RAA…..is it me?

[Thruster88]

The right wing ? How? Where is it?

[kgwilson]

As I remember from the incident at the time that RH wing got left behind before the aircraft fell in love with the back of the hangar.

[BrendAn]

7 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

As I remember from the incident at the time that RH wing got left behind before the aircraft fell in love with the back of the hangar.

if you zoom in it looks like the wing is laying along the fuselage and the wing tip is under the tail.  or i might be seeing things

[old man emu]

 

Jabiru caught on camera entering Hangar 9 -3/4 at Hogwarts Airport. 

[RossK]

RH wing is folded along the RH side of the Fuse.

LH Wing tip and aileron have also departed.

Tends to happen when you put a 9.5m wide aircraft through an 8m gap between a hangar and a water tank.

 

[facthunter]

The rest of it looks intact. That's a strange feature of the Jabiru structure.  Nev

[turboplanner]

51 minutes ago, facthunter said:

The rest of it looks intact. That's a strange feature of the Jabiru structure.  Nev

That's normal for FRP; it bends and bends and bends, then it snaps, so it appears that just a small part has broken off, but that bending means that thousands of fibres have let go one by one, so the repair is always greater than just the area which has snapped off. Well it should be a lot greater but a lot of people just sand around the small area and laminate the scarfe to the part which broke off, so the No 2 crash is not quite so good.

[facthunter]

There's hardly EVER one that can't be rebuilt. The factory did it regularly. Might end up a bit heavier but so did some owner built ones...  Nev

[kgwilson]

On 06/07/2023 at 8:26 AM, old man emu said:

 

Jabiru caught on camera entering Hangar 9 -3/4 at Hogwarts Airport. 

Another one trying to enter the hangar from the roof. 

 

 

 

A pilot has escaped with only minor injuries after a single-engine plane crashed nose-first into the roof of a hangar at a Southern California airport.

The crash happened while the pilot of the Cessna 172 was “practising landings and takeoffs" at Long Beach Airport, south of Los Angeles, the US Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement.

Video aired by ABC 7 showed the nose of the plane embedded in the hangar's roof, with the tail sticking straight up.

The pilot, who was the only person on board, had to be extricated from the wreckage and was hospitalised with minor injuries, the news station said.

 

About 45 gallons (170l) of fuel leaked from the plane after the crash, the fire department said.

The FAA and National Transportation Safety Board will investigate.

[coljones]

On 30/06/2023 at 9:39 AM, jackc said:

RAA is a company, not a non profit and it has to make money, which is easy for a monopoly. They are worse than Banks of which you get choices.

It might be a company but it is a not for profit owned by the members. There are disbursements, like wages for the staff, but the members get no dividends and the directors (elected by the members) might get lucky and score a Vegemite sandwich at the board meetings.

You do have choice, you could go GA and I don't see anyone with a gun at your head forcing you to go flying.

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, coljones said:

It might be a company but it is a not for profit owned by the members. There are disbursements, like wages for the staff, but the members get no dividends and the directors (elected by the members) might get lucky and score a Vegemite sandwich at the board meetings.

You do have choice, you could go GA and I don't see anyone with a gun at your head forcing you to go flying.

Not for profit that owns investment properties in the a c t.

[turboplanner]

Well you've had a decade or so to do something about it.

[BrendAn]

17 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Well you've had a decade or so to do something about it.

Do what. I don't care. Just saying they invest in property, I didn't realise nfp organisations did that. But maybe they do.

[coljones]

1 hour ago, BrendAn said:

Not for profit that owns investment properties in the a c t.

"The shit might happen"  and the unspent portions of members subscriptions reserves have to be invested somewhere. Why not property? It would be unwise not to get the best returns on members funds.

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, coljones said:

"The shit might happen"  and the unspent portions of members subscriptions reserves have to be invested somewhere. Why not property? It would be unwise not to get the best returns on members funds.

Makes sense.

[spacesailor]

Makes sense. 

Only if you NEED/WANT a profit .

 

Lower the ' fee's & charges ' so you Don't need to invest surplus funds. 

spacesilor

[BrendAn]

7 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Makes sense. 

Only if you NEED/WANT a profit .

 

Lower the ' fee's & charges ' so you Don't need to invest surplus funds. 

Makes better sense😁

[coljones]

4 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Makes sense. 

Only if you NEED/WANT a profit .

 

Lower the ' fee's & charges ' so you Don't need to invest surplus funds. 

spacesilor

Reserves can only be built up by achieving a surplus of income over expenditure (profit). RAAus doesn't have poker machines or a liquor licence to create the rivers of gold that you seem to imagine RAAus is achieving.  I don't know what the reserves policy is but I imagine it is confidential so as not to attract the attention of greedy litigants and avaricious legal firms.   If you read the Annual Report and attend the AGM you could ask the board - or better still run for a board seat.

[Flying_higher]

4 hours ago, BrendAn said:

Do what. I don't care. Just saying they invest in property, I didn't realise nfp organisations did that. But maybe they do.

What an absolute crock. If you read their annual report it is quite clear they only own the premises they operate from in the ACT. 
 

Regardless, as a not for profit, if they did own other properties, any return from them would flow straight back to members to keep fees to a minimum. In fact looking at their website and the strategic plan, they are aiming to diversify income to achieve that very thing. 

[BrendAn]

3 hours ago, Flying_higher said:

What an absolute crock. If you read their annual report it is quite clear they only own the premises they operate from in the ACT. 
 

Regardless, as a not for profit, if they did own other properties, any return from them would flow straight back to members to keep fees to a minimum. In fact looking at their website and the strategic plan, they are aiming to diversify income to achieve that very thing. 

Whatever, I pay my regos and membership even my aerochute powered parachute which is raa 32 reg same as a trike. You mentioned they were under safa in another post.  What a crock that was. I don't mind the rego fee but $300 per year to be a member is a bit excessive. 

[kgwilson]

I just paid my annual membership & it is $285.00. Part of this is the $20,000,000.00 public liability insurance you get along with $250,000.00 for your passenger. Try taking this out as an individual and the cost is likely to be $1,000,00 to $1,300.00. We have to take out 20 mil PL insurance for our aerodrome & 10 mil for each hangar and the annual cost is $515.00 per hangar owner.

[facthunter]

THAT property has been  the same one the AUF had as far as I know and goes back more than 20 years.  Nev

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

THAT property has been  the same one the AUF had as far as I know and goes back more than 20 years.  Nev

I was told they owned an apartment complex in Canberra. Probably not true going by the replies on here.

 

[facthunter]

Sorry, I can't help you there. The original property is in Fyshwick.   There used to be "Pushes" to get the head office out of Canberra to make it a bit more easily accessed and away from the Canberra "Mentality" but that created bunfights. Nev

[derekliston]

On 28/6/2023 at 6:34 PM, F10 said:

Well, apart from the fact every year I’ve been a member of RAA, the membership has gone up $25 every year….(you gotta wonder where that will end up), I have thought recently, what does RAA really do for me, after annual membership fees and aircraft registration fees? Well yes, they provide a framework and organisation under which we can operate sport and recreational aircraft, which is great. I love this concept, it has without doubt, allowed me as a retired aviator, to afford to keep flying, for fun, the best kind of flying. However, looking at the RAA charter, recently I have experienced what to me, has not been quite in the spirit of encouraging and promoting recreational aviation. 

My aircraft came up for it’s annual inspection. I asked someone else to do it, instead of another L1 who I know. I wanted another pair of eyes on it. So, this led to me fitting new seat harnesses, and oh no, forehead slap…there were signs of corrosion on the Bolley prop hub. Now, this Bolly had been fitted around 2007. I have evidence of the prop blades being reconditioned in 2014. There was corrosion, when I tried to undo the hub bolts, in trying to undo the blade root clamp bolts, I just started to shear the bolt heads off…so, after discussion with my ownership partner, we decided to cut out losses, and buy a new Bolley BOS3 3 blade prop. 
 

Wanting to do the right thing, I e mailed RAA informing them I wanted to replace the prop with the exact same model of prop. Then..I looked up my aircraft registration certificate, noting it showed a Bolley prop was fitted, all good….! I also thought, when I bought the aircraft, I had a condition report done…which also recorded a Bolley prop was fitted. 
 

Lo and behold, RAA wrote back and said I needed to submit a modification request form, and a condition report form…..🙈 Well, ok, not thrilled…but, the mod request was a one page form and hey, this Gazelle is in good shape…so, all good, RAA confirmed Bolley props were certified, all was good. Submitted all forms as required….so far, RAA had played no part except having forms I could print off…It had all cost me a fair bit 💸💸 then horror of horrors…

 

I then received an invoice from RAA, charging me $660 (tax included), for the issue of a modification approval. $660….!! Now I was smarting a little from yet another membership price increase, but to me, this was an outrageous amount of money, very nearly 1/3 of the new prop cost.
 

Not only this, but to me, to me, an administrative error has been made by RAA, because this aircraft had been sold 3 times, (by implication, three condition reports sent in) fitted with a Bolley prop, me being the third buyer. Why must I be saddled with the full MARAP cost? I was expecting around $200…..!

 

I have spoken about this to other aviators…needless to say, signs I noticed were, this is a disincentive to report aircraft modifications. I should have kept quiet! Not the desired outcome RAA wants I’m very sure.

 

Bolley went through an expensive no doubt, certification process…would they be happy RAA was charging this, to fit a Bolley prop? Is this promoting safety and efficiency? I know one mate who would love to fit a Bolley to his Jab, but won’t, because of the “paperwork”. Sad!

 

I just get a very “bureaucracy CASA” type feel over this. Like I said, without lifting a finger in this whole process, I pay them $600? I have no problem paying for a MARAP…but was expecting $200-250. Even $300 I would have reluctantly accepted.

 

Now to be fair, I have written to RAA, stating my case. I am hoping they may consider reducing the MARAP cost. We will see.

 

Is it me? Am I being overly reactionary? I will be interested to see any response to this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your post typifies for me the reasom I keep my Zenith CH701 on the VH register. One time fee for registration and no more! Because I’m now 75 and had a heart attack nearly ten years ago CASA have more rigorous medical requirements, but that is it! I hate the stress test but it is basically 30minutes/year and I’m still fit enough to pass it, so unless I hear more positive stuff about RAA I’ll stay with VH