RAAus shuffling positions

[BurnieM]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

No offense Shawn but the complication is an entirely artificial construct ie has no practical foundation - its a rule, for the sake of a rule, that may have had a shred of legitimacy when RAA aircraft were all rag & tube & few of its pilots had duel RAA Cert / PPL, as many do now. 

 

RAA's existence as a separate entity (to CASA) is tenuous at best. If you have aircraft & pilots operating in the same airspace, to the same rules/standards, the existence of a separate (to CASA) body administering to a relativly small group, whose licensing conditions & benefits, are no longer so diffrent to GA, what is the point?

 

For all practical argument, the line between RAA & CASA pilots/aircraft, is now blurred to the point of only being in existence due to Part 61 (an illusion) and the tenacity of RAA (delusion?).

 

If RAA is to continue, it needs to offer clear benefits (over GA) to its members AND must be seen to vigorously advocate on our behalf. To date RAA seems mostly concerned with such questionable grandiose schemes as the Group G initiative (pretty much nullified by changes to GA medical requirements), while ignoring every day irritations like those I articulated above.

 

😈

 

I do not disagree.

One controlling authority would certainly be simpler.

 

If RAAus no longer existed the aircraft registrations would need to go back to CASA.

With CASA RPL and class 5 medical now available almost all pilots could now fly CASA registered planes.

There appear to be cost and time issues with reverting a RAAus registered plane back to CASA registration and a lack of drive from CASA to make this happen.

 

Group G was a failure (mainly due to ongoing CASA delays and a last minute quick introduction of CASA class 5 medicals). While RAAus put a lot of work into Group G they were very slow to recognise the current pointlessness of it. 

 

RAAus not pushing controlled airspace endorsements (which are still not available) is another example of a poor senior management strategy (or lack there of).

 

We need some clear advantages of remaining a RAAus member (apart from it is too hard to revert your plane registration).

 

Edited yesterday at 12:35 AM by BurnieM

[T510]

Welcome Shawn,

 

Unfortunately I rarely hear positive things about RAAus also. 

 

From my perspective RAAus should be focused on providing affordable access to aviation and advocating for it's members.

 

I don't need a magazine, email newsletters are more than enough and I don't need discounts on booze, bedding, finance or travel insurance.

Maybe they could offer a membership without any of the associated crap at a discounted rate.

 

I agree with Skip that the ASIC is a completely unnecessary expense for recreational aviators.

 

Group G requiring LAME maintenance is a massive failing, what advantage is there to moving to RAAus, at a membership cost of $335/year, when you can now do a self declared medical under CASA? Once the Part 43 Instrument is released you will also be able to maintain your own aircraft after completing the SAAA course.

 

I think the biggest failing though is shown by the lack of member engagement, the recent livestream, "Meet your new chair and deputy chair", had less than 15 attendees live and still has had only 166 views 4 weeks on.

I don't know what the fix is for this but if members don't feel that RAAus is representing their interests I can't see the dwindling member numbers changing.

 

[skippydiesel]

My apologies to Shawn & BernieM - Must of got a sort of tunnel vision going 😈

[Blueadventures]

On 30/08/2026 at 4:47 PM, rodgerc said:

 

Tonight 7pm

[BrendAn]

22 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

Tonight 7pm

right when home and away is on 😁. at least it didn't intefere with bold and the beautiful.

[FlyingVizsla]

Just finished the Live Stream - only 24 of us - an indication of the interest in our organisation.  There were only 16 to the recent Meet the Board Live Stream, so perhaps that's in improvement???

 

Was disappointed that there were no questions from the floor.  They just wrapped it up after the last set question was answered.

[ShawnD]

Hi Guys,
Well there you have it. 
I wasn't happy with some of my answers but I gave it my best shot.

Thank you for your feedback and guidance. If I get elected, I'll be sure to take it with me to the board.

If not, well, as long as I can keep flying, all is well. 😉

[trailer]

More of the same from RAAus, it appears to me people who are paying for their own flying hours might actually appreciate what the challenges are for most members. Good luck Shawn. Surely we could come up with some fresh faces, even the CEO is recycled.

[ShawnD]

3 minutes ago, trailer said:

More of the same from RAAus, it appears to me people who are paying for their own flying hours might actually appreciate what the challenges are for most members. Good luck Shawn. Surely we could come up with some fresh faces, even the CEO is recycled.

Thanks trailer.
Agreed mate, let's see what happens. Remember to vote 😉

[BurnieM]

First thing I notice is RAAus have engaged a corporate governance company to run this stream.

3YS OWLS running of the stream appeared rough (both technically and presentation wise) as if this was the first time they had done this.

 

Some questions;

- Is RAAus saying they lack the management skillset to run a politically neutral candidate introduction ?

- Is RAAus saying they lack the technical expertise to run a live stream ?

- How much did RAAus pay this company ?

 

The convenors asked questions of the candidates that were of very little interest to the members listening most of which do not care what the legal requirements of a board member are.

I care about strategy, where we are going and how long it will take to get there and I believe others do too.

I understand why very few members watched this stream and am questioning why I watched it.

I got a basic overview of the candidates but still have no idea of the issues they wish to drive.

 

Final comment; if you are giving contact details for the election then type them on the screen, reading out contact numbers/email addresses show a lack of experience in this type of presentation.

 

[turboplanner]

27 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

First thing I notice is RAAus have engaged a corporate governance company to run this stream.

3YS OWLS running of the stream appeared rough (both technically and presentation wise) as if this was the first time they had done this.

........ and  with your money.

27 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

The convenors asked questions of the candidates that were of very little interest to the members listening most of which do not care what the legal requirements of a board member are.

There should be one convener, and who knows what the business does. Otherwise how is he going to answer questions.

27 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

I care about strategy, where we are going and how long it will take to get there and I believe others do too.

The purpose of a limited company is to make money/finish the year with a surplus. Employees develop Policies and Strategies and put them up to the Directors for approval, so this election is not about what strategies members want.

 

To go where you want is better with an Incorporated Association, because you can come along to a Meeting with your wish list and question the Candidates and that meeting will usually trigger the changes you want.

27 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

I understand why very few members watched this stream and am questioning why I watched it.

I got a basic overview of the candidates but still have no idea of the issues they wish to drive.

Whereas in the Incorporated Association you tell them the urgent actions, there's discussion, and they'll usually hit the deck running.

27 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

 

Final comment; if you are giving contact details for the election then type them on the screen, reading out contact numbers/email addresses show a lack of experience in this type of presentation.

 

Jesus.

[FlyBoy1960]

As reported by another attendee, there were apparently only 24 people watching the live feed.

 

If a commercial provider was engaged to manage the livestream, I would estimate/guess the cost could have been in the vicinity of $1,500, in addition to the time and wages of the RA-Aus employees involved.

 

Given that no questions were asked during the session and there appears to have been no meaningful audience interaction, it is difficult to understand why the same information could not have been recorded as a straightforward YouTube video and made available online.

 

Alternatively, YouTube Live could have provided a simple and essentially cost-free platform for broadcasting the presentation, it could even be done with a normal smart phone.

 

With such a small audience and no interactive participation, it is difficult to see how the expenditure represented good value for members.

 

Unfortunately, it appears to have been a significant and unnecessary use of members’ funds.

[jackc]

5 minutes ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

As reported by another attendee, there were apparently only 24 people watching the live feed.

 

If a commercial provider was engaged to manage the livestream, I would estimate/guess the cost could have been in the vicinity of $1,500, in addition to the time and wages of the RA-Aus employees involved.

 

Given that no questions were asked during the session and there appears to have been no meaningful audience interaction, it is difficult to understand why the same information could not have been recorded as a straightforward YouTube video and made available online.

 

Alternatively, YouTube Live could have provided a simple and essentially cost-free platform for broadcasting the presentation, it could even be done with a normal smart phone.

 

With such a small audience and no interactive participation, it is difficult to see how the expenditure represented good value for members.

 

Unfortunately, it appears to have been a significant and unnecessary use of members’ funds.

It’s what you get from a structured company organisation. 
They run everything THEIR way 🤢

[facthunter]

Perhaps the apathy was underestimated.. Nev. 

[facthunter]

Like it or not, It's the only show in town for a lot of people.. Nev

[jackc]

3 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Like it or not, It's the only show in town for a lot of people.. Nev

It won’t be for much longer 🤩

[Thruster88]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Like it or not, It's the only show in town for a lot of people.. Nev

Other countries get by with just the one regulator, USA has FAA, NZ has CAA. Here are some pics of Kevin flying his Thruster in beautiful New Zealand. 

[Thruster88]

I watched a bit of the live stream. I will not be voting because I have no idea what i would be voting for.

 

One thing that has  irked me about RAAus is the claim that we are growing when the data showed that was not the case. The financial costs put into getting group G and and controlled airspace when those things already had, have, a pathway for anyone who wants that was perhaps misguided. 

 

Having owned and operated both VH GA and RAAus aircraft over a long time concurrently the only difference now is RAAus allows owner maintenance for private operations. 

 

Control costs and run a tight ship, I think that is what we need. Looks like a static sort of operation. Continuous member of auf/RAAus for 36 years now.

 

[facthunter]

We didn't get where we are with one single issue. You could write a good sized book on this sorry saga. I wouldn't take on the Job of rectification for all the tea in China. It's a Poisoned chalice. A fair bit of blame to go around.  Nev

[jackc]

1 minute ago, facthunter said:

We didn't get where we are with one single issue. You could write a good sized book on this sorry saga. I wouldn't take on the Job of rectification for all the tea in China. It's a Poisoned chalice. A fair bit of blame to go around.  Nev

Yes, the key reason of where it is today, was the ditching of the “incorporation” model?

I suspect we have not heard the finale of that?

Dare I mention court proceedings residing,  in the office  deep freezer? 

[turboplanner]

8 hours ago, jackc said:

Yes, the key reason of where it is today, was the ditching of the “incorporation” model?

I suspect we have not heard the finale of that?

Dare I mention court proceedings residing,  in the office  deep freezer? 

....from the Incorporated Association days?

[Siso]

I left raaus because they made it to hard to do the flying I wanted to do. Just putting around the district in rag and tube. Hard to get a level 2 locally. Could trailer the plane to a level 2, but then need to reassemble when it gets home. Trouble with what engines you are allowed to put on although the originals aren't supported without spending megabucks. This is what is important to me. The organisation wasn't really designed for controlled airspace access etc. Probably not a real popular thing to say. Often wander how the heavier weight limits go with the stall speeds limitations of the organisation? Good to see a potential board member involved in the forum.