Having a bleat

[fly_tornado]

if you haven't read this month's Sport Pilot

 

MOST people enjoy having a good whinge. It can be therapeutic to have a vent. When we rant, our bodies release endorphins which relieve stress. Getting things off your chest is also a time honoured way of getting problems out in the open. But at the end of the day, having a good whinge does no good to anyone if you don’t actually do anything productive once you are done moaning.

 

Part of my role as the Chair of RAAus is to listen to members venting. My job is to figure out when the problem is real, when the person just feels like they need to be heard and when the whinging is pure and utter rubbish. I feel like I have spent the past few days dealing almost exclusively with the latter sort.

 

It began with a series of posts on an online forum deriding RAAus and our attempts to gain additional privileges for pilots who do not hold a CASA qualification. For a start, the posts completely misrepresented RAAus by intimating that we had recently walked into the CASA offices, banged our fists on the table and demanded a weight increase. Interestingly, we have had conversations in recent days on this topic, but they were much more civilised than this post would have you believe.

 

We actually had a rational discussion with CASA about a transition plan and a potential path to achieving our goal. Our approach has been to develop a path to allow pilots to continue engaging in their passion, even when they no longer want to remain in the CASA system (no matter the reason). Our approach is one of cooperation, not conflict. It does not help our argument when people generate rumours and innuendo. We should be working with each other. It seems ludicrous to me that individuals who purport to be in support of aviation set out to rip it apart by telling lies (yes ‘lies’ is a strong word -but it is also the most correct word to use when describing the things being said).

 

Following on from these online rants, I began to get calls from worried members concerned about the financial state of RAAus. It turns out that yet again, more lies were being told and posted in public places. Another so-called ‘source’ was suggesting RAAus was “on the verge of financial collapse with weeks”. As Chair of the organisation, I feel it is important to maintain a level of transparency so members understand the current state of affairs. RAAus publishes annual audited financial reports which are assessed by qualified accountants. They look at our accounts, bank statements and even the petty cash tin. They sign a legally enforceable document to tell the government that RAAus is trading solvently…that it is in good financial shape.

 

On top of this we publish an annual report each year, outlining all the other things going on in the organisation. As well, I keep members up to date through this column each month, Sport Pilot always has the very latest information from the office and the regular e-news email gets sent out to everyone each month. We also hold regular public forums, our professional development series for flying schools has now begun and so on. But despite all this flood of information, some people take pleasure in saying things which are demonstrably false. I can only imagine some people derive satisfaction from the suffering of others. And when there is no suffering, they feel the need to create some. The Germans have a word for it – schadenfreude. It means taking pleasure in someone else’s misfortune.

 

The problem for schadenfreude sufferers at the moment is that we have no misfortune, so they don’t get no satisfaction. Thus the need to spread false information. In recent times RAAus has made significant progress streamlining its operations. Our systems have undergone massive improvement and we now have online access to many member and school resources. Our SMS continues to roll out, which will relieve the need for schools and clubs to invest thousands of dollars inventing their own.

 

All in all, a lot of successes. Maybe that is what is attracting the attention? We have spent the past few decades pointing the finger at CASA and telling the world that the demise of aviation is their fault. At the same time, we have run around pointing the finger at other aviation organisations, claiming they’re about to go broke or they’re throwing their weight around demanding things. All the while, aviation is crumbling around us. I think the regulator does have things to answer for, but I also think there are individuals who need to take a good long hard look at themselves and ask themselves a simple question – am I part of the problem? Can they answer themselves honestly?

 

So while I could have been doing something positive and working to advance aviation in Australia this past couple of weeks, some people have been trying to distract me by throwing stones. It’s about time they (and we) grew up and realise we all have to accept some of the responsibility for the state of aviation in this country today. If I was a teenager, trying to decide whether to be a doctor or a pilot, and I saw the ridiculous behaviour of some in the aviation fraternity, I reckon I would choose to be a doctor. Encouraging people into aviation means leading by example, preferably a positive one. So that’s my whinge. I do feel better having got it off my chest. Now I’m off to do something positive for aviation. What about you?

 

 

[Yenn]

FlyTornado. I hadn't realised that you were RAAus chairman. although your posts should have indicated you were close to RAAus.

 

One of my gripes with the present RAAus is that the words coming out appear to be from behind the rose tinted glasses.

 

You may not realise that what you put in words is what we read and if it doesn't make sense it throws doubt on all your utterances.

 

Just go back to your post above and tell me what you mean by "so they don’t get no satisfaction"

 

Are you saying that they do get satisfaction? because that is what it means. I realise that I am nit picking, but I do like to have clear English rather than gobbledegook.

 

 

[SDQDI]

FT isn't the RAA chairman. No offence to FT but there would be a tad more whingeing if he was I think.

 

He mentioned at the start that it was a copy paste from the latest sport pilot mag

 

 

[robinsm]

FT isn't the RAA chairman. No offence to FT but there would be a tad more whingeing if he was I think.He mentioned at the start that it was a copy paste from the latest sport pilot mag

no he doesn't.

[Downunder]

Following on from these online rants, I began to get calls from worried members concerned about the financial state of RAAus. It turns out that yet again, more lies were being told and posted in public places. Another so-called ‘source’ was suggesting RAAus was “on the verge of financial collapse with weeks”. As Chair of the organisation, I feel it is important to maintain a level of transparency so members understand the current state of affairs. RAAus publishes annual audited financial reports which are assessed by qualified accountants. They look at our accounts, bank statements and even the petty cash tin. They sign a legally enforceable document to tell the government that RAAus is trading solvently…that it is in good financial shape.

The thing with insolvency, no company ever admits that it's heading towards it. It's always "all hands on deck and fair sailing" right upto the minute administators are brought in.

Then it's "Ok, we're insolvent".... and the truth comes out that they have been heading towards it for months or years.

 

Any company remonstrating about not being insolvent or having financial issues, actually worries me more than if nothing was said.....If the books are good, is their any need to defend them...

 

 

[red750]

so they don’t get no satisfaction.

Paraphrasing The Rolling Stones.

[coljones]

The thing with insolvency, no company ever admits that it's heading towards it. It's always "all hands on deck and fair sailing" right upto the minute administators are brought in.Then it's "Ok, we're insolvent".... and the truth comes out that they have been heading towards it for months or years.Any company remonstrating about not being insolvent or having financial issues, actually worries me more than if nothing was said.....If the books are good, is their any need to defend them...

Any officer of a company remonstrating about not being insolvent or claiming "all hands on deck and fair sailing" while the company is in indifferent condition might find themselves the subject of fairly hefty penalties if the company goes into administration.

[winsor68]

If they have improved so much how come there are still Cessna 150 Aerobats illegally registered with Ra-Aus?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Are they illegally registered or illegally used?

 

 

[johnm]

C 150 ............... 500 odd kilos empty weight

 

 

[SDQDI]

C 150 ............... 500 odd kilos empty weight

A quick search and a quick pound conversion comes up with 400 odd kilos empty. (440 by my rough maths)

[Yenn]

As I mentioned in my post, people are saying something that doesn't make sense.

 

 

[winsor68]

Are they illegally registered or illegally used?

Both. And you can't register a C150 with Ra-Aus unless it has only one seat in it.

[KRviator]

A quick search and a quick pound conversion comes up with 400 odd kilos empty. (440 by my rough maths)

The same as my RAAus RV-9. Nothing wrong with it so long as you respect the limits.

[winsor68]

The same as my RAAus RV-9. Nothing wrong with it so long as you respect the limits.

It's not like your RV9 at all.

[winsor68]

Both. And you can't register a C150 with Ra-Aus unless it has only one seat in it.

These are the RA-Aus tech managers own words...

[winsor68]

From the Ra-Aus tech team....

 

"as long as the aircraft is not operated over the MTOW of 600kg as permitted by RAAus it is permissible to have aircraft that could normally operate at a higher weigh on the register. In this case due to the MTOW of the Cesnna 152 it would be limited to a single pilot operation with fuel only. Any other operation would be outside the requirements of the Ops/ Tech and CAO"

 

 

[Keith Page]

As I mentioned in my post, people are saying something that doesn't make sense.

Yen the odour of a rat is about however he is well concealed in the hay stack.KP

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

"so they don’t get no satisfaction" is a double negative. This means they get some satisfaction. As simple as time travel and relativity (not).

 

 

[KRviator]

It's not like your RV9 at all.

Of course it is. I have a 445kg BEW, but registered 2 seats. Nothing at all wrong with that concept so long as the 600kg TOW limit is adhered to. So full tanks & me, or half fuel and one of my rugrats. How's that any different to a 152 operated under RAAus?

[winsor68]

Of course it is. I have a 445kg BEW, but registered 2 seats. Nothing at all wrong with that concept so long as the 600kg TOW limit is adhered to. So full tanks & me, or half fuel and one of my rugrats. How's that any different to a 152 operated under RAAus?

50 kgs is a lot of weight difference.

[SDQDI]

So how many 152s are registered RAA? The first person to mention Cessnas spoke about 150s not 152s. The 150s run at about 440kgs which is the same as KR's Rv. The 152s however are closer to 490 so we need to work out what we are actually talking about.

 

 

[KRviator]

50 kgs is a lot of weight difference.

Meant the 440-odd kg C150 you were talking about. That'll teach me to proof read things after nightshift.....

[winsor68]

Meant the 440-odd kg C150 you were talking about. That'll teach me to proof read things after nightshift.....

The C150 is not 440 odd kgs. Not even factory new.

[SDQDI]

The C150 is not 440 odd kgs. Not even factory new.

It depends on which 150, they seem to vary from 440kg all the way to over 500.150E

 

The 1965 Cessna 150E saw only the addition of new seats, although the standard empty weight went up 40 lb (18 kg) that year to 1,010 lb (460 kg). The "E" model saw production increase to 1637 aircraft.[6]