flyvulcan

Hi Ian, Is it possible to have a combination members/visitors Australian site rather than strictly RAAus members only or are you proposing two separate forums; an RAAus members only forum and a separate Australian forum? There is a lot of interesting and useful information here that is contributed by non-RAAus members. If there is to be a single Australian forum, could you introduce a set of filters which denies access to non-members of the members only sections. Could the New (21days) etc. tabs filter results depending on access privileges? In my opinion, it would be a pity to lose the input of non-RAAus members to the forum. Dave

800-1200' loss, even when the pilots were prepared for it and they certainly didn't appear to delay any recovery action. That is a real eye-opener.

Actually, give the left one to fly in it, give both to own it... Lucky I already own it so I don't have to give anything up (except cash!!).

I've reserved VH-NUT for my jet. My wife says anyone would have to be one to fly in it. I say most would give their left one to fly in it.

Hi Phil, I certainly want it to last longer than 100 hours so am putting more effort into doing something that will last. Robert Baslee advised 1/8" x 1/8" grip length steel protruding head rivets. I ordered 150 Cherry N steel rivets from AS and the cost for those 150 was $3.60 plus a couple of dollars shipping to my US forwarding service. Just under $6 all up. To be honest, I don't know how many are used in the complete aircraft. I only have the tail plane kit so far. I'll order the remaining kits when I get back to Oz permanently later this year. The correct number are supposed to come with the kit but because I have been using straps where Robert drills a hole through the one side of a tube and screws through the far side to join it to a dowel rod that is squeezed into the end of the tube that it is attaching to, I have been using more rivets than planned.

I need to add a two feet extension to each wingtip of my Lightning Bug to bring the stall into the LSA range! I wonder if a single seat, Rotax 912 powered LSA that cruises at 160ktas+ would interest anyone... It currently TAS's at 170+ktas (GPS verified) in its current configuration at maximum continuous cruise power and we expect more from it with the IFA prop that is about to be fitted to it. Detachable wingtip extensions to make it LSA legal have and will continue to be considered if we feel that there may be a market for it.

Left hand elevator It was back into the workshop today for another 2 hours. Last workshop, I had drilled all holes out to 1/8" and deburred everything. I also cleaned and scuffed the areas that would be primed then left it at that which is where I picked up today. I cleaned all areas to be primed then after the primer had dried, I reassembled the LH elevator to ensure that it aligned with the RH elevator before starting riveting. Priming parts: And then reassembling: I then started riveting but I clearly did not have enough rivets so I riveted selectively. I have placed an order with Aircraft Spruce for another 150 rivets which should come in in about 10 days (its a long way to the Middle East!!). I'll then finish it off. An issue that I had was related to the location and method of attachment of the elevator hinges. There was zero guidance in the "plans". I went ahead and equally spaced the 4 hinges along the spar. The plans called for a dowel rod to be inserted inside the spar of the elevator to act as a crush resistor for the inboard left hand hinge where the elevator horn attaches. I had turned up a suitable piece of wood (no dowel to be found here) and carefully inserted it into the spar to the correct depth for the location of the inboard LH hinge. I then riveted that hinge in place in order to hold the "dowel" in place. I have subsequently phoned Robert Baslee to ask about the rivets and at the same time, I asked about the hinges. Well apparently, the details about the location and method of attachment for the hinges is included in the flight control kit... Also, the hinges are secured using a single 3/16" rivet while their locations are predicated by the elevator runs... Another also is that there is no longer the need for the crush "dowel" as the hinge is an extrusion/sleeve that fits over the OD of the elevator spar and acts as a doubler to prevent crushing anyway. I wish I'd known this all before I located and riveted the hinge in place... Still, Robert said it would all be ok so I dont need to worry about it but I don't like doing things wrong... My next post should be to show you my finished tailplane. Woo hoo. By the way, so far the build log shows around 90 hours. Roberts guidance is that what we have done should be finished in 9 hours! Still, things happens a lot faster now that we know how the system works, but all the drilling twice (3/32' then 1/8"), deburring, smoothing of gusset edges, cleaning, priming etc. clearly adds a lot more time over Roberts methods.

Brilliant Mike! Looks like a lot of fun!

Jakej from these forums may be able to help. His business is AeroAssist in Adelaide and he is a very experienced avionics installer. He may have the required equipment.

I bet you are praying that the prop keeps turning! Keep 'em coming Mike.

Mike, You are operating into some very famous WW2 strips (Biak, Merauke etc.). Have you done any exploring to see any WW2 wrecks? If so, do you have any photos? If you were bored and heard any rumors of wrecks from locals, could you video an expedition to see them? Dave

I attended the meeting today. At best, there was a total of 10 in attendance. It lasted about an hour and a half. One element of the meeting was about cost saving measures for the SAAA, which included the potential for adopting a "shared services model" with a fellow organization. The President indicated that he has been having ongoing dialogue with RAAus Executive and that the relationship between the organizations is pretty good. So it appears that there is potential and genuine interest within the organizations leadership for a closer relationship between the SAAA and RAAus, at least through a "shared services" arrangement. There will be another similar meeting next week that hopefully more Chapter Presidents will attend. If you are not a Chapter President (like me, I'm only an Indian not a chief) and want to participate, email the secretary and ask for an invitation. There is a limit of 100 due to the limitations of the conference system being used for the meeting but I reckon they would be happy to get half that number engaged.

I just got a response from the SAAA Secretary to advise me that the meeting scheduled for the 6th was intended to be for the Chapter Presidents only, who would then disseminate the results of that meeting to their Chapter members. So SAAA members, please encourage your Chapter President to attend the meeting and report the results back to you. Also, the meeting has now been rescheduled to tomorrow so it is important that Chapter Presidents be aware that the meeting is on and to attend.

Fair points OK and Nobody. I shall not broach the subject at the meeting and feel out the new NC first. Ungrounded, the meeting was advised to all Chapter Presidents whose role it is to disseminate the information to their Chapter members. I suspect that some Chapter Presidents do not check their Chapter email address very often and possibly miss stuff sent out by the NC. The email that I saw did not restrict the meeting to Chapter Presidents so I assume it was for general dissemination. If all members are invited to attend, it probably would have been better for the NC to send out an email to all members individually, rather than publicising the meeting only through the Chapter Presidents. I have just emailed the SAAA Secretary and President requesting that details of the meeting be disseminated to all members directly, rather than through the Chapter Presidents. I have also directed them to this thread to perhaps give them something to consider for the future.

There is now a meeting on the 6th where the woes of the SAAA NC will be explained and the way ahead will be revealed. If I can manage to attend electronically, I might float the concept of considering an amalgamation of SAAA with RAAus. I wonder how that would go down with the new NC members (all the old ones just resigned so methinks that there may have been some friction between old and new, but that is hypothesis, not fact)...

Great stuff Mike. Keep 'em coming!

Again, I agree with you. I have been attempting to clarify my suggestion so that folks understand my intent and do not misinterpret it. It is simply a suggestion which is neither right nor wrong, actually it is probably both right and wrong at the same time. I would absolutely welcome any and all input and suggestions about whether an amalgamation would be good/bad for everyone and suggestions on how to do it would be most welcome. Stimulating discussion about the topic is what it is about. Two years ago I was flabbergasted about what was happening within RAAus. I am now frustrated about what is happening at National Council level in the SAAA. I see it as time for a change within SAAA which fundamentally is a great organisation but is facing some issues. Do I see a way for the SAAA to do it better? Yes I do. One of the options available is to consider an amalgamation with RAAus. This thread is about exploring that option. Everyone's inputs and suggestions are welcome and encouraged. BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with you that there could be regulatory change wrt private aviation in Australia and these are initiatives that an amalgamated entity could pursue, without sacrificing any of the entitlements that we now have.

I agree with all you have said. There will be some lost income due to a number of folks who are currently members of both organisations, but I don't expect that figure is substantial. (I'm sure that pretty well all those members who currently hold two memberships would welcome an amalgamation but that is irrelevant in the cost case.) If any members chose to leave a combined entity then I suggest that they would have left the individual entity as well, so no real loss in income there. A study would determine what additional admin support the existing RAAus admin staff would need to absorb the additional workload of the SAAA admin functions. I suspect that the equivalent of one additional staff member inserted into the existing RAAus admin infrastructure would possibly cover that workload (Amber used to do it all by herself in the former SAAA office). The cost of the sub-contracted admin function for the SAAA is certainly more than the cost for Amber, but the lease and maintenance cost for the current vacant SAAA office at Narromine could be saved and go into the general coffers of a new entity. While the cost benefit to both organisations might end up being small (let's say less than $100k), a decent benefit will be gained in the manpower resource side of things. Regardless, there are benefits to be gained, both financially and in manpower resources. Will the drawbacks of an amalgamation outweigh the benefits? That is what needs to be determined. Indeed, what are the real drawbacks, as distinct from the perceived drawbacks. As I see it, the effort required to make it happen is the only significant drawback. There would be no reduction in member services or rights and privileges of members.

This post shows that my suggestion is being interpreted as RAAus taking over the SAAA. Again, this is not what I am proposing. Let's for a second turn the above post 180 degrees. "The SAAA would just expense shift RAAus, they would buy some new piece of kit or software and palm the expenses onto RAAus. Its easy enough for the SAAA to justify it as they would claim they didn't need the item prior to the merger. Then you have the issue of the SAAA not prioritizing the RAAus functions. Once you wound RAAus, its impossible for it to recover." Mmmmm....... What I am suggesting is an amalgamation, not a takeover. I have already suggested that a Board be established that determines plans and policies for the organisation with those plans and policies being implemented by the CEO. The Board would consist of suitably qualified persons with relevant business, accounting, legal and industry experience (not just a mate of a mate, or someone that flies a cool aircraft and is passionate about their past-time but someone that can make the business succeed). The Board would consider all the objectives for the organisation when developing its plans and policies for the organisation. It would not look at it from an RAAus perspective or from an SAAA perspective, but from a single unified perspective that meets all the goals and objectives of a unified organisation with no bias towards what were once RAAus objectives or what were once SAAA objectives. Protection for the roles and objectives could be incorporated into the constitution in order to protect the interests of the relevant pre-amalgamation parties. This discussion is very healthy in determining folks concerns about such an initiative. When I direct the attention of the SAAA National Council to this thread, if such an initiative is to be considered, this thread will give some good guidance on the areas that will need to be addressed to make an amalgamation workable. At the same time, it may make it clear that an amalgamation is not workable. However, it is interesting to see that personalities, bias, prejudice, misinterpretation/misunderstanding are all factors in how folks view such a proposal, rather than straight objectivity although there is a very good amount of objectivity and quality feedback evident. Keep it coming!

Again, I think there is some confusion and misinterpretation of my suggestion. There is still discussion about imposing RAAus conditions on SAAA "roles and functions" and vice versa; there is still discussion about changing the regulatory framework. This is not my suggestion. To be clear, I am proposing that the regulatory framework remain unchanged. I am proposing that the current roles and functions of the two organisations remain unchanged, but are simply incorporated into a single entity. I am proposing that all CASA privileges, approvals and delegations that apply to each individual organisation be applied (grandfathered) to the new single entity with no changes. The challenge faced is how the new entity would administer their system and my proposal is that each "division" within the new entity (Ultralight/LSA/Experimental etc.) would be assigned their relevant area of responsibility. For example, the Experimental division would undertake all the roles/functions that the SAAA currently undertakes while the Ultralight and LSA divisions would undertake all the existing roles/functions that RAAus currently undertakes. As an example, Experimental aircraft would continue to be eligible to be registered as VH or RAAus. Owners of VH registered aircraft would still be entitled to undertake maintenance IAW existing SAAA rules while owners of RAAus registered aircraft would continue to maintain theirs IAW the existing RAAus rules (they are both actually CASA rules but you get my point) etc. Without changing any of the regulatory framework or rights/privileges/delegations etc, some of the functions could be rationalised, eg the Experimental division could also offer the RAAus experimental aircraft builders the benefit of the Technical Councillor system which would enhance the safety of those currently building RAAus registered experimental aircraft (which is a direct benefit for RAAus members right there), without changing any of the rights or privileges of the RAAus registered experimental aircraft owner/builder. My suggestion is a straightforward one that contributors here are making more complex than it needs to be. Leave all roles/functions/privileges/approvals/delegations as they are but apply them to a single entity. However, that single entity will provide cost savings and rationalisation of manpower resources through having a single set of administrative functions, a single office, a single Part 149 development program, a single SMS etc. We could actually quantify the $ savings by reviewing the cost of the administrative functions to each organisation by consulting that annual financial reports for each individual organisation and determining what a combined admin system would cost and compare the two numbers. The SAAA's CEO and the RAAus TechMan could estimate the man hours that are being expended on developing individual Part 149 applications to determine the savings that could be made by developing a single Part 149. The same applies to administering two SMS's, magazines etc. I suspect that an amalgamation could save a few hundred thousand $ between the two organisations each year which is a clear benefit to members of both organisations, yet all rights, privileges and services that are offered to members of both organisations would remain unchanged.

The single admin, single SMS, single Part 149, single magazine, single office space rental/ownership etc. are the main areas where cost benefits will apply to both organisations. Any merger would be on the basis that there would be a resulting single entity with only one set of the aforementioned functions. Establishing a clear and comprehensive list of objectives for the new entity would be critical. The parochial members of RAAus, and the SAAA for that matter, could provide their input to this list of objectives, should they feel very strongly about the future direction of their organisation. I personally am not particularly impressed with the current stated objectives for RAAus and feel that they need an overhaul. Indeed, the actual structure of RAAus is not quite right in my opinion. RAAus has regulatory functions relating to oversight in accordance with delegations from CASA. However, it also has an obligation to promote the past-time of recreational flying. These are two very different functions and in my opinion, RAAus has lost sight to a certain extent of the promotional aspect of rec. flying. A merger of RAAus and the SAAA would allow a fresh look at the roles and objectives of a combined entity and with careful planning, a better structure could be established to meet the objectives of the new entity, thereby providing a better service to all members.

Jetjr, you are still looking at it from a perspective of RAAus "taking over" the SAAA. This is not the case. The SAAA currently self administers on a cost neutral basis. It has a fully salaried CEO and pays a third party to undertake all administrative functions (membership, organising training etc), so it self funds on a cost neutral basis all the same functions that RAAus provides for its members (licensing and registrations aside as these are not required under functions of the SAAA). In an amalgamation (not a take-over), the income that would normally be derived through SAAA activities would continue to fund the activities of the "Experimental" division of the organisation, including having a salaried person in management of the new organisation, but would also contribute towards the administrative running of the organisation as a whole, which due to the fact that admin functions were not being doubled up would mean that the contribution towards administrative costs from both what were previously RAAus income and SAAA income would reduce. There is a direct cost benefit to current RAAus members. The SAAA is currently self funding its Part 149 development. RAAus is currently self funding its Part 149 development. Amalgamation immediately provides a cost benefit in only having a single Part 149 development program running and provides a larger pool of volunteers who could assist in the process. This is another benefit for all members of both organisations. The SAAA currently has a Safety Managment System in place, as does RAAus. The two systems could be administered by a single person, rather than by two, thereby saving manpower. This is a benefit to both organisations. The SAAA currently has a self funded magazine which is very readable, as does RAAus. An amalgamation would reduce the need for two editors and provide a fantastic magazine, which are benefits for both organisations. You can see where I am going here. It is not a case of RAAus taking over the SAAA and having the workload and cost burden of doing so. In an amalgamated entity, each organisation is bringing its role, it's income, it's resources to the table (which are all cost neutral at the moment for both organisations) and in doing so, will provide cost and manpower benefits to both organisations. In addition, the SAAA has over $1.0m in its cash reserves which it has not touched for years. When combined with the RAAus cash reserves, the overall cash reserves for a combined entity would be looking pretty healthy. Perhaps there is scope to make a home at an airfield for the new combined entity where the home of recreational flying in Australia could be established. Our annual Ozkosh super fly-in and air show could be held there... Finally, a single strong representative body that would be a focal point in any dealings with CASA would likely be appealing to CASA. Who knows, if an amalgamation between the SAAA and RAAus was successful, then the Warbirds, trikes etc. may be interested in coming on board forming an appropriate division within the organisation, thereby making a "super" recreational aviation representative body, but that is getting ahead of the game at this point. So Jetjr, I don't think that it is a correct assertion that an amalgamation (not a take over) would be either a huge burden on RAAus resources nor would it be a cost drain for RAAus members. On the contrary, I believe that there is a case to show that an amalgamation would benefit RAAus members.

Actually, the niche that the SAAA has "controlled" (not a good term) is going quite well (and yes, there are issues but generally not large). The problem with the SAAA is really the instability within management. The turnover in the National Council is by far the biggest problem that faces the SAAA, rather than its procedures and processes. Under an amalgamated entity, I would envisage a properly qualified board deciding company policy, a full time set of core management staff who have the requisite skills to run the business, and then a proper organisation structure to run the core business with voluntary staff being incorporated into the structure, as is done now in both organisations. In my opinion, it is imperative to have a core set of salaried full-time managers (so maybe a CEO, Technical Manager, Office Manager etc.) whose sole focus is to run the business. The SAAA does not have this and I consider it a primary reason why management of the SAAA is suffering at the moment. I feel that an amalgamation of the organisations will give the new entity scope to be run properly.

I am not proposing changing the regulatory framework which I believe is what a number of posters here are concerned about. The regulatory framework would remain identical, but the administrative functions of the two organisations would be consolidated. A single Part 149 organisation, a single set of office staff to deal with membership/accounting etc., a single office facility itself, a single voice to CASA, double the cash in the coffers to run the organisation effectively etc.. These are the benefits. There would be no change in dealing with CASA other than it would be a single entity that CASA would be dealing with, rather than two. Would RAAus be taking on more? Would the SAAA be taking on more? Categorically no to both of these. I am not suggesting that RAAus absorb the SAAA or vice-versa. I am proposing to amalgamate them to form a new single entity, accepting and undertaking the existing roles of both organisations but providing cost savings, improved efficiency, a reduction of manpower requirements to administer etc.. Please don't think of this proposal as one organisation "taking on" the other. If an amalgamation is thought of in that vein then there will be resistance from members of both organisations. Consider it a joining of the groups to provide benefits to everyone. Amalgamation will not change the rules or regulations. It will simply result in efficiencies that would benefit the members of both organisations.

A year or so ago, the SAAA closed its administration office at Narromine and let go all its admin support staff. This function is now outsourced to a third party provider. The only salaried employee of the SAAA, the "CEO" (which was really the wrong title for the position. It was really a Technical Manager type role) has resigned so now, the SAAA will not have any salaried employees. Half the National Council has just resigned last week. Since RAAus has existing infrastructure that is getting itself in order, has salaried staff in executive and administrative positions, owns its office, I'm my opinion, the time is right for talks about an amalgamation. A reorganisation of the RAAus structure to establish "divisions" within the new organisation, with each division having its own representatives to administer the division, under the overall direction and control of a suitably qualified executive team (having both proper business and special interest qualifications) could be undertaken reasonably painlessly and seamlessly. The current SAAA National Council could become the representatives for the "Experimental" division of the new organisation and administer all experimental aircraft (SAAA and RAAus). Their Authorised Persons and Technical Councillor system could support both what are currently SAAA and RAAus experimental aircraft. Likewise, the current RAAus board could become the representatives for either the "Ultralight" division (being what most here would term rag and tube or minimal aircraft) or the "LSA" division. Those 3 divisions cover all of the "types" of aircraft that the two organisations currently operate. If the SAAA and RAAus came to the table to discuss an amalgamation (without egos and with the best interests of their members being foremost), should an agreement be reached in principal, including developing an accurate and comprehensive set of objectives for the new organisation (this shouldn't really be too hard), then CASA could be approached to review/update all delegations that are currently in place with each organisation with a view to ensuring that the new organisation had all the necessary authorities in place, but only those that the new organisation wants (do we really want licensing and registration? Couldn't a license or a registration be a one-off fee like it is in GA?) FTF's and Maintenance Organisations could still be administered by the new organisation under the organisations Part149 approval. Just throwing a few ideas out there. With two separate organisations currently chasing two separate Part149 approvals, with two separate admin sections and two separate magazine editors with two separate salaried Technical Managers etc, but with both organisations chasing a single objective of being able to operate their recreational aircraft in the least regulated and cheapest manner, doesn't such a proposal to amalgamate seem sensible? It shouldn't be a case of "us" and "them" as we have the same goals. It should simply be "us". Jakej has hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the word "egos". The individual egos need to be put aside for the good of the organisations and their members. I for one am happy to stir the pot amongst the SAAA egos to start dialogue within that organisation for potential change.