RAAus/SAAA - Thoughts on a merger?

[flyvulcan]

The SAAA just this week has clearly entered another period of instability with the resignation of its CEO and 4 members of its National Council. I know that it concerns me and I'm sure it will concern other members.

 

I have been a member of both RAAus (AUF in those days) and the SAAA since both their inceptions. I have always been a bit disappointed that there was not more cooperation between the two organisations, although there has been a clear improvement over the last couple of years in the level of cooperation between the organisations.

 

Individually, the organisations are sitting on SAAA - 2000+ members and RAAus 10,000 (?) members while SAAA has around $1m in its coffers and RAAus has about the same (?).

 

Both organisations have necessary infrastructure to support their businesses i.e. Staff to support membership, accounting, office work etc. and both organisations have their tasks relating to their role. There are clearly functions that are common to both organisations (membership etc.) as well as tasks that are common to both organisations (lobbying to CASA, Part 149 approval etc.).

 

Perhaps it is time to consider some type of amalgamation of the two organisations to rationalise the administration of Sport/Recreational aviation and provide cost-benefits and resource benefits to both organisations?

 

Does anyone else feel the same as me and is it worth proposing such an initiative to RAAus/SAAA management?

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

[facthunter]

You will have to convince the SAAA people. There are differences of significance. They don't (and shouldn't) train pilots, we do.

 

I have been involved with both though at lower levels than the past. My view is do it, but don't bully anybody. The RAAus is considered the "inferior" show in some ways , one being the stuff some of the people build which is truly remarkable. Both organisations would be better funded as better value for money is available for a greater size, and would carry more clout. Some room to do what they do best ( limited autonomy) and I certainly wouldn't want to have ready acceptance of all the paperwork they do to fly.. Their numbers are too small as they are and not likely to change much. ALL branches of Non Commercial Aviation should work more closely together. That's a no brainer. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

I am a member of both and consider it would be a good thing. SAAA is having some problems at the moment and RAAus seems to have stabilised.

 

The role of SAAA is more to do with building and registering aircraft, with pilot safety a big part of their work. RAAus is also into building and also safety, but it also oversees pilot training and licencing.

 

Both organisations would bring advantages to a combined organisation, with possible savings and improvements to members.

 

I just don't know how we go about getting an amalgamation.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

They don't (and shouldn't) train pilots, we do.

Under my proposal, this would become "We (being the new amalgamated organisation) offer flight training to individuals to gain a recreational pilot certificate, a sport pilot license, a general aviation pilot license and transition training into your own recreational aircraft."

 

For those members of the new organisation that have built or bought their own experimental or ultralight (non-commercial) aircraft, the existing FTF's could offer transition training, an initiative which CASA have supported and which the SAAA are investigating. The "Experimental" division of the amalgamated body could pursue the issue of transition training, as the SAAA is doing now, but it would be the organisation's FTFs that could benefit, along with the members who have built or bought their own experimental category aircraft (whether GA registered or sport registered) who could now get training in their own or a similar aircraft (on a commercial level).

 

I am also a member of the Sport Aircraft Club of SA, an enthusiast group that has members from all genres of recreational aviation who all coexist and complement each other and is a great example of what could be achieved on a national level. I for one would like to see that happen.

 

The AusFly event just highlights the success that can be achieved when all the recreational aviation bodies cooperate and support each other. I'd like to see that cooperation, possibly through integration all the time, not just for a weekend.

 

I think that there would be more support from SAAA members for such an initiative than one might suspect. I don't think there is the same perception of RAAus being an organisation of "Cowboys" which there was 20 years ago. I think that the new generation of SAAA members is over the bias that may have existed in the past.

 

I personally feel like the SAAA is struggling a bit at the moment, particularly with the upheaval in the National Council and that maybe it is time to consider a sea change for the organisation, and in my opinion, an amalgamated, bigger, stronger body would benefit everyone.

 

This site is predominantly RAAus focused, but support on both sides would be required to introduce this initiative.

 

 

[peter]

I also have a foot in both camps with my Cobra registered RAAus and my Onex being VH (and built under the auspices of SAAA). I would like to see all recreational aviation under one umbrella, it just make sense, and I feel that the divide between GA recreational and Ultralight is rapidly diminishing, especially given that there is such a big overlap between the aircraft in both categories.

 

 

[jakej]

One big hurdle here, IMO - EGOS

 

 

[cooperplace]

As an RAAus member, I'd be happy with this. Jakej has pointed to a big hurdle: this would have to be negotiated with great tact & diplomacy.

 

 

[peter]

The other "sensible" thing would be an amalgamation of the RPC and the RPL, having 2 seperate licenses/certificates to fly what are essentially the same types of aircraft is also quite bizarre.

 

And all controlled by one recreational umbrella organisation, we can but dream.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

If you scrap the RPC you remove the reason for having the RAA, its a good idea. Have the SAAA take control of the RAA and let CASA take over control of registering all GA aircraft.

 

 

[jetjr]

Why would SAAA take over RAA, they have 5x the members and do training and issue RPC and as noted are quite stable currently

 

 

[fly_tornado]

If you want to get costs down and simplify the GA experience you need less bureaucracy not more

 

 

[jetjr]

Like trying to talk with a wheel

 

 

[jakej]

Exactly !! We've been through this all before. Given what's happened (& is still going on) to both organisations in the last 2 years especially, don't hold your breath.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

If you scrap the RPC you remove the reason for having the RAA, its a good idea. Have the SAAA take control of the RAA and let CASA take over control of registering all GA aircraft.

I think it should be the other way around, let CASA take over the licensing and RAA/SAAA control the registering of expertimal and sport aircraft. (Factory and home built).

 

 

[flyvulcan]

A year or so ago, the SAAA closed its administration office at Narromine and let go all its admin support staff. This function is now outsourced to a third party provider. The only salaried employee of the SAAA, the "CEO" (which was really the wrong title for the position. It was really a Technical Manager type role) has resigned so now, the SAAA will not have any salaried employees. Half the National Council has just resigned last week.

 

Since RAAus has existing infrastructure that is getting itself in order, has salaried staff in executive and administrative positions, owns its office, I'm my opinion, the time is right for talks about an amalgamation.

 

A reorganisation of the RAAus structure to establish "divisions" within the new organisation, with each division having its own representatives to administer the division, under the overall direction and control of a suitably qualified executive team (having both proper business and special interest qualifications) could be undertaken reasonably painlessly and seamlessly.

 

The current SAAA National Council could become the representatives for the "Experimental" division of the new organisation and administer all experimental aircraft (SAAA and RAAus). Their Authorised Persons and Technical Councillor system could support both what are currently SAAA and RAAus experimental aircraft.

 

Likewise, the current RAAus board could become the representatives for either the "Ultralight" division (being what most here would term rag and tube or minimal aircraft) or the "LSA" division.

 

Those 3 divisions cover all of the "types" of aircraft that the two organisations currently operate.

 

If the SAAA and RAAus came to the table to discuss an amalgamation (without egos and with the best interests of their members being foremost), should an agreement be reached in principal, including developing an accurate and comprehensive set of objectives for the new organisation (this shouldn't really be too hard), then CASA could be approached to review/update all delegations that are currently in place with each organisation with a view to ensuring that the new organisation had all the necessary authorities in place, but only those that the new organisation wants (do we really want licensing and registration? Couldn't a license or a registration be a one-off fee like it is in GA?) FTF's and Maintenance Organisations could still be administered by the new organisation under the organisations Part149 approval. Just throwing a few ideas out there.

 

With two separate organisations currently chasing two separate Part149 approvals, with two separate admin sections and two separate magazine editors with two separate salaried Technical Managers etc, but with both organisations chasing a single objective of being able to operate their recreational aircraft in the least regulated and cheapest manner, doesn't such a proposal to amalgamate seem sensible? It shouldn't be a case of "us" and "them" as we have the same goals. It should simply be "us".

 

Jakej has hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the word "egos". The individual egos need to be put aside for the good of the organisations and their members. I for one am happy to stir the pot amongst the SAAA egos to start dialogue within that organisation for potential change.

 

 

[Riley]

I like your thinking FV. Barring the aforementioned egos, it makes a hell of a lot of sense. Whadda ya reckon it would take for both parties to work on it? cheers Riley

 

 

[Yenn]

We will have to float this idea to find out where those egos are. Maybe they dont exist. Lets run it up the SAAA flagpole and see if anyone salutes.

 

 

[poteroo]

Since RAAus has existing infrastructure that is getting itself in order, has salaried staff in executive and administrative positions, owns its office, I'm my opinion, the time is right for talks about an amalgamation.

Agree. SAAA is the organisation which is in trouble - not RAAus. RAAus already has a sound pilot training operation, and SAAA has a good MPC, (Maintenance Procedures Course) for Experimental aircraft, plus a good Builders Program. The MPC could well be broadened to include 'EXP' < 600kgs. How the pilot training aspect of RAAus could be expanded to cover what is allowed under the RPL licence is more difficult. Maybe it would need to start by harmonising the instructor training, although there are already a lot of dual rated instructors in the RAAus system. Heaven help us if all our organisations 'fail' and suddenly we're all back in 'GA'. happy days,

 

 

[scre80]

Change is good, but everyone needs to be open minded to it.

 

I think if we can do this right, it would bring positive change.

 

 

[Yenn]

For those who are SAAA members I have put a post on the website forums.

 

It will be monitored before it is put on the site, so if those who monitor it don't like it, you may never see it.

 

Have a look at the forums and reply with your views. I have not thought deeply about how to post a compelling argument, but others can add their thoughts and also numbers.

 

 

[jetjr]

Why would RAA 19 reg owners want to take on MPC processes? Currently dont need it.

 

Would mean only builders could maintain and loose one of the big advantages of RAA

 

How about if SAAA members no longer have an operating organisation they transfer reg and live with limitations of RAA aircraft

 

Remember your not just joining two orgnistions but a big range of aircraft heavier and more pax

 

 

[Cloud Basher]

Jetjr,

 

Your proposal would sink it straight away, the difference are not insignificant.

 

SAAA.

 

<5700kgs, no pax limits(or is it 6?), no speed limits, experimental, no airspace limits, aerobatic, builder maint or LAME, VH reg allowing international Ops RPL, PPL, CPL

 

RAAus

 

Weight limits, Pax limits, speed limits, no aero's, experimental or factory (LSA), L1 or L2 maint, no international Ops. Pilot certificates.

 

These are Just off the top of my head.

 

The above certainly are not insurmountable and flyvulcan's suggestion would be a great start. But it would realistically require changes in legislation to do it properly. Again not insurmountable. The next question to me becomes, do we then try and encompass warbirds? Gliding? Where do we stop? What is the business case to CASA to make this work? I think it is saleable, that being CASA just has one group to work with.

 

Do we make it a "private aviation" organization? If so do we include commercial training for private aviation? Do we include "adventure flights?" Single engine daytime Part 141 operations that no longer require an AOC?

 

I am not being a negative nanny, and smarter people than me could work out where the lines are drawn, I am just trying to say it isn't as simple as smashing them together. And if it isn't simple then should we look to other similar areas. Basically a "safety in numbers" in order to perhaps try and form a united group with more "power" when facing CASA and dare I say it, the pollies? Just from reading this thread my mind is racing with possibilities and what could be accomplished, for the betterment of much more than just RAAus and SAAA. But with this comes risk. Risk of over regulation and we just become "GA". Maybe not immediately but at some point in the future?

 

Just looking at the above differences, perhaps it does not look so attractive to the average (is there one?) RAAus member who may see it as a crack to the opening of excess regulation (I personally believe the horse, whilst not bolted, is rearing up on that).

 

Sorry, the above might not be too coherent, I really shouldn't post on a matter like this without formulating my ideas into a structured argument. But just throwing stuff out there to hopefully generate debate.

 

Will do some more thinking as I fly from Horsham back to Wiiliamtown tomorrow in the RV-4. Try and exercise the brain and not think about numb bum!

 

Cheers

 

CB

 

 

[jetjr]

I domt disagree a combmed entity would be a good thng but my point is they really are very different.

 

Whats in it for RAA to take on comlexity and regulation attached to more pax and the advantages you list. Just runnng through them there only one or two that are of much interest at all and RAA is working on those.

 

You missed out on losing advantages RAA has over GA. Like self maintenence, several expemtioms, largely self administration and certain isolation from CASA. A wide range of good value aircraft and flying available and solid insurance benefits.

 

Theres a large part of RAA members who think there already too much focus and new attention due to the upgrade to 600kg and LSA. Many would see plenty to lose and too easy to simplify regs to cover all light aviation.

 

The bottom line here is the RAA model is largely working and the important niche SAAA have comtrolled is not going too well.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

I am not proposing changing the regulatory framework which I believe is what a number of posters here are concerned about. The regulatory framework would remain identical, but the administrative functions of the two organisations would be consolidated.

 

A single Part 149 organisation, a single set of office staff to deal with membership/accounting etc., a single office facility itself, a single voice to CASA, double the cash in the coffers to run the organisation effectively etc.. These are the benefits.

 

There would be no change in dealing with CASA other than it would be a single entity that CASA would be dealing with, rather than two.

 

Would RAAus be taking on more? Would the SAAA be taking on more? Categorically no to both of these. I am not suggesting that RAAus absorb the SAAA or vice-versa. I am proposing to amalgamate them to form a new single entity, accepting and undertaking the existing roles of both organisations but providing cost savings, improved efficiency, a reduction of manpower requirements to administer etc..

 

Please don't think of this proposal as one organisation "taking on" the other. If an amalgamation is thought of in that vein then there will be resistance from members of both organisations. Consider it a joining of the groups to provide benefits to everyone.

 

Amalgamation will not change the rules or regulations. It will simply result in efficiencies that would benefit the members of both organisations.

 

 

[Cloud Basher]

Flyvulcan,

 

I am with you now. (As others have said), In that case the only thing stopping it would be an ego thing and a money thing. And either/or maybe insurmountable!!!

 

Cheers

 

CB