RAAus and ELAAA

[rick-p]

Numerous problems with the help - validRed Herrings thrown by others - happens all the time in business, that's what competitors do.Competitor is going for 1500 - let them make the mistake.

 

Leaving - how much of your problem is that you're trying to straddle two arms of aviation?

 

Why not re-plan for Recreational Aviation only; prove your self administration skills over a couple of years and then look at a slice of GA with proof of self administration under your belt?

 

If I was sitting in CASA now, I would be looking at the ELAAA proposal and scratching my head trying to figure out how a completely unknown organisation would be safe to take over helicopters and GA operations. If someone came to me and said "How about me make it simple and just include RA"? I'd be inclined to say "Yes, that's in line with what we intended for Self Administering Organisations. (Disclaimer; you know I'm not sitting in CASA, nor have any idea of what their thought processes are.)

Now therein lies exactly the problem first, ELAAA is only seeking approval at this time for those aircraft coming within the exemptions under 95.55 nothing more there is no attempt to straddle into GA ATM or experimental helicopters although there is a real need for some organization to regulate the operation of these flying machines.

There is so much information being bandied around. It's a bit like when there is an aircraft incident everyone is an expert and can tell you what happened and what caused the incident. CASA is fully aware of what we are after and have been of great assistance with many meetings being given but the problem is what Jim McDowall has allured to previously herein as ELAAA does not have a home to go to because of 95.55 being solely and RAA piece of legislation and Part 149 not operating yet and wether in fact it will ever be brought into operation. In my own personal knowledge ELAAA unbeknown to most who think they know also has on board some highly experienced aviation people advising and assisting with it's push for certification and to date has cost the core group in time and money in the vicinity of $300,000 thus far. This is not as one person said once in these forums a bunch of hangar rats from Bundaberg, or words to that effect.

 

Rome wasn't built in a day nor was RAA but when it started it was a totally different world and environment and a initially a lot of corners were cut due the absolute need for a controlling body in RA. Maybe people need to study the history of RA. I'm not having a go at anyone or beating my own drum I'm just delivering the message so don't shoot the messenger.

 

 

[turboplanner]

don't shoot the messenger.

Well, you've put your finger on one of your biggest problems then: communicationWe could all do with a messenger who, on a regular basis, provided factual updates; that's the path to better understanding and support of ELAAA.

 

Before you confirmed that, the message which probably caused a lot of caution was that you were trying to cover helicopters and smaller GA aircraft.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Excellent point

Not saying this applies here but .....sometimes things eventuate, like 2 bodies controlling the one activity, but they occurred because the rules were not in place to stop it happening because no one ever thought it would. But once it does happen it proves to be a pain in the butt and so the controlling body works ( perhaps quietly) works to not let it happen again.

 

 

[rick-p]

One of the issues that has confronted ELAAA by being open and transparent with the RA community in the initial stages of its thrust for certification were the brick walls that were being built as fast as they could tear them down. I understand that a few years ago ELAAA was advised by the then Director of CASA at a meeting in Townsville that the idea of including experimental helicopters under its umbrella was fantastic as it had become a big problem for CASA. Also it was advised that it would not be a problem to have its aircraft markings as VH with a number. Also it was advised that up to 760KG or whatever the weight under Part 149 for the definition of an ultalight registered under the FAA system should be capable of being achieved. All well and good but then that Director is no longer the Director, a short time later. A letter to RAA seeking to enter into MOU between it ELAAA in respect of, inter alia, safety issues and cooperation between the 2 organizations result in ELAAA receiving a reply basically saying we may talk when it has received approval to operate. The list goes on. But if those who believe that a monopoly serves the RA community best read my lips, the system will collapse one day without their being some sort of competition in place. One of the things that ELAAA has been doing in respect of safety was that of conducting maintenance and safety courses which were very well received and attended. CASA even commended ELAAA on its proactive course of action. It was hopped that RAA would accept these courses for the purpose of future Level 1 endorsements but no their program of a theory based test via computer was according to them superior. This was notwithstanding that the ELAAA's course involved practical as well as theory training. Again the list goes on. I find that a number of users on this web sight who protest saying that ELAAA's push for a second body is nothing more than pie in the sky is said only because they aren't privy to the behind the scenes movement are just really more nosey than intetested in the real facts. In that regard I say this that if and when ELAAA'S suite of manuals are approved they will be published for all to view and at that time for those who can actually apply literal interpretation to them and not try to read between the lines they will have all they need to know about ELAAA and can then make an informed choice as to which way they will go.

 

 

[rick-p]

Not sure who wrote the ELAAA submission' date=' but if Keith Page had much input, perhaps CASA are still trying to figure out what he said. I have absolutely no idea what he says in most of his posts here. [img']https://www.recreationalflying.com/xf_step/upload/uploads/emoticons/028_whisper.gif.86563ef66fe06fd71ffb95dba2588ea4.gif[/img]

edited...mod...playthe topic, not insult the person.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

deleted...mod...play the topic not the person

 

 

[Downunder]

Thanks for writting those posts rick-p and Jim Mc. Very informative.

 

I hate monopolies with a passion. Good luck with new organisation.

 

 

[Yenn]

I have attended an ELAAA maintenance course and found it far superior to anything done by RAAus. I did not get the certificate, because I already have the required approvals.

 

I have listened to one of CASAs representatives lauding what ELAAA is trying to do, but I have heard second hand that that same person was also saying at another gathering that there was no way there would be two bodies running the sport. There may be no truth in what I heard, but then again it could be true. I have met the same two faced approaches in industry, so why not in sport.

 

I think there could well be someone on this forum who is part of ELAAA and I consider it would be good if that person could give us information on the official thoughts of ELAAA.

 

I find it a bit odd that someone could be hiding their interest and not making use of this forum. Possibly that person would have their name connected with ELAAA if a search of the directors of that body was done. Maybe they don't want to be named, because it would become a bun fight as the questions flowed.

 

 

[ave8rr]

I see RAA have just announced an increase in membership and rego fees.

 

They say there was in increase in membership of 8%. Time for some competition?

 

 

[robinsm]

I see RAA have just announced an increase in membership and rego fees.They say there was in increase in membership of 8%. Time for some competition?

I agree but dont hold your breath for ELAAA to tell you anything. Good to see their holding courses but would have been nice to know.. How many increases in membership and rego fees from RAA is that in the last 3 years?

[frank marriott]

I see RAA have just announced an increase in membership and rego fees.They say there was in increase in membership of 8%. Time for some competition?

Did anyone expect anything else from current approach of this organisation. Another $20 is nothing when you are earning $150k plus. A realism check is in order but to achieve that would require a draining of the trough!

Mini GA approach and it will get worse at least in the short term. Simply put it was obvious to many with the constitution change but the multi million $ approach is now steadily taking effect - and yet the overt supporters still exist, albeit in reducing numbers (at least from the people I talk to).

 

Time for members to consider what they really want from what was once “their” organisation.

 

 

[kasper]

And I had no inside knowledge of the rises when I said a week ago $10 here and there is just noise and people will just accept it even though it bears no relationship to inflation.

 

$10 on each rego and membership is

 

4,25% on flying membership

 

6% on 2 seat rego

 

13.3% on single seat rego

 

No option but to pay but these increases are year after year after year increases

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

In NZ under 600 kg aircraft flying membership runs from $NZ30 to $NZ 95 depending on Part 149 entity. What is so much different about Australia that it is so much more expensive given the larger membership?

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon NZ is better governed than Australia in lots of ways, and you have just shown me one more way Jim.

 

 

[billwoodmason]

It appears to me that increasingly RAA management have a business model that includes bleeding as much money out of its members as they think they can get away with - I wonder if this will ever plateau. On another note they have announced another survey which I applaud, but curiously I don’t remember there being published a complete account of the results of the previous survey. ( correct me if I’m wrong as I don’t subscribe to Sport Pilot however I do talk to people that do). Perhaps they didn’t get the results they were looking for to support the weight increase etc and so are going to roll the dice again for a more agreeable result.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Hey Phil nothing to do with your post I was just wondering if you know a Mark Hoggett, fly's trikes?

I do know a few guys called Mark Rick,. . .any idea about what part of the country he flies from ? after all, we are only about half the size of Victoria here !. . .we get hundreds of flying visits from people all over the country, as we're centrally located and handy for a rest stop. . .Most signatures in the visitors log are impossible to read ! In fact, so much so that the Manager has put up a notice in the control office to this effect. We need clearer details of aircraft type, Origin, Destination, Commander and, where applicable, Passenger names, Clearly Written in the event of an emergency / missing aircraft etc.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

That's a bit harsh bill. But the the RAAus is like a council which allocates its costs back to the ratepayers and so has little incentive to cut back on costs. In their minds, they are doing what is needed and so the costs are unavoidable.

 

Actually RAAus is better than my local council where the chief fat cat is on $360,000 plus a $140,000 car. Gosh if RAAus did that I hope we would chuck them out.. with the council, the ratepayers just vote the same lot back and don't complain.

 

 

[slb]

But there currently ARE 2 bodies administering the same type i.e. Trikes are administered by both RAAus and HGFA so the precedence already exists.

and SAAA and RAA

 

 

[slb]

But there currently ARE 2 bodies administering the same type i.e. Trikes are administered by both RAAus and HGFA so the precedence already exists.

Both have put costs up, but RAA is still a lot more expensive for Trikes. If you fly a 95:55 aircraft as well, then you don't have much option but to keep your Trike with RAA, but it is a shame that we cannot get back to basics and offer cheap flying for those just starting out. The rest of us have to put up with the price increases if we want to continue, but if I was starting out now, it would be a struggle.

Its good that RAA offer free flying to some through scholarships but other organisations like the EAA hold big fundraisers just to fund these. Their membership fees are separate. I assume from the price increase to members that some if not all of RAA money is coming from members and the increase in scholarships might also account for the increase in members (as per the last Board Communique)

 

 

[fly_tornado]

And I had no inside knowledge of the rises when I said a week ago $10 here and there is just noise and people will just accept it even though it bears no relationship to inflation. $10 on each rego and membership is

4,25% on flying membership

 

6% on 2 seat rego

 

13.3% on single seat rego

 

No option but to pay but these increases are year after year after year increases

The rumours of the RAA going bust are comical at best, no other organisation can punch out 5%pa increases indefinitely

 

 

[jetjr]

Hope everyone is enjoying paper magazine. Even if you don't get it.

 

Largest expense by far

 

Unfortunately ELAAA doesn't exist (as an option) at this point despite efforts from owners.

 

 

[Yenn]

Membership and rego up $10. Aircraft numbers stable, membership up 8%. I am wondering why fees need to go up if aircraft numbers are stable, surely there cannot be much increase in operating costs if aircraft numbers are not going up.

 

They also say that we have been given advice of financial performance. I commented on that when it happened and so did others. As far as financial reporting goes it was a farce.

 

Our voting in the new constitution has now come back to bite us. We the members have absolutely no say in what goes on in this private company.

 

 

[billwoodmason]

Its good that RAA offer free flying to some through scholarships but other organisations like the EAA hold big fundraisers just to fund these. Their membership fees are separate. I assume from the price increase to members that some if not all of RAA money is coming from members and the increase in scholarships might also account for the increase in members (as per the last Board Communique)

 

Philanthropy towards scholarships to fly is great for those who have enough disposable income to afford it and who choose to do it by donating when renewing their annual subscription for their certificate. Surely members who do not tick the box on the renewal form would be seen as not wanting their funds to go to this or any other cause not directly associated with the cost of maintaining their membership. I assumed that scholarship money came from those who chose to donate.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Who authorised your money to be given away? That’s the question

 

 

[octave]

Who authorised your money to be given away? That’s the question

Log in - RAA - Intranet

Five scholarship recipients were in attendance at the ceremony and were asked to speak to the room. RAAus president, Michael Monck also thanked the program's sponsors, particularly AirServices Australia who donate $25,000 each year.

 

Other sponsors this year included Dick Smith Foods, OzRunways, Aviation Advertiser, Brisbane Airport, Sport Pilot Magazine/ Stampils Publishing, Cre8ive, Hall and Co. and Michael Coates.