RAAus/SAAA - Thoughts on a merger?

[Yenn]

Very little feedback. Very little on the SAAA forum, but as it was hardly ever used that is not surprising

 

Havn't had a look today yet.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

There is now a meeting on the 6th where the woes of the SAAA NC will be explained and the way ahead will be revealed. If I can manage to attend electronically, I might float the concept of considering an amalgamation of SAAA with RAAus. I wonder how that would go down with the new NC members (all the old ones just resigned so methinks that there may have been some friction between old and new, but that is hypothesis, not fact)...

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Gradually does it, FV. We don't want to spook the horses. The word "amalgamation" sounds awfully final.

 

Perhaps some form of resource sharing, shared admin...?

 

 

[Nobody]

There is now a meeting on the 6th where the woes of the SAAA NC will be explained and the way ahead will be revealed. If I can manage to attend electronically, I might float the concept of considering an amalgamation of SAAA with RAAus. I wonder how that would go down with the new NC members (all the old ones just resigned so methinks that there may have been some friction between old and new, but that is hypothesis, not fact)...

Any proposal for a merger is likely to be divisive with some strong support and some strongly against. Is this really a great topic for discussion at a meeting to discuss what is in effect a split of the NC? Surely the purpose of the meeting is for those on the NC to explain what has happened and in what direction they plan to take the organisation. A lengthy debate about an amalgamation will prevent that from happening.

 

If you are going to bring it up at least talk to those who remain on the NC to get their views and so they are at least aware you are going to bring it up.

 

 

[Ungrounded]

There is now a meeting on the 6th where the woes of the SAAA NC will be explained and the way ahead will be revealed...

Interesting. How was the meeting advised to SAAA members? I've seen/heard nothing.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

Fair points OK and Nobody. I shall not broach the subject at the meeting and feel out the new NC first.

 

Ungrounded, the meeting was advised to all Chapter Presidents whose role it is to disseminate the information to their Chapter members. I suspect that some Chapter Presidents do not check their Chapter email address very often and possibly miss stuff sent out by the NC. The email that I saw did not restrict the meeting to Chapter Presidents so I assume it was for general dissemination.

 

If all members are invited to attend, it probably would have been better for the NC to send out an email to all members individually, rather than publicising the meeting only through the Chapter Presidents.

 

I have just emailed the SAAA Secretary and President requesting that details of the meeting be disseminated to all members directly, rather than through the Chapter Presidents. I have also directed them to this thread to perhaps give them something to consider for the future.

 

 

[derekliston]

I have a Zenith CH701, VH registered homebuilt which, as you are all aware could also be RAAus registered. When I wanted someone to sit with me during my first flights in case I did something stupid (which it turns out I did!) I could find no one willing at my home airfield because they are RAAus instructors and shit scared of CASA. It would make sense to me to have all of recreational aviation under one umbrella as it were. There is always strength in numbers! Why didn't I register it RAAus you ask? I already had an open GA licence and didn't really want the hassle of changing over. In retrospect it would have been easier to do that than rebuild my aeroplane but hindsight is always 100%. I shall be watching this forum with great interest.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

I just got a response from the SAAA Secretary to advise me that the meeting scheduled for the 6th was intended to be for the Chapter Presidents only, who would then disseminate the results of that meeting to their Chapter members.

 

So SAAA members, please encourage your Chapter President to attend the meeting and report the results back to you.

 

Also, the meeting has now been rescheduled to tomorrow so it is important that Chapter Presidents be aware that the meeting is on and to attend.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

I attended the meeting today. At best, there was a total of 10 in attendance. It lasted about an hour and a half.

 

One element of the meeting was about cost saving measures for the SAAA, which included the potential for adopting a "shared services model" with a fellow organization. The President indicated that he has been having ongoing dialogue with RAAus Executive and that the relationship between the organizations is pretty good.

 

So it appears that there is potential and genuine interest within the organizations leadership for a closer relationship between the SAAA and RAAus, at least through a "shared services" arrangement.

 

There will be another similar meeting next week that hopefully more Chapter Presidents will attend. If you are not a Chapter President (like me, I'm only an Indian not a chief) and want to participate, email the secretary and ask for an invitation. There is a limit of 100 due to the limitations of the conference system being used for the meeting but I reckon they would be happy to get half that number engaged.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

What everyone is missing is that it doesn't matter much who administers the rules. It matters what they are.

 

IMO CASA should do the administration of the register (and use the existing delegation system) and put all the aircraft on it. Different aircraft types (gliders, under 600Kg aircraft and Experimental Amateur built) can have appropriate CASA regulations, airworthiness certificates, pilot licencing and maintenance regulations. The RPL with a more relaxed medical standard such as a Sate Driver's Licence would do although I'd add a statement from your optometrist is required as Queensland no longer has, nor tests, drivers for vision. (yes, really).

 

This actually so right now but CASA pretends it isn't. CASA, however, approves ops and maintenance standards and manuals for the various recreational aviation bodies which clearly make these actual CASA regulations.

 

What we have now in administration of sport aviation in Australia is a complete shambles with various private organisations being given the powers of the state (along with attendant corruption and private vendettas) and their personnel being basically unaccountable for their actions. Costs are large and especially so for people who fly more than one type of recreational aircraft, e.g. gliders and RAAus and GA.

 

From a safety viewpoint this bad as the divisions hinder the dissemination of information that may help other branches and politically, CASA has divided and conquered by giving each organisation "special" consideration in the form of a few exemptions (which may be withdrawn at any time), which each organisation then jealously defends. I've often thought that when they have a few drinks on Friday evening after attending their place of employment (note the wording) and the topic of recreational aviation comes up, that they fall about laughing at what they have done with in some cases the organisations imposing rules on their members which CASA couldn't get away with as they are more onerous than apply to GA (see GFA, for example).

 

As for the SAAA and its recent problems - excellent. May that bunch of bed wetting, nanny state loving incompetents, disappear. They have utterly failed to defend CAR21 (the Regulations about the various Experimental categories) and its original intent and seem hell bent on returning us to 101.28 or worse. Notice that "home of Australian Experimental" has disappeared from their website.

 

 

[tillmanr]

Tell us what you really think Mike.

 

 

[jakej]

IMO, until SAAA & RAAus have the guts to stand up to onerous & over regulation from CASA, we don't stand a chance of surviving let alone combining resources. Both organisations have the situation where they accept (the carrot) funds from CASA but then are not in a position (if they want to keep receiving the funding, regardless of the level of it) to say no to any unreasonable request from CASA. They're not going to 'bite the hand that feeds them' so CASA can & will keep ratcheting up their demands base on either an increase in the aviation accident rate (or regulation transgressions) or their opinions or perceptions. Do CASA have to justify their demands of us based on a Safety analysis ? I think not.

 

Until we have a situation where both organisations are operating cohesively & FULLY COMMUNICATING with the members then any advancement of shared or joint resources/facilities & ideas will fail. FV you have a great idea, in my opinion, but I think it's a case of the cart before the horse. The way the RAAus & SAAA hierachy have been fractured & scrambling around does not give one any confidence in the future direction for any of us.

 

But the 'heads' of both organisations are not completely to blame here as there are some members who make life difficult for us all by not complying with the basic regulations. They put us all at risk of more regulation, IMO.

 

The ones that do comply spend the time, money & resources to do 'the right thing' & you thumb your noses at either the rules required by our organisations &/or CASA because you think those rules are unjust or aren't anything to do with commonsense. That last word is not in the CASA dictionary & won't stand up in court, it can't be used as a defence that you didn't know or understand the regs - they are like the 10 commandaments, your excuses are no defence against them. Also, just because our own organisations can't police the regs doesn't mean that CASA won't & you bring us all under the opinions that some have that we are cowboys.

 

It makes me wonder sometimes whether those that those that are so vocal on forums, against more regulation, are actually the cause of it. IF you feel so strongly about your ability to be able to afford to continue flying, without too much restriction, then do something about it by supporting your industry instead of whingeing.

 

Maybe I've said too much here but I feel it had to be said, you may not agree.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Tell us what you really think Mike.

Somehow I think he hasn't. Whilst something exists in the Australian psyche that creates a need to belong to an organisation that will somehow absolve us our personal requirement to stand up for something, responsibility for our governance will remain diffused in a myriad of organisations, bureaucrats and well meaning but poorly equipped "representatives". I seriously think that the Australian culture has been reduced to the status of ineffective lemmings.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

IMO, until SAAA & RAAus have the guts to stand up to onerous & over regulation from CASA, we don't stand a chance of surviving let alone combining resources.

This is the catch22, CASA only gives out power so that they can avoid the flack of excessive regulation. The RAA then adds a layer of regulation and costs to keep the flying schools in business. The RAA has no political power what so ever.