68volksy

Turbz - I do check things out each year and have been very happy with the progress. I think the jacking up of the fees was very knee-jerk and not necessarily very well researched. As is usually the case in these situations it might have gone a little too far. However it has allowed room for increasing the wage pool through more staff or higher paid (in so much as this equates to more competent) staff. I still strongly believe this is an administrative organisation and the staff should have very strong administration backgrounds. I don't see any need for a highly paid CEO. In my view a few competent administrators would cost around the $60-95k mark in the Canberra market. If they moved the office to Goulburn we could get the job done for considerably less! Airsick - i looked at the accounts a little more closely and it would appear that the difference between revenue for the year and total cash receipts is most likely attributable to the corresponding decrease in the debtors balance (the other side to the possibility i mentioned above). Basically an amount would have been collected in cash this year that was taken up as revenue last year. Cashflows are a complicated bugger of a thing to get right with all the variables however the science behind them is not that difficult to get your head around. Although that's an accountant talking ...

Hi sain, The cash flow receipts are the total cash that the organisation took in. Some of this cash would have been payments in advance - say if the membership period of each member doesn't run 1 July to 30 June or some members pay several years in advance or even if grants received are to be expended over several years. All these things are adjusted for in the "Revenue" figure. Basically anything in advance is moved to a liability account as the funds have not yet been earned or they are liable to be refunded should they be called upon. This is all then taken up as revenue in the year it relates to. That's a basic possibility - hope it helps. I'm always on at the not-for-profits that we audit to be aware of building up cash reserves as this is not their purpose. Many of them are run by volunteer boards the same as RA-Aus and if anyone on the board has any financial background it will be either in small business or large corporate (both of whom are focussed on profit). Running a not-for-profit takes a very particular mindset. The ones that are run well accumulate surpluses only for a very specific purpose. Why RA-Aus needs $1.8million in cash is beyond me. That's pretty much 12 months operating without a cent coming in the door! Also very concerned at the $200k surplus that was generated in both 2011 and 2012 - especially when the administration function has been lacking capacity. Wouldn't be concerned about the building valuation at all as there are no liabilities attached to it (very few liabilities in total actually). If it all goes belly up the building can be sold for whatever - there are $450,000 in reserves which are most likely 100% attributable to past write-ups of the building valuation anyway so the accounts could comfortably show the building at $650,000 without a cent disappearing from the bank account. It's a bloody good-looking set of accounts for a small not-for-profit in my view. I'd push to start formulating ideas to get the cash reserves down now though before someone comes up with some hair-brained scheme that blows the lot on something that none of us really wanted... There's no point RA-Aus trying to self-insure as it's too damn small to even consider it. If the insurance cover doesn't come through then we all simply walk away and try again. The government spends plenty of money on funds for plaintiff's that can't get paid because they send the defendant bankrupt. Just get that cash reserve spent on something we all want before anything happens!

Definitely great idea to go with a pump if available. We actually use Avgas in the Gazelle's 912 as it removes a lot of the risk of spillage (once you've had a little practice), is a hell of a lot easier than filling and transporting 6 x 20 litre jerry cans every weekend and most importantly in my view removes the risk of damage to the aircraft by a student slipping with a jerry can and writing off a wing! The less time the wings and our hands/clothing spend soaked in petrol the better also. robinsm on here has actually rigged up a little pump on a jerry can which he can plumb into his fuel system when doing long cross-country's. Gives him an emergency reserve if it's needed and makes refuelling off-campus a lot easier.

Unfortunate that CASA had to step in with the big stick in this case but I'm very happy with the progress being made. Takes guts in these situations to step up and get the work done rather than sit on your hands and whinge so well done to the guys getting the documents in order finally. They're also happy for any help that people can give - especially during the week. So if anyone's around the Canberra area and has some spare time it might help everyone out if you give them a call.

From experience throw any and all rules and regulations out the window. If there's parachutists around then approach the airfield with extreme caution. The drop plane should make radio calls and the good operators do but you cannot rely on this. You also cannot place any faith in the parachutists landing on the airfield. Anywhere in a 3 mile radius is to be expected once the chutes open. Generally we stay high and wide until we spot the canopies, then wait for the canopies to touch the ground. Once they've all touched you just have to wait for the ones getting dragged backwards along the runway by their chute to stop sliding and gather themselves up... Basically it's like any different air-based vehicle - we all operate quite differently. All the instructors at the school have the same advice - basically to stay clear and not try to enforce any rules as that will just get people killed. Kind of like flying in general :) . Oh and definitely park your aircraft well out of the way (especially when the aircraft parking area at the airport is less than 100 metres from the dropzone target...).

Well a big thank you to the guys at RA-Aus for their efforts last Friday. The J170 registration was renewed at 7:30pm which allowed some training to take place on the Saturday. Thankyou for the extra efforts put into getting flying school aircraft around the country back into the air!

I think you've actually morphed into the flying bug that other people catch!

I've always approached the weather from a different angle due to flying only for fun I suppose. Basically if both the 'socks swinging and it's more than 4/8ths i'll generally stay on the ground. If the METAR or TAF has weird and wonderful acronyms pasted across it then i'll search the local area for one that doesn't have any such weird acronyms and usually plan a flight there. Just matching my flying to the effort I want to put in. It's a recreational activity for me so if i'm not having fun it's time for a cuppa or i'm homeward bound. Same goes with fishing - if it's looking miserable the alarm gets switched off...

Go do your PPL and pass your PPL theory test and you'll be good. One of the questions in the sample exams was this exact question! From memory employees flying an aircraft with other employees as passengers is fine and dandy so long as the pilot is not walking away with any cash in their hand. Biggest question i'd be confirming is the insurance coverage of the aircraft...

Well the school had its first weekend of flying cancelled largely due to the registration issues. Our Gazelle was grounded due to maintenance being needed and the Jabiru's rego expired on the 29th of November. Fees paid about 3 weeks prior to expiry but still held up in the backlog. I'm quite sure there are some out there who'd fly it anyway but that's not the way we do things. That's 2 full days flying down the drain...

I think the job title of CEO should be dropped immediately - especially from these discussions. It really gives the wrong impression for a job that is first and foremost about administration. It's all about the paperwork at the moment. Forget all this blowing wind up our skirts by wanting someone "to take on CASA". That's not the job. The job is to keep the paperwork inline with orders from CASA. Once this is sorted out then, and only then, should we be thinking about making wholesale changes to the sport. Keep it simple! Get yourself a great administration team together with support from the board (and the members!) and the administrative stuff would be a walk in the park. Add some support from technical experts and bob's your uncle you have a fully-functioning self-governing organisation. Anyone thick enough to want to "Take on CASA" can go join AOPA!

Depends on what you'd class as the CEO's job really. In my view RA-Aus is an administrative organisation. It employs technical officers for the technical side but its primary purpose is to keep the documents in order and ensure we're operating within CASA's mandate. I simply do not think you need aviation experience in order to perform these simple and basic functions. With a board consisting of experienced pilots and builders and qualified technical staff already in the organisation someone with some simple administrative nous is what's clearly missing in my view.

I'd be pushing for no flying experience for any new CEO. Their job at the moment is purely getting together the administration side of the enterprise under direct orders from CASA. Anyone with an administrative/secretarial background should be able to make light work of getting things in order. Also needs to be a mandate from the RA-Aus board that any aircraft whose files are not currently in order be grounded until the files are put in order. Should make the owners and pilots of those aircraft more than willing to be supportive of the RA-Aus team. In my mind a lot of the blame is on anyone who hasn't supplied our administrative body with the information they need. I mean being pro-active and asking questions rather than sitting back and being slack. We're all in this together after all!

Dick Smith's field is probably the one you're talking about? It's his private field. He's sometimes extended an "all welcome" when he's popped in for the odd BBQ day at the flying school but I haven't heard of anyone accepting the invitation...

Hi Smubbs, Welcome to the forum! We'd be happy to welcome you at Goulburn. I'm with Goulburn Aviation and we have online a Gazelle (although it has a sore leg after the weekend so will be offline for a couple of weeks), a J170 (thanks to Eric!) and now a Sportstar. If you're looking primarily for aircraft hire then feel free to pm me and i'd be happy to talk further. The website has contact details also - www.goulburnaviation.com.au . If you're interested in the social side the school's been running a BBQ on the first Saturday of every month around midday for close to 20 years. All welcome. There will be a small BBQ in December on Saturday the 1st however there'll be a larger one on the 22nd as we always have a gathering on the last Saturday before Christmas. You'd be more than welcome at this one also!

I keep going back to the basics of the whole RA-Aus institution. The Minister outlined what he considered to be acceptable levels of risk for the organisation (2 seats, weight limits, no crashing into populated areas etc.). Then it was handed over to RA-Aus to "Self-regulate". If the members of RA-Aus want accident reports then we'll have to stump up the funds ourselves. Alternatively fly GA where anything and everything is covered and highly regulated. I don't know why so many people want more regulation in RA-Aus - it's reinventing the wheel when GA has 100 years of knowledge and information behind it. In my view RA-Aus needs to go the other way and draw a very firm line in the sand with the aircraft and pilots that should be in GA and the aircraft and pilots that should be in RA. My opinion is they need to step away from trying to do more and focus on doing what they can in the very best manner. I think weight limits are pretty much redundant nowadays - anyone can make a 2 seat aircraft underneath the weight limit (it'll probably just fall apart in flight). I think that's evidenced by the plethora of RA-Aus aircraft options available at the moment. The many options available go a long way to contributing to the paperwork burden that RA-Aus is currently experiencing no doubt. CASA on behalf of the Minister instigated various minimum record-keeping requirements and the rest has been left up to RA-Aus. The recent troubles are because those minimums have not even been attained. For me it's clear that a lot of the trouble for RA-Aus has arisen due to the influx of RA-Aus pilots from the GA spectrum. These pilots have an entirely different background and perception than the RA-Aus founders with their simple rag and tube. Anyone else like the soapbox now I'm done?

At the crux of the matter is RA-Aus's mandate to provide a cheaper, more affordable form of aviation. As such we do without many of the things the GA spectrum takes for granted. The simplest reason RA-Aus do not investigate accidents (and in my opinion why they never should) is the whole basis of the RA-Aus system - "Fly at your own risk". If any efforts are to be expended in this area they should be firmly focused on educating the members and the general public about this fact in my view. Another prime reason is the simple fact that a reliable (let alone thorough) paper trail does not exist for many RA-Aus aircraft.

David Clarks for me! My set came from an elderly gentleman who had been using them for 15 years and was happy to pass them on to a passionate aviator at a very reasonable price (one of the joys of hanging around a good group of aviators!). They're still spotless and have been utterly dependable for the last 5 years. The Flying School has quite a few sets of David Clarkes (a few different models) - some of them have been going for 20-odd years in the school without any issues apparently. Replace the gel ear pieces and they're right for another 5-10 years without a hiccup. There's a reason they're pretty much the default choice around the world. Couple of students (and 2 instructors) use the Bose or Lightspeed ANR ones and love them. Personally I'd hate having to carry around extra batteries all the time and having to deal with the battery pack (the damn cables provide me with enough frustration!). Saw a nice cable-free headset being developed at our last fly-in to Temora though which looked promising. That said before buying I had a go at the different models at the school, along with a few flights with borrowed Lightspeed and Bose headsets and some others whose name I can't remember. Some didn't work with my glasses, some sat weird and others didn't cover my ears properly... Definitely get into a club or school and try them all if you can!

As usual there are trade-offs. If you're happy and confident/competent enough to do your own maintenance, only want to carry 1 passenger and are happy flying purely in VFR conditions outside of controlled airspace then you really meet the most pure definition of the RA-Aus pilot. If you're not wishing to do your own maintenance or aren't confident/competent enough (more like me in other words) and want to carry more than 1 passenger, would like access to controlled airspace and would like the possibility to undertake NVFR/IFR's or pursue commercial avenues then it's GA all the way. The GA "RPL" sits a bit in the middle with only 1 passenger, someone else maintaining your aircraft and some other limitations. I think the RPL was predominantly brought in to stop forcing experienced GA pilots to move out of the aircraft they're most familiar with and into RA-Aus aircraft. I agree very much with rgmwa though - certainly do not buy an aircraft until you have a good understanding of the real costs and time involved with all the different options available.

Well I for one am quite relieved that something has happened. Disgusted that it has got this far but nonetheless relieved that someone has finally put their foot down! This could be an interesting period for the Association and the industry. They've come a long way since it all started - is it just coincidence or did the downhill slide start around the time we all thought that we were more important than the word "ultralight"? So many businesses/organisations have failed through focusing on growth and prestige whilst paying scant attention to the simple procedures and administration functions that provided their foundation. Hopefully the situation is salvageable and refocuses attention on the true purpose of an Administration organisation.

Thanks Kaz - always learning something new. Do you know of any cases where "anonymous" posters on internet forums have been held to account in this manner? Can't be too common can it?

Could you elaborate then on what basis the parties to the proceedings might see fit to call me? I don't see how I could offer anything more to them than speculation?

Happy to attend to offer my utterly unscientific and at best marginally professional soap-box style opinions!

A group organised through the Illawarra Flyers did the trip just a few months ago. At least one ultralight did the crossing - Australias only Storm Rally and I think they said a Jabiru J230 did the trip also. Plenty of good planning went in and there were plenty of lifejackets around. A couple who used to be from Goulburn and fly up most BBQ days went along (Storm Rally owenrs) and absolutely loved it from all accounts!

Crash site has been viewed by many of the local pilots over the years since the accident and most consider it more than suitable for a forced landing. Some have visited the location on foot (there was a small memorial which I think is still there). Question is really why a "landing" does not appear to have been attempted. The general consensus is there were other extenuating circumstances. The force of the impact and the fact the parachute had been deployed raises too many questions really. Had they pulled the chute only to have it not fire until they were too close to the ground? Had the engine failure caused the cowling to obscure their view? Had the cabin filled with smoke? So many possibilities - I don't think anyone will ever know what really happened. The only thing that was investigated (and not very thoroughly really if you compare it to other ATSB reports) was the engine failure...