68volksy

Well the rego matches the aircraft type and it's listed as one of only four initial issues. I'm all ears.

Just browsing through the list of "Initial Registrations" approved by RA-Aus during January 2013 out of interest and noted the registration of an aircraft that has been used for flight training for close to 12 months listed. Talk about lax standards and record keeping! Wonder if anyone in RA-Aus has made the connection? More to the point I wonder whether anyone in RA-Aus has or will be doing anything about it...

Hi Andy, You're quite right the growth in RA-Aus is not in the 95.10 sector. CASA has introduced the RPL to help pilots who have flown GA aircraft for many years stay in the GA regime. I too think it's safer letting people fly what they're used to rather than forcing them to retrain and fly totally different aircraft. From what I see at the local flying school there has been a huge number of GA pilots come through the door who can't get their medical and want to get their RA-Aus certificate. I'm not saying RA-Aus will feel the change straight away but that stream of new members has now been stopped. There are many changes coming to the GA training area and splitting of training schools into those that train commercial pilots and those that train recreational pilots I believe with reduced requirements for the recreational schools. Along with this are changes coming to the licences themselves starting in the full introduction of the RPL. The initial change made by way of exemption that coljones mentions was a little treat prior to the rest of the changes coming through. This is all in an effort to make GA flying more accessible and should reduce costs substantially. I wouldn't be surprised to find the DL medical becoming a requirement to holding an RA-Aus Certificate in the not too distant future if RA-Aus ever gets on top of the paperwork backlog. Although that's a feeling more than from any discussions i've had.

Right - back to the matter at hand! My current thinking is that RA-Aus may naturally find itself drawn back towards its grass roots membership base with the way CASA is heading. With the introduction of the RPL (and further changes in the pipeline), massive changes coming to the way that GA flying schools operate & how they're regulated and a big influx of LSA aircraft the "plastic fantastic" side of RA-Aus looks set to diminish greatly over time. That seems to be the aim of CASA at this stage anyway. The only difference that may remain is the ability to do some of your own maintenance on your aircraft if it's RA registered although there are huge changes coming in this area too I believe. There is also the SAAA to take care of the home-built side of things. Their relationship with CASA over the years appears to have been solid. There also appear to be a lot of CASA staff who are members of the SAAA to help them with getting things right. Wouldn't be surprised to hear that the SAAA gets a slightly broader responsibility if they're keen for it. It's quite apparent that soon we'll have GA pilots who are not required to have a medical being trained at schools who are not required to hold an AOC by instructors with much reduced requirements flying newly registered aircraft (with very similar capabilities to the old GA aircraft and no annual registration fee) that are much cheaper to maintain and run but staying out of controlled airspace and only carrying 1 passenger... Sound familiar?

Perhaps we could simplify all this "what caused the accident" discussion and where RA-Aus had any influence with a look at the first two points that the ATSB is investigating futher: 1. examination and assessment of the conduct of the pilot’s training and issue of the pilot’s certificate 2. assessment of the ergonomics of the Sierra cockpit, including the control locations and indicators as they might have contributed to the development of the accident Seems they've glossed over the whole "placement of the ferris wheel argument" and gone straight to why the pilot decided to or came to fly himself into it. Just because it was there doesn't mean he had to fly into it in my view. The main liability issue around all this seems to be the failure of RA-Aus to properly educate the public and pilots about what a "factory built" aircraft actually means in the RA-Aus spectrum (effectively nothing) and the experience and competence that a "Pilot Certificate" holder can reliably be said to possess. As i said before if CASA decides to walk away clean then we're the ones who'll have to rebuild the shattered reputation. There are so many regulation changes coming from CASA over the next 5 years that will cut into the RA-Aus "core market" that it would seem that RA-Aus may end up being "persuaded" to once again looking after the rag and tube pilots that it was first created to serve.

Agreed David - that was the point I was trying to make. (I don't believe that the issue was with the splay but that's another discussion!)

It's funny that this has turned from a discussion on the safety aspects (or potential dangers) that could have arisen into a discussion purely based on politics. I think it's important to remember that it's purely the failures of RA-Aus that led to the ferris wheel accident - nothing at all to do with CASA. CASA walks away from this one as clean as a slate (as do any politicians) blaming the failures of RA-Aus. That in my mind is the case that seems to be building. Regardless of the political machinations underway there are serious public safety issues that have been uncovered due to the accident. I include the everyday pilot as a member of the public as they're the ones getting the training and buying the aircraft who are then finding themselves so often in situations they cannot handle.

I'm not sure I agree that CASA would get cut in a knife fight. I think it'd be more along the lines of the RA-Aus butter-knife jugglers versus the Enloa Gay. I think the public would be finally happy to see something getting done rather than getting uppity about being a bit too lenient in the past. Quite sure any politicians spin machine would handle that. End of the day if I was CASA and had 9,000 whinging pilots constantly shaking their fists at me as though they really had any power i know the approach i'd be taking...

This would be precisely the main problem with the incident and why ATSB/CASA are so interested in it. If incidents such as these drag all aviation safety into question then these organisation are seen to be not doing their job and generally someone's head will roll. As you can imagine these organisations are chock full of people who have put a great deal of sweat into making sure it looks like they're doing their job. Cross them at your peril. .

I actually have a feeling that the one ferris wheel may have been enough. The investigation on that is still ongoing and it's my impression that it was the impetus behind everything that has happened since and the hard-set attitude adopted by CASA in suspending the registration renewals. It seems apparent that ATSB and CASA delved further into the "regulation" of RA-Aus and the further they dig the more rot they've found.

How many people are grounding their flying school to attend this meeting I wonder... I know the Goulburn school is going to have to shut the doors on the busiest day of the week in order to attend.

I do agree dazza although there would no doubt be exceptions to the generalisation. In the same vein if someone needed an aircraft to last 100,000 hours and 30-40,000 landings then it would seem nose wheel all the way is the current line of thinking.

More skill for taildraggers? What a load of nonsense. A new skill perhaps but certainly not "more skill". And a new skill that only arises due to the things being harder to handle on the ground, in take-off and landing. When did Boeing or Airbus last make a taildragger is all i can ask. The only reason you'd fly a taildragger is purely aesthetic (unless you're a red-bull pilot where 10grams of weight is the difference between winning and losing). I personally love the look of them on the ground - all eager to fly with their nose pointed skywards - but being more interested in flying than I am in landing, taking-off and taxiing it's pretty hard to justify the development of an all-new skill to achieve that purpose.

When I was six years old i learnt to use a map. Never had to be re-trained in how to use it or had to upgrade my hardware. Never had to replace the batteries. Never tried to bore anyone to death pointing at all the cool little blue dots and pink lines. It's always moved the way I want - even when I have greasy fingers. In the same vein it's always zoomed to exactly the right ratio through a little flex of the elbow and wrist. Never been concerned about dropping it or leaving it in the sun or dribbling my coffee on it. It has the greatest little moving cursor that shows exactly where I am at any time and is shaped just like my finger although it has the option to change the shape to look like the tip of my pencil.

Good tax advantages to owning the aircraft and cross-hiring - especially if you're personally earning a higher income. To get around the "quarantining" that Sue talks of above you just need the business to turn over more than $20k. Make the cross-hire a wet agreement and that's a lot easier to achieve. As the business would get access to the accelerated depreciation rates the plane can be depreciated at a rate of 30% (15% in the first year). That's where the major benefit lies, especially if you're looking at an aircraft worth more than $50k. After the first few years the aircraft will break-even and start generating a profit so you need to be prepared for that. There may also be a profit should you come to sell the aircraft. Generally you're looking at a net taxable loss of $12-15k for the business (on paper) in the first few years on a $50-70k aircraft. Generates a tax saving of $4,440 - $6,750 depending on the loss and tax bracket. The more you spend on maintenance and improving the aircraft in those first few years the better. Talk to your accountant though. Many of them seem to be working for the ATO so make sure you find one that is working for you. Also extremely important to find a good school to hire through and a solid aircraft. Personally I'd avoid this arrangement with an RA-Aus aircraft as there aren't many that are built like the 172's and Warriors that have had 40 years and 20,000 hours pounding and are still going strong.

I still say if RA-Aus wants a qualified accountant in the organisation then employ one. Getting a competent one to volunteer is very unlikely to happen. Getting a competent one to volunteer and then having them do everything for free is even more unlikely. Only real option is a recently retired accountant i'd say. I'd put my hand up but not being naive about these things anymore I know exactly what will come of it and how much work would get turned my way. The boards role is not to get involved in the day-to-day operations but rather to employ competent people to ensure things are run smoothly. Alfa - you don't sound like you work in accounting circles? There is no real difference between a CPA and a CA after they get some good experience behind them really. The main difference is the entry requirements - the CPA entry requirements are generally seen as a lot easier to achieve with most exams as multiple choice. To gain entry to the Institute (CA) you need to do a graduate diploma in accounting and actually figure out a lot of things for yourself. We employ both in my office without much preference however we try to persuade our graduates to do the CA program as it's so different to what they've usually encountered at Uni and really challenges them early in their career. Don't get me started on the "National Institute of Accountants" though!!!

I'd disagree with the need for a Treasurer to be an accountant. There should definitely be an accountant or experienced bookkeeper either on the staff part-time or on a contract basis though. The treasurer's job is more to work with the staff to manage the business, prepare budgets and to analyse whether proposed board initiatives can be met. All on a volunteer basis. It's because all these positions are volunteer that their roles should be kept simple and the work done by qualified employees. In my experience finding an accountant who hasn't been approached by dozens of organisations already and turned them all down is hard. I've said yes to a couple and what the boards expect to get for free has always blown me away. Many accountants are happy to provide advice on boards but they all know they'll get asked to prepare the financials, do the budgets and then get dragged into sorting out each and every day-to-day issue. Jobs that should be done by an employee, not a volunteer. There are some accountants out there with a list an arm long of the volunteer boards they've been on but look at these people very carefully. Some are honestly trying to improve their community but within the list lurks the down-trodden accountant with a chip in their shoulder and something to prove. They'll tear the place apart trying to make their point.

With all the who-ha that's currently going on about how useless everyone is I figured i'd stir the good old pot a little differently. There's so much soup on the floor at the moment it can't do much damage ;-). Who's up for a good old-fashioned re-emergence of the ultralight federation? Perhaps with a max VNO limit to keep those pesky plastic fantastics away and to focus the attention of a volunteer board and staff on their job? With just a few thousand members it should make the admin workload a little easier also. I haven't been around the aviation circles for that long but i hear too many stories of how simple and easy things "used to be"...

The audit report is actually prepared and signed by the auditor (there's a signed copy on the RA-Aus website). The audit report provides an opinion from the auditor on the financial accounts. It is the financial accounts that are prepared by the organisation which are then audited and the audit report is attached. The auditor states quite clearly in their report that (in their opinion) the accounts represent a true and fair view etc. (the following isn't aimed at you kg ) I'd love for everyone to keep in mind that an audit is an audit and to look it up in the dictionary if you're unsure of the meaning. It is not a certification that everything is 100% accurate (the more time you spend in accounting the more you realise there's no such thing as "100% accurate"!!!). It is simply a statement that procedures have been followed (generally the auditing standards) and an opinion expressed. Look closely at the opinion - it uses the words "True and Fair", not 100% accurate.

I'm sure it's been around before but here it is for those that haven't seen it (like me). 20121220120316059.pdf 20121220120316059.pdf 20121220120316059.pdf

Can I just say that there is absolutely no need for alarm just because an organisation has "called in the auditors". Most small organisations like RA-Aus do not have a team of qualified accountants fully versed in all the requirements needed to run a small business. I (as an auditor) often get called in when something is dug up in such organisations as I'm the only person with accounting or business knowledge that they know. It also helps that I understand their business thoroughly. It would appear that this is exactly what has happened in this instance. On the subject of what an auditor does I suggest a careful reading of the audit report. An auditors role is to provide assurance, not to certify. Many people expect the auditor to uncover fraud and there are many things we do to this purpose, however it needs to be remembered that the purpose of fraud is not to be detected! An auditor does not re-create each and every entry made during the year - they simply test transactions and verify account balances in order to reduce the risk of a misstatement. All this is done with a view to what is considered material to a reasonable user of the accounts (ie what amount would affect their interpretation of the accounts and decision-making processes).

I suppose if we're going down that line there's also ASIC as the Association is a Regulated Body. Not that either body has any real interest in small associations like RA-Aus...

Plenty of schools do the "survival" style course for partners. Teraya at the school in Goulburn has done it with quite a few partners. Keep in mind that the situation is an absolutely real emergency situation. If the pilot's collapsed the passenger needs to fly the plane, navigate and communicate. The quicker they can get it on the ground and the pilot to an ambulance the better their chances. Don't bother trying to train her yourself - there's too many variables to consider that not even the most bold level of arrogance will counteract. Get an instructor to show her the basics about how to put it on the ground. Generally in the courses they won't go solo but the instructor gets them to a standard where they will be able to put it down in an emergency, and handle the necessary emergency radio calls and transponder codes - handy if the pilot's just had a heart attack and require an ambulance. Sometimes there is some navigational work thrown in but it's less necessary if you can get on the radio to ATC as soon as possible to declare an emergency. The radio work is the most important in many respects. There's a great story out there about the wife whose husband collapsed taking the controls of the aircraft they were in. She had no idea how to fly but she had picked up how to talk on the radio. Another pilot in the vicinity was current in the aircraft she was flying and managed to talk her all the way down to the airport where all the ambulances and fire engines were waiting. From memory the landing was messy but they both survived. That's the focus in these situations that only an instructor can teach. There is little focus on the aircraft being able to fly again - just getting the plane down without any real damage to the occupants.

2 year membership payments should have shown up as "Income in Advance" or as another liability account in some way to be brought to account as the income was earned. The debtors figure shouldn't relate to this unless it was very weird such as a 2 year membership payable in annual installments...

There should only in the most rarest of circumstances be a direct correlation between revenue and cash inflows. The decrease in debtors almost matching the difference between cash inflows and revenues (and their relationship in the calculation of both revenue and the cashflow statement) would lead me to thinking they are related. The cash inflow for the year will vary from the revenue figure due to any change in the debtors balance and changes in some provisions and accruals. The fact that the organisation takes up a debtors balance means straight away that cash inflows will not match revenue for any given year unless debtors remain static (which they generally do not). The targeted question would be more along the lines of what makes up the debtors balance and why the change this year? The organisation could have been taking up a debtor and when any registration or membership fell due and have now stopped this process? Can't tell anything for sure though without talking to the person who prepared the accounts. Funny having no debtors this year however the amount is largely immaterial.