Is this fair and Just.

[farri]

"A recreational aircraft may only be used commercially, for the purpose of instruction".

 

As recreational pilots we are not allowed to derive an income from our aircraft,only the flying schools can do so,however, those of us who own twin seat aircraft must pay $220 initially and $110 renewal for rego. while those with single seaters pay $110 initially and $55 renewal.

 

My argument is that it takes no more for the RAA to keep records on a twin seater than it does for a single seater, therefore, why the difference in regrestration fee.

 

Is this fair and just,or are we being ripped off and should we keep paying that fee.

 

Frank

 

 

[motzartmerv]

G'day Frank.. Im not real sure about this one, but ill have a stab, im sure if im wrong someone will let me know.. I think when you register your acft with RAA you get some sort of cover. Im not sure what that cover is, but i have heard people talk of it.. So im guessing that with the potential to wreak havoc on the population by killing 2 people instead of one, they maybe charge extra??

 

anyway, sure someone will chime in if thats not the case..

 

cheers

 

 

[tvaner]

Motz,

 

Is it the membership that provides the insurance cover or the aircraft registration?thumb_down

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Hmmm...good question...i don't know...would like to tho:thumb_up:

 

 

[farri]

Hi Guys,

 

I can tell you for a fact that the passenger is not covered in any way by any insurance from the RAA and that third party cover is the only insurace we have and it is included in the membership fee.

 

$110 rego for a twin seat.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

so my neighbours cow is covered but not my passenger.?

 

 

[Guest Ken deVos]

Similar rules apply to motor vehicle registration. A privately registered motor vehicle cannot be used for commercial purposes.

 

Perhaps the RA-Aus could introduce a 'commercial' registration.

 

Regards.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Damn right Ozzie! That may not be a cow - it could be a valuable stud bull! Your passenger is doing nothing for the meat or milk industry but the bull could be doing heaps (the one who lives on my property does anyway - just ask the cows!).

 

Got to keep a sense of proportion in all of this - which is what Frank is looking for an answer to.

 

Bit then again - there is more than one way to milk a cow!

 

 

[Guest brentc]

There a few things to summarise on here:

 

- Twin Seat Rego is $220 initial and $110 subsequent

 

- Single Seat is $110 intial and $55 subsequent

 

- 'Private' rego costs the same as 'commercial'

 

- The insurance coverage goes with the Pilot Certificate, regardless of aircraft seats

 

- Your passengers or aircraft are not covered, but your neighbour's cow is

 

There does seem to be some un-just being done here unless RA is charged a fee from some external third party that we are not aware of.

 

Perhaps we can raise this with our newly elected board member, as the way I see it, there is no difference to the RA-Aus whether I have one or two seats?

 

PS: On a side note regarding insurance, there is no insurance for Noise Pollution for aircraft of our kind, meaning that if you scare your neighbours $50k Ostrich into the fence and it breaks its' neck, you are fully liable. Noise insurance is only available for Hot air balloons.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

they are all mad cows or old nags. until you hit them and then they become high value studs.

 

A job for Ian maybe to see if the RAAus can find a third party cover for the Pax instead of the cow.

 

Now if you want a commercial ticket for you and your aircraft look up what is required for an AOC. as you will be required to have a RAAus version of one plus a commercial license. But then how far do you want to take RECREATIONAL FLYING.

 

But then why not every other 'sport' has gone commercial.

 

ozzie

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Im going to make some assumptions here, see if you agree:-

 

1) RAA income probably only just covers the costs

 

2) No matter how the income is achieved it is needed

 

3) probably 90%+ of the fleet is 2 seat based

 

4) assuming that we did change the system $110 might drop to $105 and 55 would also change to $105

 

5) $5 is $5..... I'll not loose too much sleep over it.

 

6) Not withstanding perhaps its a point of principle.

 

PS. Ive 0 1 seaters and 2 2 seaters so its $10 for me....perhaps a little sleep needs to be sacrificed..

 

Andy

 

 

[Admin]

A job for Ian maybe to see if the RAAus can find a third party cover for the Pax instead of the cow.

ozzie

Sorry to come in with the politics but if I am elected I can put these types of things forward for everyone - an example of how if elected these forums can be taken to the next level

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Ian, bring on the politics.

 

and never say 'sorry' it is an admission of guilt:big_grin:

 

 

[Yenn]

It would appear to be unjust, but the AUF started out with 95-10 single seaters and there are a few other single seat planes. Maybe the charges should be brought to the same figure and the cost of a passenger carrying certificate increased, while a non passenger carrying certificate stays the same.

 

Really I am a bit surprised that people whinge about paying $55 and so many of them post here questiond about which expensive gismo they should put in their plane.

 

Of course I have a vested interest in this as I fly a single seat plane.

 

 

[farri]

so my neighbours cow is covered but not my passenger.?

Thats absolutely correct,Third party only covers damage to persons or property caused by the aircraft.

 

If you want your passenger covered, you need to find your own insurance.

 

Check it out with the RAA.

 

 

[tangocharlie123]

Just a side note

 

After speaking to the Atterney Generals office the other day (Auscheck) the seem to charge around $80.00 to do the security checks for those beloved ASIC's where does the other $80.00 go as RAA now charges $160.00 Should we be shopping around to get better prices if you need one.

 

Please do not start the Why do we need them debate. I have just Flown 2500 nm and got asked once if I had one.

 

Now on the same if you use your plane to get to work am I right in saying that you can't charge directly for flying the plane..

 

Cheers

 

 

[farri]

It would appear to be unjust, but the AUF started out with 95-10 single seaters and there are a few other single seat planes. Maybe the charges should be brought to the same figure and the cost of a passenger carrying certificate increased, while a non passenger carrying certificate stays the same.Really I am a bit surprised that people whinge about paying $55 and so many of them post here questiond about which expensive gismo they should put in their plane.

Of course I have a vested interest in this as I fly a single seat plane.

Hi Yen,

 

I issued passenger carriage endorsements and I can tell you that it`s just a signature on a form once the CFI is satisfied.

 

What has whinging got to do with it,I simply want someone to justify the extra cost.

 

I`ve been going a long time now and if we don`t try and control the costs that we get nothing for,where is it going to end.

 

You can pay the extra $55 for me if wish.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Guest Redair]

Sacred cow!

 

Damn right Ozzie! That may not be a cow - it could be a valuable stud bull! Your passenger is doing nothing for the meat or milk industry but the bull could be doing heaps

Ok, a little off topic I know, but without the beef guzzling, milk swilling passengers.... there wouldn't be a meat or milk industry:laugh:. Maybe the higher rate of rego could only be applied to those who carried Vegans:hug:

 

Redair.

 

 

[farri]

Redair,

 

Havn`t got a good argument as to why the extra cost, yet.

 

The fact that it`s only $55 has nothing to do with it.

 

Frank.

 

 

[jetboy]

In NZ it cost $120 to the CAA for the yearly rego / participation levy

 

Our RAANZ or other approved organisation is around $60 they dont include any insurance which for 3rd party only cover is costing me $375.

 

RAAUS seems to have a pretty fair insurance deal I think our organisation should pursue the same - Jeez we're being really milked here and thats no bull

 

Ralph

 

 

[Guest brentc]

When I registered my GA Jab 4 years ago the rego fee was $25. (Could be $130'ish now)

 

There are $0 renewal fees with CASA. I have paid nil fees since I've owned it after the original fee, so quite obviously it isn't going to CASA !

 

 

[Yenn]

The way I see it RAAus have these charges to make ends meet, if we didn't pay registration, we would have to pay higher subs. It is just the price we have to pay to fly Ultralights. We do not need medicals, which I imagine would leave little change from$400 nowadays. We pay our rego and subs and can go and fly. Or we can have our medicals and BFR with GA and fly GA, that will allow us into controlled airspace and let us fly on instruments or at night if suitably endorsed.

 

CASA are happy to have RAAus look after us rather than control us directly, they can stir the possum with ease, and if they can convince enough of us that we are not getting a good deal from RAAus they can divide and conquer.

 

We can all talk to our local reps, either in person or by mail and query why the costs are as they are, but don't let CASA kill us off.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I would still like to know what you get for your first year of rego for $220 and subsequently for $110 and half that for a single seater. I see no difference between 1 and 2 seats as far as RA-Aus is concerned and still no reason for why the first year is more expensive.

 

It can't be for airways charges, it's not Airservices, it's not Avdata, it's not insurance and it's not landing fees..... any suggestions?

 

It was suggested to me today that it's for administering the techincal aspect of aircraft operations in RA, such as research, creation and dissemination of AD's etc. Thinking further about that though, if there are over 5,000 on the register, but say that 3000 are currently in service of which half are 2 seaters and half are single seaters, that's around $240k p / a, which is probably conservative. If the technical manager's position is $50k'ish (say $70k nett) where is the rest of the money going? It's not for accident investigation because they aren't paid and ATSB / CASA gives training grants. Does it cover the cost of flying around an operations inspector to inspect flying schools? If so, then why aren't the schools paying for these inspections themselves, rather than the members subsidising this cost?

 

Just some questions I'd be interested in hearing an answer for.

 

 

[Guest Rocko]

Well, you're missing the most obvious reason for the extra rego on a 2 seater.

 

It's likely the same reason, in Queensland, it costs over twice as much to register a motorbike on the road as a single seater, than the same motorbike as a 2 seater.

 

It's probably "because they can!" ;>

 

However, not being picky, but I bet if they averaged out the rego, by increasing single seater rego, and decreasing 2 seater, so we all paid "something in the middle", we'd then be hearing horrendouly loud bitching from everyone in single seaters saying "why should they pay as much as a 2 seater!!!"

 

What about those people who only fly 20 hours a year, compared to those who do 500. Should the people "using" the system pay more? Should the "occasional" flyer pay less?

 

Doesn't work. Someone will always be unhappy.

 

The RAA is going to have a certain cost to run their administration. To get that cost (which, lets face it, is bloody cheap, 2 seater or single seater, no matter how you look at it), they need a certain income. However the pot is sourced, it has to come to a certain amount. So, if everyone pays the same, then "someone" will be crapped off, won't they.

 

I can live with the system as it is. Personally, I'm happy paying the money for the incredible freedom we achieve. In the overall scheme of things, it's a bee's whisker different amount compared to the other running costs we're paying for flying. $55 is cheap. $110 is cheap. Do 100 hours a year, and the difference is $0.50/hour. Compare that to fuel, which can vary $0.50 per hour over the course of the week, depending where and when you fill up, and has increased $10+ per hour flying over the past couple of years, and it's almost a pittance. When the $3000 I paid for Insurance for the same amount of hours is around $30/hour (with what I paid last year, anyway), it's even less significant.

 

Priorities. $55 extra? Big whoop!

 

Bah Humbug!

 

Scott

 

 

[Guest L/D]

You are probably right Rocko,

 

It is splitting hairs somewhat. I have also never understood where the difference in price structure came from. I would think that the costs were set at 95.10 levels, so for 2 seats, they perhaps simply doubled it. ?

 

If we, the members, push the issue, it could very well be that the 95.10 price structure will disappear and we all pay the higher of the costs.