Voluntary Membership or Dictatorship???.

[farri]

Hi Guys,

 

Don`t get me wrong,it`s great that we can continue to do what we like to do most which is Recreational Flying however I take issue with the RAA for claiming that membership is voluntary.

 

If anyone wants to fly a Recreational Aircraft,what we used to call an Ultralight Aircraft, they first MUST become a member of the RAA, All instructors MUST be members and be approved by the RAA, All schools MUST be approved by and teach, on behalf of the RAA, everything must be done with membership,should your membership expire,you become illegal and can not fly,FULL STOP.

 

In my opinion it becomes very easy to obtain membership this way and increasing membership is nothing to brag about.

 

Can anyone please tell me if I`m wrong or if I`m just plain dumb.

 

farri. :hittinghead:

 

 

[Al B]

Be thankful you don't fly gliders

 

Just to offer some perspective:

 

I used to be a glider pilot. Glider pilots generally have to be members of the Gliding Federation of Australai (GFA). I paid $195 per year to be a member of the GFA (as opposed to $160 with the RAA). The GFA requires all glider pilots to be members of GFA-affiliated clubs. In my case, that cost another $264 per year. So we're up to $460pa, and we haven't set foot in a glider yet.

 

With the RAA, once you've passed your flight test, you are Pilot In Command. If you make a mistake, it's your fault. You have the freedom to be responsible for your own actions. Not so in the GFA. According to their ops manual, your club is responsible for your operations. Well, you can gain something called L2 independant operator status - this only takes 200(!) glider hours, and one of your flights must be at least 5 hours long, solo. Strictly speaking, without this rating, if an instructor is present at the field then they're in charge. This includes asking for permission to take passengers and undertake cross countries

 

So, maybe you're thinking to yourself "that's OK, some of my mates are qualified pilots,we'll buy our own motorglider and operate it as a club"? Nope. Each club must have a CFI, who must keep current by training new students. I'm pretty sure each club has to pay a GFA fee as well.

 

For some reason the GFA has a major retention problem. I don't think they've figured out why yet. The RAA in contrast seems to be doing a fantastic job.

 

Al

 

 

[markendee]

In my experience if membership was voluntary there would be so few financial members that we would not enjoy the benefits of such a well run organisation.

 

I feel that $160.00 is very reasonable and we receive a lot for that.

 

Don't get me wrong but I am glad membership is not voluntary.

 

 

[Yenn]

Has anyone read the bit in the ops manual about having a duty pilot in charge of all flying at an RAAus field. Those may not be the exact words, but something similar. The duty pilot will have control of who flies and when. Maybe it is a good idea, maybe not. Maybe it happens, maybe not.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Maybe it happens, maybe not.

I think not. I operate out of Canberra, it certainly doesn't happen there. We have a ground control, tower and approach. I will listen to them rather than some nominated pilot on the ground.

 

I flew to Goulburn on the weekend and saw other RA registered aircraft come and go. I wasn't aware of any duty pilot and didn't report to anyone. I did speak to the CFI of the school though but I wouldn't call it 'reporting' to her.

 

 

[Guest Macnoz]

Ones opinion is never wrong ---- its yours and we all have them

 

A car driving license isn’t compulsory either but you have to have one if you wish to drive.

 

RAA doesn’t stipulate compulsory membership but they are the designate organization to issue pilot certificates and membership is a requirement for issue of the certificate.

 

There are many non flying or non certified members.

 

There are many GA PPl CPL etc members who choose to bolt on RAA membership and certification.

 

So membership is voluntary, unless you elect to be legal as a recreational pilot

 

You can choose to be legal in the air in several other fashions. If you find one that is cheaper and better let me know please

 

 

[Guest sypkens]

You can choose to be legal in the air in several other fashions. If you find one that is cheaper and better let me know please

 

 

[bilby54]

So membership is voluntary, unless you elect to be legal as a recreational pilotYou can choose to be legal in the air in several other fashions. If you find one that is cheaper and better let me know please

Not quite sure how membership cannot be legal unless you are a member??? I know of several pilots and aircraft that do all sorts of safe flying but are far removed from the mainstream clutches of flying organisations.

 

It seems to many that the AUF was overrun by an influx of GA pilots that were disgruntled by regulation and overwhelming costs so of course it is cheap to belong to the RAAus. If this is the only organisation that controls recreational aviation then it has to be cheapest so I don't know what you are on about unless you are a board member.

 

Cheers,

 

Bilby 54

 

 

[farri]

Voluntary Membership and fees.

 

Guys,

 

I`m not suggesting for a second that the RAA isn`t doing a good job,I`m questioning the whole system.

 

I can accept that I need to register my aircraft,be licenced and remain current,but should I have to be a member of any organisation to do this.

 

I have vhicles which I drive on public roads,they need to be registered and I need to be licenced to drive them but I don`t need to be a member of an auto club to do this.

 

Our fees may well be less than other sections of aviation but we are not comercial operators,we are supposed be sport aviation and I believe our fees are still too high and will keep getting higher,as the RAA keeps getting more members they keep getting more money,what is happening to all this money,they have become a profit making organisation.

 

Why does a twin seat aircraft cost more to register than a single seat,do they not take up much the same amount of sky,and how much does it take and cost the RAA to keep records,anyhow,I would have thought that the more aircraft registered the lower the cost of registration should be if the system was realy trying to look after our interests.

 

Is the system realy within it`s legal rights to demand we be members of any organisation,should it not be our choice to do so,would we cowboys simply because we were not ?????????.

 

farri. :hittinghead:

 

 

[Flyer]

A piece of paper doesn't make you a pilot. A piece of paper makes you a legal pilot same as a car drivers license doesn't make you a good car driver (I drive a lot in my job and there are some car drivers that belong a long way away from the road!!! :raise_eyebrow:) but it does make you a legal driver.

 

Covered that bit now....all about legalities....

 

GA medical. Voluntary unless you want to fly. Then open your wallet up for about a 270+ dollar sting.

 

You dont have to belong to a club or organisation and you can contact CASA direct for any advice that can take months to get...and then you get to pay for it....... sometimes 130+ dollars for 10 minutes work....(and before you ask, no, I cant remember what it was for...maybe stamping a medical form that the DAME had already stamped I think...)

 

GA is all about user pays......have a look at GA. Its lying in a hospital bed on life support and the government is still trying to rape it.

 

Any wonder that GA pilots saw the light and came over to RA_Aus.

 

RA_Aus. You dont have to be a member if you dont want to but $160 a year aint that bad. ( costs me more to be a member of my model aircraft club per year)

 

Vote with your feet and your pen at election time. (cant do that with CASA)

 

I can ring somebody up and talk to them without the money clock spinning like a fan.

 

I dont need a medical other than my car drivers license however I did see my local GP and have a checkup before I started flying.

 

I can fly a plane and not incur a lot of the costs of GA.

 

I can hire a plane at a reasonable hourly rate.

 

I think rag and tube aviators are as much a part of the recreational scene as those of us that fly the higher performace stuff.

 

What is wrong with having a decent membership base? at least we might have a bit of clout when this ADSB animal turns up.

 

I will get my class 2 medical back eventually and rejoin the GA ranks because I enjoy the thrill of the more complex aircraft but at the moment I'm enjoying just building hours in the Jabas.

 

I think I'll probably always renew my RA_Aus membership.

 

My opinion only...

 

Regards

 

Phil

 

 

[farri]

Phil,

 

Your logic is ok and you`re probably right but those of us who started what was then called, Ultralight Flying, and I was one of them ,were commited to keeping the sport as far away as possible from what was already happening in general aviation.

 

What a lot of guys like myself can see is that we`re loosing that objective and we are slowly but surely giong back to the thing we wanted to get away from.

 

I don`t think there`s many out there who realy care what type of Recreational Aircraft anyone flies,I belive the more types the better, but I also believe that two wrongs don`t make a right and that right and wrong is relative to the objective and as I`ve pointed out the objective was to get away from general aviation and keep the cost within the reach of the young pilot also,I don`t see too many of those.

 

I don`t need to be told it`s the way of the world and If everyone out there is happy with what we currently have and the direction we`re going then that`s fine but what I see is a lot of guys my age who can finaly afford to do what they`ve always wanted and so would preffer not to rock the boat.

 

farri.

 

 

[sain]

$160 is a pretty cheap price to pay when you consider all the services we get from the RA-AUS. Not the least service is keeping CASA the hell off our backs, and ensuring that future aviation rules leave us room to go flying.

 

Cheap aviation is certainly still possible, it just comes down to choices. You can choose to operate under RA-Aus's rules and conditions, or you can choose another organisation, or you can choose to start your own organisation, or you can choose to be administered directly by CASA - thats hardly a dictatorship. Saving $160 on your memebership doesn't seem like a wise choice here, given the cost of the other choices.

 

I think that as long as RA-AUS coninues to provide for the drifter, thruster, hummelbird, volksplane etc end of the market then we don't have an issue. Its up to us to ensure that our board members are aware that we expect them to keep membership cost down and keep the rules that enable us to fly such wonderful aircraft.

 

 

[Flyer]

Hi Farri

 

I suppose, and I missed your post last night, that the $160 is a fee for a license such as is needed to operate a motor vehicle et al.

 

In addition to the license, we get membership to a club, a magazine, somebody to talk to on the phone and a fairly plain english ops manual.

 

It's a case of CASA saying you will organise something or we'll just stop you flying...period.

 

Rock and a hard place I think or damned if you do and damned if you dont.....

 

For you more senior members, when you started flying back when the legislation was first passed, did you need a license? not a trick question...I dont know as in '76 I was 8 years old.....

 

I also believe that the height restriction was 300 feet?

 

Do you want to go back there?

 

I personally dont care what banner I fly under as long as I have the freedom to fly and aren't legislated out of existance. 200 people dont pack a lot of punch but 8000....somebody will sit up and take notice.

 

Whilst rag and tube aren't my thing, Jabirus, Texans and Millenium Masters aren't other peoples thing.

 

Recreational Flying is about recreation and that must encompass all types including the rag and tube weed hoppers.

 

Regards

 

Phil

 

 

[TechMan]

Is the system realy within it`s legal rights to demand we be members of any organisation,should it not be our choice to do so,would we cowboys simply because we were not ?????????.

Probably not, but then again, it's the Government and they have said we must have ASICs if we want to fly into particular aerodromes.

 

The system, as defined by the CASA, has been put in place to enable organisations like RA-Aus, GFA, HGFA, ASRA etc etc to act in administrative duties on behalf of the CASA.

 

You are not obliged to join in order to fly and register your aircraft, you can go to the CASA to do that and fly with a VH rego and PPL. It is merely an alternate pathway, one, if you choose to follow, you comply to the requirements of the organisation.

 

That's why membership with RA-Aus is voluntary.

 

Chris

 

 

[Yenn]

If you don't like flying as Tech Man has said you can build your own plane or buy one and fly it un registered, un insured and without a licence or certificate. Until you are caught when you will be prosecuted and probably end up flying around a cold prison cell and a lot less financially endowed.

 

I thought it was only us Poms that were whingers, but maybe I am wrong.

 

 

[poteroo]

I came to RAAus flying because I wanted to instruct in my 'retirement' - without the boxticking and procedural overkill of GA. So far - so good. We are attracting new students - who would not have started with GA due cost and exams. Generally, the medical isn't a main issue. The fact we operate an attractive, new and well equipped aircraft is very important here. It just wouldn't work with anything more basic.

 

So far, I can't see much difference in the proficiency requirements. Aircraft all fly the same, and people can only solo when they reach a safe standard....regardless of what rego is on the aircraft. They still need the same theory knowledge to operate an aircraft. Instructing doesn't change at all.

 

I like to think that I'm bringing sound instructing skills, and good operational experience, into RAAus. Sure, I'm operating a J160, but that doesn't mean I want to see off the slower and lighter types. They are a different end of the ultralight market, and I'd like to see them continue flying where they don't have to suffer all the rules and regulations.

 

I'm also sharing premises with the local GA school, and we co-operate well. I also fly for them, but have converted the CFI over to RAAus already. It seems there is room for us both in the same city. Not everyone wants to fly 4-6 seaters, or go commercial - many just want to fulfil their 'retirement' dream to learn to fly a simple aircraft under simple rules.

 

I've found RAAus good to work with - things generally get done asap. There are real people on the phone ! CASA is another quite different entity, and my experience with them goes back 45 years. RAAus needs to be viable and vocal, and to do this we have to support it with $$$. It's a tough, competitive society we live in, and unity is strength. The $160 annual fee is good value when compared to many other organisations.

 

cheers,

 

 

[antzx6r]

Hi farri,

 

I see the idea of being governed by "the man" or just that a large organization making legislative decisions on your behalf as being dangerous. But I'm not sure what it is that you want. Is it that you would prefer to just pay an admin fee for the licence and rego and organize your own insurance (or not) and stuff the mag subscription? Because I can kind of see, that if say, you only wanted to buzz around your own property at lower levels in a single seat slower type, and never see any other traffic at like an aerodrome or something. Then sure that would be attractive.

 

At present tho, Like the others have said $160 is not really blowing the budget just yet. And it does give this sport/lifestyle a more responsible image to the landluvers. I do see a danger of this fee blowing out. And maybe we just have to remain vigilant about keeping that fee where it is. Or maybe we could make the "extras" optional or something.

 

I'm a relative youngster I guess and like others I know roughly where we came from as a sport, but as for the early days of the AUF before the "change of management" I've heard mentioned, what was the direction then, that doesn't seem to be now?

 

Ant.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Personally I think there are more significant issues to be dealt with. At this stage $160 doesn't seem excessive to me and I don't mind being 'forced' to pay it. RA-Aus at this point seems to be doing alright in this regard. The areas of concern for me are the simpler things. In broad strokes they have got it right but little things like, for example, the new Ops Manual I find are a bit disconcerting.

 

RA-Aus posted the new manual online the other day. I haven't been a member for long but a few people I have spoken to have said that there was no consultation with members about the changes so few people would have had the chance to read over it before now. This may or may not be true but regardless I would have thought that the sensible thing to do would be to allow the thing to be viewed by the wider flying audience before it takes effect. I was told by RA-Aus the other day that basically once the manual gets sent out it will become effective which concerns me so I was pleased that it was made viewable beforehand. Shortly afterwards some questions were raised about how it should be interpreted and it was removed from the site, this worries me.

 

Without being able to read through it, digest it and take note of those parts that affect me how can I ensure compliance from day one? Will there be some sort of grace period for non-compliance? And so on...

 

There are other issues like this that I consider as being a bigger deal than the 'forced' membership. In my books $160 isn't that much in the big scheme, it is less than 5 per cent of my fuel bill for driving back and forth to work each day. Not much and way cheaper than keeping my PPL current.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I wouldn't be worried about 'complying' with the new RA ops manual from day one. I'd go as far as to say it won't affect you with your current operations, but rather it now includes new components. Some of the new components don't come into effect until the next parts fall into place and are approved, so don't ground yourself just yet!

 

As for taking it off line, short of a 10 man help desk to take all of the calls from members there's not much else you can do except answer calls as they come in and because there were too many calls for the one or two people able to answer the questions, they had little choice but to remove it!

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I would think you're right Brent but a little communication wouldn't go astray. For a person like me though who is trying to convert over from GA it has significant impacts. I imagine it will have similar consequences for those learning too. I wouldn't mind seeing what is going to happen before it happens so I can make an educated choice as to the best course of action to take. Someone else (can't recall who) made mention of the same thing.

 

As for the questions aren't they just delaying the inevitable? My queries won't go away! :)

 

 

[John Brandon]

In regard to the premature internet publication of the ops manual you will have to blame me, your independent web service volunteer author. I had the pdfs in order to start preparation of the CD for official release and distribution of the manual and made a mis-judgement in making the ops manual publicly available. The Canberra staff were not involved in that decision.

 

cheers

 

John Brandon

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I wouldn't be looking to blame anyone John, in fact I was a fan of having it up there. Perhaps it could have been hendled better (in terms of assigning resources to answering questions, etc.) but in general I thought it was a great idea to get it out there and circulated before it takes effect.

 

 

[Guest sypkens]

I wouldn't mind seeing what is going to happen before it happens so I can make an educated choice as to the best course of action to take. Someone else (can't recall who) made mention of the same thing.

Think of the practicality of trying to implement what you are asking. I completely agree that you need to get your queries answered but give them time. As has been mentioned before there are now 8000 of us willing to fork out a $160 for membership and the associated benefits you get with it (or not depending on where you sit). To try and and answer all these calls prematurely when the Ops Manual has not even been centrally distributed will mean endless numbers of staff and resources and just means another CASA type of bean counter.

 

If you feel that the communication is just not there, compare the benefits of the $160 to what you can do with it in GA and CASA. If you feel it does not stack up you know where to make your bed.

 

Jan

 

 

[Yenn]

This ops manual is a requirement of CASA and much as we may like to we cannot all take part in the drafting of it. We have an elected body of representatives who have done that for us. Those who do not like this method are in the same position as I am with the government sending troops to Iraq, but there is nothing we can do apart for standing at the elections. I didn't, did you?

 

 

[farri]

Membership.

 

Guys,

 

Great to see I got you all thinking,keep doing it please I`d like as many opinions as possible.

 

About us old senior flyers, as flyer put it, I`m not that senior by the way,I can tell you that I certinaly had to have a licence and my CFI rating was issued to me by C.S.S.A and they approved my operation, the AUF was not allowed to issue CFI ratings ratings at that time.

 

More on the subject later.

 

Cheers All.

 

farri.