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 4 hours ago 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 😈