Where do we come from

[DonRamsay]

Sorry to all that this is off topic but it is a matter vital to the core of RAAus and recreational aviation in the broadest sense.

 

. . . If you were actually caring for the laws of physics for a separation then for ultralights we would have a trade between MTOW and stall speed not just a MTOW and blanket stall speed limit - lets face it 300kg of me and airframe hurtling towards the ground at 45kts is not the same energy to be dissipated/managed/risk mitigated as the 600kg of your sling hurtling towards the same ground at 45kts.

Last time I looked, p = m x v (momentum = mass x velocity)

 

That of course agrees with your 300kg into terrain versus my 600 kg (or 700 kg) except that your terminal velocity is likely to be less due to a higher drag factor. Likely to be terminal in both cases regardless of the number of knots.

 

The risk element, in every case, is comprised of two factors probability and consequence. Other things equal, there is a greater consequence with a heavier object arriving unannounced to the ground at an unfortunate angle. The consequence in this case is much the same for the pilot but can differ depending on what's on the ground and who's on board. The probability is managed by restricting recreational pilots to day VFR, low complexity aircraft (low stall), one passenger, good maintenance and inspection regimes and good pilot training and requiring the pilot to be able to glide clear of built up areas.

 

Passengers of recreational aircraft, regardless of their or the plane's MTOW, fly at their own risk. It could be argued that a Cessna 172 is a less risky means of transport than a Trike. Why restrict recreational aviators to Trikes when they could be safer in a heavier, more robust aircraft?

 

Recreational aviators and their passengers fly at their own risk. Commercial passengers are entitled to a less risky environment and that is the reasonable attitude of the Parliament, aviation regulators and the RPT travelling public.

 

It makes more sense to me to regulate on the base of recreational use versus commercial than on arbitrary number of kilograms.

 

All categories of aircraft are arbitrary.

Well, I'm arguing that they should not be arbitrary but logical.

 

If your only reason to separate is recreational use vs commercial use then there is no reason why the same requirements should not apply (and the same RAAO control) gyros, balloons, all trikes, all aerobatic aircraft, the old 747 I picked up from Qantas and only intend using to fly myself for recreation on holidays . . .

Let's not get too far off the beam - nobody is suggesting unlimited stall speed.

RAAus is not seeking to fly B747s. It is asking for CASA to live up to its statement that the RPL and RPC are equivalent. They will be equivalent when MTOW is upped to 1,500 kg and CTA and aerobatic endorsements are available to pilots with the appropriate equipment and training.

 

... and I note the new draft RAA constitution include spacecraft so maybe the reach/grasp of the RAA really is to take on everything that is not commercial.

I wouldn't put it past Bert Ruttan to come up with a Long EZ that can handle 100,000 ft? The Wintons's Opal Facet made it to 32,000 ft with 40hp so, 3 time that is only 120 hp and . . . the sky may not be the limit.

 

And weight = safety means in the extreme that so long as it can get into the air its safer the heavier it is ... so long as its recreational ... there are quite a few old planes around that can be had quite cheaply that are attractivehttp://www.planecheck.com/index.asp?ent=ap&man=Antonov&des=AN2&type=&grp=An-2&id=0

And I quite liked Kiev ... though I might choose to fly west on delivery ...

I doubt you or anyone else believes all that. MTOW is but one of the many limits on the acceptability of an aircraft for recreational use by recreational pilots. John Travolta no doubt flies his B707 recreationally but he doesn't/couldn't do it on a Sport Pilot licence and nobody is suggesting he should be able to.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

One could argue that the RPC doesn't have a MTOW limit (like the RPL does), what is limited is the type of aircraft RA-Aus can register (currently I think there are 3? All with different MTOW limits).

 

 

[Aldo]

Both clipped so the below goes to both of you.

 

And just

Sorry to

Kasper/Don

 

While in essence I agree with most things you are saying and discussing very well, I lean towards Kaspers side of the argument. The crux of the matter appears to be that the CASA and whoever else has a finger in the pie obviously doesn't believe the level of oversight and training within recreational aviation is of a high enough standard to allow anything more than what we have right now, if they did RAA would be allowed to issue RPL licences.

 

Don your argument that the RPC and RPL is in essence the same, may well be true in all respects but to receive a RPL you must pass the litmus test of a perceived higher level/standard of training offered through GA and the medical requirements.

 

With you now having a position on the board for the second time I believe the fastest way for RAA to be able to access what you are looking for would be for RAA to put itself forward as the introduction to all flying i.e. you start your flying career/hobby whatever with RAA should you wish to go further you then progress to an affiliated GA (or commercial level) school so all flying starts with a RPC. It would certainly take some organising but it would ingrain RAA in the entire aviation arena and not be perceived to be an offshoot that isn't really flying in many eyes (not my opinion).

 

RAA would then be the feeder club into all aviation (non-military), this would in effect bring the level of training within recreational aviation up to a higher standard (I'm not saying that quite a number are not already). Food for thought.

 

I have both GA & RA so until I can't pass my class 1/2 medical it is not really an issue for me but I understand the level of frustration others are feeling.

 

Aldo

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Great idea but doubt it will ever happen, flight training is a big part of GA and I doubt they would want to give up the first 20-25hrs of business. RAA can't issue RPLs like CASA does but it could take on a flight school/club role and train members to RPL level instead of issuing RPCs. It's main purpose would be then to administer aircraft registrations for home built, LSA and weight shift type aircraft. All flown from RPLs, the sticky point is removing CASAs requirement for Class 2 or AvMedical.

 

 

[facthunter]

You get compliance with ICAO, problems. The RPC gives us what WE want. We don't NEED compliance. we need freedoms to operate that suit our purposes. The fact that credit is given for SOME experience we have in other areas is fine, but if to get it would reduce our current benefits why would you do that? Our aim is to serve our members , not take over the world..Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The fact that only 22% are ex AUF/ultralights explains a great deal. To those whingers who complain about the direction of RAAus and heavier/faster aeroplanes, we have moved on. You are in a minority of about 20%. I used to ride a push bike and I used to fly a Drifter 25 years ago but I have moved on. I would like the right to go back and do it again if I wish but at present I don't. Let us all support every aspect of the sport or hobby or whatever it is and not try to bring others down. I love to meet the PP flyers and the trike flyers and the home builders and the war birders and the classics and the GA crowd and so on and so on. I love to see them all flying. Some of the insults we get here really hurt and are unnecessary.

 

 

[Keith Page]

As many discussions on this forum seem to pit the GA against the AUF/Ultralights etc etc I thought I would try this poll.It seems to me that many old school people think they own RAA and it is theirs. (Don't shoot me yet).

 

This group appear to feel that anything new is a reject from GA and should be avoided.

 

Then there is the group that appear to come from GA and think that anyone without a Class 2 Medical and a million hours of training is below them.

 

But I think that we are mostly missing out on the most important group. They are the ones who are new to Aviation and the RAA provides them with an affordable way to get into Aviation. Some of these people are cashed up baby boomers who want to buy a plane that looks like a plane and just go flying, others are the tinkerers who now that they have time would rather build and modify etc. Some of these people are the youngsters who whether we like it or not are going to be the future of our sport.

 

Personally I think that the third group are the larger silent majority and we will ignore these people at the risk of losing everything the other two groups are fighting for. Attracting new people is the only way to guarantee our future and the future of our sport. The first two groups are a fixed number and will eventually die/fade out.

 

Thoughts please as well as the poll for numbers.

 

I personally am squarely in the middle of the third group.

Geoff13.. You are on to it..

The number one thing which I have not seen much of, planning for "Succession"..

 

To have a good succession plan we need young new members, not more old members as they get old too quick.

 

Yep..... Young members with foresight will grow and give RAAus longevity.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[facthunter]

You must work with what you have. Younger people would certainly be welcome but they aren't found in many areas, that might have appealed to them in days past . Nev

 

 

[Keith Page]

You must work with what you have. Younger people would certainly be welcome but they aren't found in many areas, that might have appealed to them in days past . Nev

Encouraged and welcomed... Would be a start.....

Those which show interest mentor them.....

 

You those kids which hang on the fence like moneys in a cage, take some of them for a fly you would be surprised how many of those will take up flying.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

not sure what ICAO has to do with the discussion but NZ seem to manage find having the one system for both GA and Ultralights.

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't have enough detailed knowledge to comment on the NZ situation. My point is compliance is a possible constraint. (barrier). Why does it have to matter if it's in the way of running our own show? LSA is constraint too. Whether justified or not is debatable. It can put you in a horrible situation with your plane, when the maker goes out of business for example. Nev

 

 

[Geoff13]

So 5 days in we have the following.

 

AUF/Ultralights 18%

 

GA 25.6%

 

New to Aviation 41%

 

Other 10.3%

 

Only 78 votes so the figures really do not mean much in terms of the whole RAA, but it is a reasonable sample of forum members.

 

Over overwhelmingly the largest percentage is from the new to aviation school. I think that really does reflect the leaning of many posts on the forum.

 

What it tells me is that we do have a growing member base. They may not really be younger people coming in but they are new to aviation which means that we need to nurture their needs.

 

Not for a moment am I suggesting that we forget our roots ie. the auf/ultralight group nor should we ignore the GA types but we certainly need to work out what it is attracting this new group into the sport and then we need to use that or those things and continue to provide for them.

 

My gut feeling which has no basis in fact tells me that is the ability to purchase a factory built aircraft at a price that was up until recently not a possibility and basically fly it anywhere they want with an affordable maintenance program is the major reason. Also remember that many of these people are baby boomers. They are the new generation who have changed everything that they have touch throughout there live. These are people who are used to getting what they want and will stop at nothing to get it.

 

I admit that I am making some assumptions in here but I think it really it does mean our our management group to at the very least consider "WHO" the future of our group will be and what they want.

 

 

[kasper]

Geoff13.. You are on to it..The number one thing which I have not seen much of, planning for "Succession"..

To have a good succession plan we need young new members, not more old members as they get old too quick.

 

Yep..... Young members with foresight will grow and give RAAus longevity.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

It would be very interesting as a supplementary question to ask how OLD the 'younger' RAA members were when they joined ...

I know I ma seen by some as an 'old' AUF member ... but I am well under 50 and started flying AUF in a gemini in SA when I 16 ... AUF USED to have young members in their 20-30s ... I would be interested to see the average age of 'new' RAA joiners ... my guess would be that the average is crept to over 40...

 

 

[SDQDI]

We need another thread with an age poll then we could cross reference the ages with these results to see if baby boomers are a large part of it.

 

I might start one:yes:

 

 

[frank marriott]

"My gut feeling which has no basis in fact tells me that is the ability to purchase a factory built aircraft at a price that was up until recently not a possibility and basically fly it anywhere they want with an affordable maintenance program"

 

Geoff,

 

I thing your gut feeling is pretty accurate, at least for a substantial number of "new" members, and you can put me in that category. I don't agree with some of the other assumptions but it is what attracted me to get an RAA certificate.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Definitely the ability to buy a factory plane and go flying and or travelling...if they where only suitable for laps, i prob wouldnt have justified the expense over motorbikes for local fun.

 

Although having said that our previous CFI said the vast majority of new pilots into our club get an RPC and never do x country

 

I can only speak for me and my perception of our club at Port Macquarie.. But we are a pretty big club...i think around 200 with 140 or so active pilots...?? I heard that but dont quote me on those numbers.

 

Our biggest group is 60plus most are ex GA but there is a decent number new to aviation

 

Then there is a group of 40-50 year olds not so large finally getting the mortgage under control this is much smaller then the older group but has a steady flow of new comers.

 

Then there are a few younger ones. Mainly either scholarship holders, going cpl later or have grand parents or parents who fly...

 

The real potential growth seems to be in the 40-65 age group. They can afford it, they will probably stay active and involved ..most our new comers are in this group.

 

I personally think scholarships are not that effective...lots do the 10 lessons and then give up...id rather see 10 kids all get a Tiff or 10 x 40-65 year olds who show genuine interest get a subsidised TIFF...

 

I dont think too many clubs research thier market very well... In soccer or rugby its all about junior development... But from my perspective it seems our junior development is definitely in the 40-65 bracket not the under 40's

 

 

[Aldo]

Great idea but doubt it will ever happen

Rhys

 

I understand why you would think this but if this is the approach we take you will be correct it will never happen, dare to dream, work to make it happen, encourage the kids to go RAA first, offer them joy rides, have them wash your plane for the privilege of the joy ride, do whatever it takes, I probably give somewhere around 50 joy flights at no cost to the youngsters a year. The only way we will encourage them is by showing what a great pastime it is. I also take kids to the coast for the day with us (albeit in a GA aircraft and a 5 hour drive each way, we do it in an hour) but I'm always telling them to go learn RAA to start your flying career. They love it they post it all over facebook and then their friends come asking if they might be able to do the same thing one day. We all need to encourage, I grew up in a family that didn't fly my parents still wont get in an aeroplane I've been flying for 30 years and we live 3 miles from each other, I have no idea why I wanted to fly but I have always wanted to since I can remember.

 

Make it happen

 

Aldo

 

 

[Keith Page]

You are spot on Aldo.

 

Regards

 

KP

 

 

[dazza 38]

It would be interest to know how many of us are left with a membeship number less than say 2000 ?

 

 

[Keith Page]

That is a good question Dazza... Who of the originals are left?

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[kasper]

That is a good question Dazza... Who of the originals are left?Regards

KP.

Well I rejoined in 1994 after leaving uni and having the cash to train myself I got member number 7019 ... my original 1986 number was under 2000 I seem to remember but it had been used for someone else or they couldn't find my old records in '94.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Well I rejoined in 1994 after leaving uni and having the cash to train myself I got member number 7019 ... my original 1986 number was under 2000 I seem to remember but it had been used for someone else or they couldn't find my old records in '94.

They should have given you your original membership number when you rejoined, people have to give them their original number on the application form when rejoining . Nobody else should be using your old number as they are only to be issued once and that would have been to you originally. I left for a while ( as in I didnt renew my membership for a few years) then came back and kept my original AUF membership number. My number is 171x . Around 1987/1988

Interesting to hear that they may have lost your orignal records, thats a bugger.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

That's interesting because I joined in 1992 and got 4716. Seems there was not much consistency in how the numbers were allocated.

 

 

[kasper]

That's interesting because I joined in 1992 and got 4716. Seems there was not much consistency in how the numbers were allocated.

Yeah, same as regn numbers and sequences. They have chopped and changed several times on what process to run so we end up with very odd outcomes.

I'm not worried about not having my original low number, I have been writing 7019 for 21 years and I am used to it.

 

 

[Keith Page]

They should have given you your original membership number when you rejoined, people have to give them their original number on the application form when rejoining . Nobody else should be using your old number as they are only to be issued once and that would have been to you originally. I left for a while ( as in I didnt renew my membership for a few years) then came back and kept my original AUF membership number. My number is 171x . Around 1987/1988Interesting to hear that they may have lost your orignal records, thats a bugger.

Oi! Dazza,

What are you on about, getting membership numbers lost.. I have seen whole plane details lost that is weight and balance and colour hence membership is only a small detail.

 

Regards,

 

KP.