AOPA and RAA

[fly_tornado]

 

 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Wow!

 

 

[kasper]

And members were told change to corporate was just to ease admin. A corporation is run by management as per the boards approval and/or delegation.

 

Members of RAAus are no longer consulted and the clear - VERY CLEAR - position of RAAus in their response and vote was we will lose members and revenue if you make GA medical certs equal to ours.

 

So either we are AUF and ONLY want to look after aircraft under the CAOs for ultralights...

 

Or

 

We are REcreational Aviatuon including all light aircraft.

 

Clearly message to pilots is Recreation position to CASA is we are CAO limited ultralights and anything that brings an aircraft withVH reg near our aircraft will be opposed.

 

Would LOVE to hear the two Michaels explain this one after the trade mark friend making exercise ...

 

 

[ave8rr]

This could well mean no weight increase or medicals for ALL.

 

 

[Birdseye]

Its quite evident where the interests of the RAAus management lie, certainly not in it's members.

 

 

[Yenn]

Just disgusting.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

This is what I was saying about Don Ramsay having the last laugh at the RAA.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

We are long term AOPA members, and we have not seen that letter - did they consult us? From my limited view of AOPA, it seems Ben is at war with RAA. The membership numbers were a surprise as I understand they were hovering about 2,300, suddenly they have 3,600? If you are worried about RAA being run by a few - AOPA is all about Ben, not "the Board" or members. No doubt he has a lot of enthusiasm and a strong agenda. Unfortunately the website he ran, that RAA used for Classifieds, was a dead duck, with complaints of sold aircraft still listed years later, scams taking money still up long after users identified them, and no response from the Owner (see posts on RecFly). RAA cancelled the relationship. Why have a go at their ex-magazine editor? It sounds like sour grapes. I am somewhat disturbed by the recent Letters coming out of AOPA. Particularly the ones to RAA.

 

Why are we still members? We understand the swings and round-abouts of AOPA, and while they are not representing our interests at this time, they are supporting the general pilot community in some way. I hope in the future they will drop the combative attitude and try to represent ALL pilots and aircraft owners.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

the letter is for the editor of Sport Pilot, I think its fair enough that the AOPA make this public. People have a right to know.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

I don’t care about the politics, there are many strong personalities running these organisations. The trick is to harness their power and point them in the right direction - CASA and other Govt departments causing the industry grief. At the moment they’re throwing barbs randomely in all directions.

 

 

[Nobody]

The RAAus position on medical certification is nothing new and I can understand AOPA being upset at it. AOPA and SAAA have been trying to get CASA to relax the medical standard while RAAus have been arguing that the current situation should not be relaxed, if it was they would lose members.

 

I posed about it nearly a year ago here:

 

So RAA are looking to have 750 kg MTOW as well as 1500 kg MTOW increases from CASA.

 

The other push comes from RAAus the organisation itself(as distinct from the membership). It needs to maintain (or grow) its membership to build the empire. The aging member population will mean that unless something is done, in 5 years there will be fewer members than there are today. By increasing the MTOW(to 1500kg) and CTA it can try to get the other 15,000 or so private pilots to be members and grow its empire further. This leads the perverse situation where RAAus, in their submission to CASA, argued that the RAMPS medial requirements should not be relaxed or amended. If pilots were able to fly without being screwed by Avmed they wouldn't need to be members of RAAus...

https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/raau...ion-standards-discussion-paper-march-2017.pdf

[Kiwi]

Copied this from Facebook ......

 

Not all of AOPA are happy with their management.

 

"Well I guess this is as good a time to start as anywhere. I am converting to my RAAus licence and I will be doing it with Dan at Dubbo who was recommended to me. I am also an AOPA member and I was the Vice President of AOPA until late last year, to be honest with you I had had enough of the endless political crap. I just like flying and particularly bush flying which I did quite a bit of and float planes and airliners it just kept going. I loved it all and still do. I am still training pilots and I wanted to make a contribution in GA. Most pilots I know are just not much interested in politics so I won’t beat around the bush, excuse the pun. We need a change of management in the AOPA and we need it pretty quickly or there won’t be much of anything at all. Just constant fighting and grand standing it just doesn’t end. I will find out just how many AOPA members there really are and I will be proceeding with a proposal. Remember the AOPA belongs to all of us as members, not any one single person who seems to think he owns it.

 

Phil "

 

 

[facthunter]

SAAA was the first to try to initiate the Drivers licence condition. for pilots. I was involved in that way back , so I'm aware of it. It's OK to improve your members conditions but trying to stop others having them is OFF in a big way , especially under the circumstances.. Had SAAA been successful I'm sure they would not be so rude and acutely self interested to try to keep it entirely to them selves. RAAus promoting them selves as the "New GA" is like a pork chop in a synagogue to GA pilots. Siding with the people they did to vote on this occasion is ill advised also. WE must work together or we collectively will fare worse with the CASA and the legislation., that affects us ALL.. I'm not a member of AOPA at the moment but a social member of SAAA chapter 20 only.. RAA should gain members because they choose to join because of how it works . RAAus are being screwed by the CASA over money they should pay for work done on casa's behalf, but they have to suck so much they aren't game to push it Hence the RAAus fees are too high. and RAAus won't stand up for it's members against CASA, if issues come up where that could have reasonably been expected to happen in the past.. RAAus is an extension of CASA. as it now operates. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Copied this from Facebook ......Not all of AOPA are happy with their management.

"Well I guess this is as good a time to start as anywhere. I am converting to my RAAus licence and I will be doing it with Dan at Dubbo who was recommended to me. I am also an AOPA member and I was the Vice President of AOPA until late last year, to be honest with you I had had enough of the endless political crap. I just like flying and particularly bush flying which I did quite a bit of and float planes and airliners it just kept going. I loved it all and still do. I am still training pilots and I wanted to make a contribution in GA. Most pilots I know are just not much interested in politics so I won’t beat around the bush, excuse the pun. We need a change of management in the AOPA and we need it pretty quickly or there won’t be much of anything at all. Just constant fighting and grand standing it just doesn’t end. I will find out just how many AOPA members there really are and I will be proceeding with a proposal. Remember the AOPA belongs to all of us as members, not any one single person who seems to think he owns it.

 

Phil "

By voting the way the RAA did, the board of the RAA are basically saying that driver's license medical is unsafe. I don't know how its a bad thing to make the RAA's voting position public, the RAA aren't making that position public because its contrary to the AOPA and RAA's goals of deregulating aviation medical requirements.

 

 

[facthunter]

Transparency should be available, as a basic principle inthese issues, though often it's not of assistance at some particular time, because of politics etc. If I belong to a group that makes a stand on something I should be able to find out easily WHAT that stand is, as they purport to be doing it in my name (and yours).. I don't agree that what the RAA has done by voting as they did here was any more than opportunism of a very short term nature. If they want to progress their aim of being the New GA they have scored an "own goal" here with this vote. How would it have ever been any other way? Short term "Them and US". Policy . They are supposed to have brains . A couple of times now they have shown they are not using them..

 

Aopa are the ONLY organization representing GA and other pilots who CAN call it like it is without fear of retribution.. They are not beholden to CASA or the government. By using the FUELS you do in your aircraft whether it's Mogas or Avgas you are paying taxes on it ,that fund CASA and Roads you don't use when flying. That should be taken off what you pay to the RAAus when they do the Job the CASA should, on their behalf.. and they should indemnify the RAAUS when they carry out that function.. RAAus is subject to CASA audit . That's been made quite clear. CASA can't have it both ways and I can't see how they can contract out of a liability when practically no one else can. in similar circumstances.. Nev

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Facthunter, thanks for that very accurate and succinct summing up.

 

That is the problem with GFA and RAAus. Once CASA makes an agreement with them they cease to represent the interests of their members and become CASA suncontrcators. As you say, subject to audit by CASA and CASA approval of their technical manuals. That makes those manuals CASA manuals. It would be easier if CASA just did its job and the normal aviation rules applied to ultralights and gliders with the proven and necessary relaxations of the standard rules written in to the regulations.

 

Making people join organisations should be against the law. For the professional maintainers and instructors it amounts to compulsory unionism, something I didn't think we had at present. Membership requirements also present opportunities for thuggery and bullying, of which I've seen enough in the GFA.

 

For that clearly selfishly self interested response to the medical reform proposal, RAAus members should consider expelling and firing the CEO for "bringing the organisation into disrepute". This is the standard phrase used in RAAus and GFA when someone does something the hierarchy doesn't like. I know people in both organisations who have been threatened with this for things that had nothing to do with aviation. Even the bak teller running GFA ops had the very small sense to not even put in a response to the medical proposal.(This from an organisation that needs tug pilots - his comment to a query about this was " they can do the RAMPC which goes to show he knew nothing at it as the RAMPC is only slighter cheaper to get and has the same medical standard as a Class 2.)

 

kiwi, I'm pleased that you aren't interested in politics and just want to go flying. However even if YOU are getting what you want spare a thought for those who are not and remember, you may not have an interest in politics but politics does and will have an interest in you. It is such as you who are a large part of the problem in Australian aviation over the years. If you cannot back those who are fighting for a better deal for private pilots at least remain quiet. If you don't like what AOPA is doing just resign from the organisation. It will not do anything to your flying. Unfortunately that isn't an option for those forced to join RAAus and GFA.

 

 

[BusaKaine]

So RAA want 750kg and then 1500kg, CTA, they say that self declared medical is unsafe for GA RPL PPL, so it’s unsafe for RAA to get the RPL level of weight and CTA.

 

They need to ensure RAA does not get these increases as they are for GA and you need a medical for that....

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Pilots operating gliders in controlled airspace in Australia are only required to hold a self certified medical and no requirement for any GA qualifications. You can see these aircraft and pilots operating safely in Class D airspace on a daily basis at Camden. The gliders also operate over the most densely populated areas around Camden Aerodrome, in the 40 plus years I’ve been flying there I have not heard of one medical related incident.

 

 

[facthunter]

I have a few glider contacts and would agree with that. I may go back to doing a bit more of it if there's less BS involved. It's hard to completely kick the (flying) habit. Nev

 

 

[nomadpete]

I think some stuff is being taken out of context. Some of the lines quoted in the letter are RAA responses to specific questions asked by CASA.

 

One might ask whether CASA might be engaging in a little of "divide and conquer"

 

 

[Downunder]

For that clearly selfishly self interested response to the medical reform proposal, RAAus members should consider expelling and firing the CEO for "bringing the organisation into disrepute".

Surely the response would have been approved by the board?

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Pilots operating gliders in controlled airspace in Australia are only required to hold a self certified medical and no requirement for any GA qualifications. You can see these aircraft and pilots operating safely in Class D airspace on a daily basis at Camden. The gliders also operate over the most densely populated areas around Camden Aerodrome, in the 40 plus years I’ve been flying there I have not heard of one medical related incident.

Not only that, they can operate in Class C also if the glider is suitably equipped and the glider or motorglider can weigh up to 850Kg. Some of the motorgliders are of the "traveling motor glider" class as opposed to self launching sailplanes. The TMG is actually a high L/D powered aircraft with a flight manual that says you can turn off the engine in flight and many of them are simply used as powered GA aircraft would be.

 

Between the GFA pilots and RAAus pilots there are probably more pilots flying privately in Australia with Private car/self declaration medicals than there are with Class 2. This experiment has been well and truly done.

 

Those who saw the CASA consultation on the medical "reform" (in the end there was any, it was a CASA fraud and sham) will have seen the ATSB list of medical incidents and accidents in aviation in Australia for the last 20 years or so. They were drastically lower if you took out Commercial/ATPL who were poisoned by the caterers and eliminated such nonsense as a first officer who broke his arm during a practice emergency evacuation and the bloke who fell asleep because of carbon monoxide in the cockpit (that one was NOT a medical incident but a MAINTENANCE issue). It really left very few actual incapacitation in flight incidents and most of the pilots involved in those had a Class 2 or Class 1 medical. meanwhile of course their were many hundreds of accidents and incidents with other causes.

 

This has been looked at in the UK and USA over the decades and the result keeps coming up the same - the formal aviation medical for private pilots is ineffective, does nothing measurable to lower the accident rate( medical causes get lost in the statistical noise), is expensive and wastes everybody's time.

 

 

[facthunter]

The" attitude" harks right back to pilot selection for the services where you just said "next". if someone had flat feet. Nev

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

I have a few glider contacts and would agree with that. I may go back to doing a bit more of it if there's less BS involved. It's hard to completely kick the (flying) habit. Nev

Forget it Facthunter. There is far more bs in gliding than almost any other kind of aviation in Australia. You need to join GFA, a State Gliding Association and a gliding club. Count on $1000 out of pocket before you pay for a launch and an hour of flying. No matter what your other experience you will then be "under supervision" for a long time before you will be allowed to make your own decisions to go flying. If you like being bullied by rather stupid people, gliding may be for you.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Not only that, they can operate in Class C also if the glider is suitably equipped and the glider or motorglider can weigh up to 850Kg. Some of the motorgliders are of the "traveling motor glider" class as opposed to self launching sailplanes. The TMG is actually a high L/D powered aircraft with a flight manual that says you can turn off the engine in flight and many of them are simply used as powered GA aircraft would be.Between the GFA pilots and RAAus pilots there are probably more pilots flying privately in Australia with Private car/self declaration medicals than there are with Class 2. This experiment has been well and truly done.

Those who saw the CASA consultation on the medical "reform" (in the end there was any, it was a CASA fraud and sham) will have seen the ATSB list of medical incidents and accidents in aviation in Australia for the last 20 years or so. They were drastically lower if you took out Commercial/ATPL who were poisoned by the caterers and eliminated such nonsense as a first officer who broke his arm during a practice emergency evacuation and the bloke who fell asleep because of carbon monoxide in the cockpit (that one was NOT a medical incident but a MAINTENANCE issue). It really left very few actual incapacitation in flight incidents and most of the pilots involved in those had a Class 2 or Class 1 medical. meanwhile of course their were many hundreds of accidents and incidents with other causes.

 

This has been looked at in the UK and USA over the decades and the result keeps coming up the same - the formal aviation medical for private pilots is ineffective, does nothing measurable to lower the accident rate( medical causes get lost in the statistical noise), is expensive and wastes everybody's time.

Thanks for making the point about motor gliders, the same priveleges are extended to private hot air balloon pilots too. (ie airspace access with self certified medical)