagents, today they are lottery agents who also sell the odd magazine....

 

The economy's of scale question Rick-P has alluded to is correct but its not a function of RAAus business alone, its a result of the totality of the magazine world.

 

If you look at the Youtube video of the Cessnock GM you will see Dave Caban point out that the costs we have today (just less than $40k per issue) are significantly more than they were in the past, and they are likely to be significantly more in the future no matter what position RAAus takes over its own magazine by virtue of the realities of digital magazines in all other parts of our life. We haven't just let the costs grow unchallenged, they have been tested through market review....

 

If RAAus was to simply ignore the issue its my belief that within 5 years we could see a doubling of cost to just less than $80k per month.... just short of $1m per year......

 

So let me ask you guys at what point do you who don't want to accept digital now accept that paper is untenable for the future?

 

If you were King for the day how would you address this problem both in the short term (financial deficit hole now) and with the reality that no matter what RAAus does today the cover price of the magazine will be just short of $20 within 5 years?

 

Andy

 

 

[rhysmcc]

What does the magazine have to do with the Pilot Certificate issue being discussed?

 

 

[rick-p]

What does the magazine have to do with the Pilot Certificate issue being discussed?

Absolutely nadda!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well stop whining about it then.

 

 

[terryc]

I'd like to say that I support the board in all of their decisions of late and commend them for their professional approach to what appeared to be a difficult financial situation and declining credibility. But why would the president stand up and say the good news is no increase in membership fees when we all know [and he does too ] that a reduction of services [paper mag ] amounts to the exact same thing. Why not say it as it is so that the boards intention and thinking is clear to everyone. This area needs to improve, all other areas are spot on.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Turbo wrote " I haven't found a Clause in the Constitution authorising the employment of a Chief Executive Officer . . ."

 

The CEO is an employee not a Managing Director. The Board has the power to employ people under 11(i) The Business of the Association shall be managed by the Board which may exercise all of the powers of the Association.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I'd like to say that I support the board in all of their decisions of late and commend them for their professional approach to what appeared to be a difficult financial situation and declining credibility. But why would the president stand up and say the good news is no increase in membership fees when we all know [and he does too ] that a reduction of services [paper mag ] amounts to the exact same thing. Why not say it as it is so that the boards intention and thinking is clear to everyone. This area needs to improve, all other areas are spot on.

Spot on.

 

IMHO if they had just increased everyone's fees explaining our financial situation and offered a 'rebate' or reduction for those happy to have a digital only mag (so that those people who wanted 'just' the digital mag were still paying the same as they are today) I think the majority would have taken it a lot better. YES it would equate to the same thing but at least it is calling it a fee increase rather than 'looking' like a hidden one.

 

I think everyone these days is getting sick of being fed political sweeteners when it is quiet obvious that it is what it is (not just in RAA but in everything these days).

 

Doing it this way doesn't alienate those who wish to still get a paper mag (they don't feel like they are odd ones out, and they don't 'feel' like they are the only ones paying extra!) even though they would still be paying the extra needed. It also makes those that just get the digital mag 'feel' better because they are 'choosing' to save themselves that extra amount. Win Win.

 

But at the end of the day it's not that big of a deal, no need to lose a days flying over it:fear:

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . But why would the president stand up and say the good news is no increase in membership fees when we all know [and he does too ] that a reduction of services [paper mag ] amounts to the exact same thing. Why not say it as it is so that the boards intention and thinking is clear to everyone. . . .

I believe the did say it " as it is" at the General Meeting. He said that they could avoid raising fees for everybody by charging for the home-delivered, paper magazine. I agree that it would be unfair to put up the fees for every member when many (most?) are prepared to have a digital version for the current fee. The decision to allow a printed version at all is very considerate. If you really do value a paper version you can have one - at a price. But, my suggestion would be subscribe reall soon or else it will be gone.

In terms of the magazine not being read because it is on a screen and not on paper is a personal choice and may reflect the demographics of Recreational Aviators. It may also reflect on the product life cycle of printed magazines being in the decline stage. Instead of reading magazines (passive) younger generations are into more active pursuits with interactive communication via Facebook (useful), Twitter (even CASA uses that abomination) and other forms of media usually prefixed these days with the word "social". Were not newspapers and magazines (and broadcast radio) early forms of social media?

 

RAAus has made a spectacular entry into Facebook with the site booming. Information is right up to the minute not lagged by two or three months as is the case with the home delivered paper magazine. And the equivalent of "Letters to the Editor" (how 19th Century can you get?) is handled by "Comments" which are instantaneous.

 

My rash prediction, not my desire necessarily, but just the reality, is that there will be such a small take up of the printed magazine that it will be very difficult to justify printing any copies at all. Aviators are not known for being free spenders on anything that does not involve defying gravity.

 

Who would have bought a copy of CASA's "Flight Safety" magazine if they had offered a printed version along with the free digital version? Only Sweet Fanny Adams I strongly suspect.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

[rick-p]

One needs to contemplate all the facts. The powers to be had prior to the relevant meeting already made their minds up to the taking the hard copy version of the magazine out of the equation unless paid for separately to that of the membership fee. They just hadn't decided on a figure as at the time of the relevant meeting. The decision had been made but no cost had been allocated or agreed on. Evidence, to wit, the latest magazine says it all. You can draw your own conclusions after reviewing the printed story. I'm not a fan of deceptive practices.

 

 

[rick-p]

And all this maybe is off topic but OMG how many times has the off topic situation occurred on these forums. Case in point, the death of a very good friend of mine and all people could do was talk about was ELT's etc. That discussion was totally irrelevant to the original topic, it should have come under a safety thread not the death of a mate with everyone offering their 2 bob's worth on how it happened and how it could have been avoided or whatever by an ELT or some such like device.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Rick

 

The board is elected to make the best of what is possible with the scenarios available at the time. If the members don't agree with that approach they are always able to call an EGM, or ask that an agenda item (and proposed motion if you want a decision to be made) is attached to the next GM (which will be the AGM around October this year) at that meeting the broader membership have the ability to have their motion put and voted on providing that all the appropriate timelines as defined in the constitution are met WRT to advising the board of your desire to have a matter decided by vote at the next GM.

 

If you and others take umbrage with what the board has decided it is within your power to change it....In fact a fair chunk of the current board, together with other like minded members, at the time had the constitution changed at the Heck field AGM some years back to allow exactly that (calling an EGM) to occur, where it was simply impossible before due to the size of the organisation.

 

With respect to deceptive practises, and cons etc, can you please tell me what is deceptive about what we have done? what is it that we have not told you in advance? I personally have an enormous dislike of someone suggesting that I'm somehow acting in an illegal way when I know damn well im not....so enough of innuendo and out with the facts....what have we done that is deceptive?

 

In fact let me open that question up, Can anyone, not just Rick, who dislikes the decision, and I respect your right to dislike it, actual point to anything that was actually deceptive as distinctly different to just disliking the decision? Its my belief that I personally have made it abundantly clear what the drivers for change are, and, as soon as things were decided in the implementation plan, have then identified them to you....

 

So while we are contemplating facts....what exact facts are those that need to be contemplated....lets drag them out and have a dig around in the sunlight to see if there is in fact anything there besides broad innuendo and muck.....

 

Andy