turboplanner

Yes we applied for a DA. WE have been given consent to operate. The DA was issued under existing use rights, as an airfireld is not permissible in the zone. But the New LEP does allow for an airfield, and its this that they are trying to stop.

FAR103 type of ruling will fix most of the over regulation. Getting people to actually understand what a real ultralight is would be a big step foreward as well. Low and slow and lightweight. I think the reason the real grass roots pilots don't speak up to loud is they don't want to attract attention. If the masses finally woke up to how much fun we are having we would get more regulation for our trouble. all the old school i know want out of the RAAus not more involvement.

So a slight hint of what might be needed, but a lot of jumps to blame the organization/want a different one.

I totally agree that $187.00 annual membership fee is outrageous for the present service, but when this came up for discussion I was shouted down by people claiming it was petty cash.

That's one area within you power to change.

RAA can pretty much do what it wants organization-wise, if it had a mind to, so setting up different classes with different standards is a routine matter, if members have a mind to do it - however it's not going to happen just by shouting abuse at those members who would have to vote on it. It requires an overall vision of what's wanted, and a written policy showing how this would be achieved, what the scope of activity would be, and how this would be managed.

I wouldn't recommend grass roots flyers try to do that on a forum (because as we know with the best of intentions the subject gets off track and stops progressing forward), but rather use the forum to canvas support and a broad outline.

You do have to separate regulations and procedures which should not have been applied to grass roots flying from regulations brought in during the last 25 years or so to reduce injury and loss of life - even if you make sandwiches for a kids football match you are bound by those regulations and procedures, so you are never going to get all the way back to the old days - they're gone.

Two men into power lines would most likely not be a professional low level crop sprayer I guess.

Yes we applied for a DA. WE have been given consent to operate. The DA was issued under existing use rights, as an airfireld is not permissible in the zone. But the New LEP does allow for an airfield, and its this that they are trying to stop.

With a new DA your rights are what's written in the DA, and the previous Existing Use right may have been dissolved with the change, in which case what you have to argue with in the forthcoming case is not as bullet proof.

Hopefully I'm wrong in assuming they've managed to cut loose the old Existing Use rights.

You gave up the protection of 1 (g) flood prone zoning too?

So there's a DA?

Last time we discussed this I thought the field had been there for some years and qualified as an Existing Use right, in which case the group could whistle and scream for 30 years and get nowhere.

A new DA if that's what has occurred is strategic dynamite, since Existing Use could be lost, in which case their chances improve massively.

Well that's not really rag and tube though, so that's a third direction.

It's not about support for "rag and tube", it's about cost increase at the lower end because the top end wants more, meaning more regulation, more certification, box ticking and parasite industries trying to suck the life out of recreational aviation. It's not just aviation it's happening in, I know, it's Australia wide and further. My flying budget is already marginal but adequate (although some might argue), for myself, and I suspect many others that enjoy the simple side of flying, further costs would mean not flying (legally). I'm all for flying whatever type you want, just don't ask me to help pay for it.

(b) Partly due to that SE (someone else) attitude, I suspect we were saddled with many unnecessary regulation changes simply because they were made behind our backs for a variety of motives.

That was my point Nev - it's an expensive hobby.

What would your reaction be though if there was a $25,000.00 two stroke single or dual seater available as an ARF (almost ready to fly) kit?

Teckair's right, there's plenty of nostalgia and pining for the fencehoppers, but no momentum.

By lazy, I meant that the rag and tubers are not organising information days, functions, putting plans out there, building anything, accessing test reports.

It's a vacuum, with every now and then someone complaining that RAA is dominated by the top end, but doing nothing about it.

If, for some reason the top end aircraft were banned (and right now that's a shivering thought) right now there still wouldn't be any exciting grass roots aircraft to fly.

Even Pete the Pilot seems to have exhausted his keyboard power after just one post - the only ones who have stopped are the rag and tubers.

Don't sit there and hold us up guys, those who want to fly do something about it, I'm not going to design a plane for you.

There's plenty of room for that too Nev.

However, in both cases you have to assess whether there are any takers for your market.

Most of them are too busy texting each other and posting crap on Facebook.

Putting it another way, as far as I can see, if someone wanted top set up a production line to build a series of similar aircraft to Thruster/Drifter, or similar, I can't see any impediments within RAA which would disallow that.

The person would only need to be able to price the package to get customers.

The key issue in the bigger RA products is the relatively short engine life - let's say you buy a new aircraft and fly it a lot, and at five years you need a new engine. At that point, when your spend is complete, your costs are above GA.

Quite a few RA owners seem to have dropped out due to this peak cost which they never budgeted for.

So I can see a reappraisal from people who don't necessary want to travel cross-country, but just want to fly, and suspect it will take an entrepreneur to emerge and market that concept backed up by a well designed product. In other words, there's a vacant market slot right now.

A bit more BS and dribble; all members have equal rights, some are just lazier than others.

Thought so.

........extrapolate on the footpath in front of the bone RSL is...........

.....ten cent piece and a pocket knife because.............

They are paying, it's just being done at a good rate. Unfortunately the previous contractor didnt finish the job so the current contractor is only using what was left for him.

.freshly whitened teeth flashing in the beeze.

The epaulets were dazzling, his shirt was monogrammed with "Flying Forever" and underneath "Bob Hoover"

He wasn't actually, claiming he was Bob Hoover, he told himself.

One of the shapely Lygon St chicks, with big b(language, mod) and all her teeth yelled out "BELLISSIMO!"

Turbo flashed her a big smile.......and then realised she was talking about the car.

Well that may be the case Turbo but just because it is done this way doesn't make it right, this policy helps no one..IMO..I think it should be a discussion issue, I don't how you do it, I am not in the a legal person but I think it it needs to be addressed and not just talked about.. people that I have spoken to and in general say it needs to be changed so that we get full disclosure after all the facts are bought together, well lets get off our bums and bloodly well do something about it..its just to important..(I have just seen the class action tread, maybe I should have put this there)

 

David

Your choices are:

(a) Close down RAA and assimilate into the GA system where you will get ATSB reports if ATSB considers the expense warranted.

(b) Contact your State Minister for Police and Emergency Services and ask him to try to get the Police similar powers and indemnifications to ATSB to allow them to release details of their investigations into recreational aircraft crashes. That's something you can do with your own bum, you don't need ours.

........seized by the urge to buy a computer from Vinnnies, throw it at the front fence a few dozen times and-write-like-bone-the-defender.

It-had-been-some-time since-the-NESSERS-gad all been thrown out of the BOB because.............

Well I have one, I propose we are given full disclosure on the findings from accidents so that we can all learn what went wrong and how it went wrong, not just this sanitised version we seem to get, how can we fix it if we dont know?Was it a structual failure of the aircraft in which case we can send our a circular to owners to check their planes or was it a training failure in human factors or similar, we can include it into our training program or work harder on the particular problem that was indentified.

 

We are losing good people and we need this info to try and fix it IMO.

 

So their is my motion for the meeting.

 

David

You'll find the answers to that over and over and over again on these forum threads David.

The power to investigate RA accidents is vested in the police and they do not release details..

If I had an engine failure, I would be turning on my ELB before making the forced landing. I would think everybody does that. One may not be in a position to turn on the ELB (or even find it) after they have got onto the ground. Nothing on my local news channels here.

I had a life experience yesterday.

My wife was cruising on the Princes Highway, when, beyond belief a car drove out of a side road straight through a give way sign and on to our lane. She flicked the car sideways instantly (had been a race driver) and that prevented us from clipping the other vehicle and rolling or diverting into trees, She rolled to a stop in shock, the other driver's reaction was just to keep driving.

If we arrived half a second later the other driver probably would have killed me. If we arrived a second later we would have killed the other driver.

I thought I was very calm, reassured my wife, but a few minutes later realised I couldn't remember if the driver was male or female or what make or model the other car was, only a "small grey car"

I've found historically my emergency response has varied considerably incident to incident from lightning fast reaction to sitting there staring to actually incorrectly operating controls - just depends on how alert I am in the lead up and how my mind reacts to the "believability" that something is wrong. Not activating an ELB when there are other major issues, I can understand; you would never forget normally, but......

Hope she's just down in the pine tress somewhere and walking out.

webbm makes a good point and OME, that makes sense.

After a quick scan, the raw data could hurt some innocent people without solving any problems.

I've consistently said one of the most urgent priorities for RAA is to get back into compliance with CASA rather than invent new corporate structures, so I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't go through the data carefully with the aim of working out what action was needed to comply. I'm working with a board member on this, and while that may be an unspectacular path, I think it will produce a result, but that may take a little time. OME, if the information in the first audit sets the scene for what concerned CASA, I'll post the key things. The documents are vintage CASA - many more words than are necessary for clear communication.

Just to clarify my earlier statement, the TERM "Jab Basher" is offensive, particularly when referring to posts from people qualified to make them, and where firm evidence is quoted.