Oscar

Oscar, we also have an historical paper issue. So, we need an effective document management system with old paper records searchable online and, for the first time ever, backed up! The new system of course would be all digital.

Don, I know that there has been some work put in to digitising the current paper-base records - but the flaw there has been that no work has been done to defining data elements and recordng the data in usable data fields. It is all scanning of documents into .pdf s. There is some value in that: it will require a data capture programme to get the information into fields that can be imported into a RDBMS, that can be perhaps sent in digital form to a bureau service. However, this is an example of where a lack of strategic planning makes expenditure less than effective.

 

Document management should be a subset of the business process rules, and is extremely important in providing auditability of the processes.

 

 

Don - what can I say but 'a chapeau' (or for those who think the original phrase is 'wanky' - 'I tips me lid'. I hope people are following this thread with interest, I think we are really getting somewhere with it. (And my father was a Kurri Kurri lad, so Maitland is kind of close to the family DNA, but I'll probably be traversing a bit west of it on my usual hops).

 

KG: 100% correct. I can only talk about Peoplesoft, but when it comes down to it for that system, experienced IT people can see it is a motley collection of apps. developed on Oracle, most of which need serious modification to work in any actual enterprise environment. At USyd, where I was consulting as a Project Manager for a number of projects mostly to do with on-line educational delivery, they had when I started there a home-grown financial system that actually worked well; I could use it for my project management budget control. After something like 12 months into the Peoplesoft implementation, the USyd management realised that they were in deep cacky and sent one of their top bods (who happened to be a mate of mine) to research the Peoplesoft implementations in a number of US universities. He came back and reported that typically, a Peoplesoft implementation had cost $40m over the purchase price in adaption - and that even then, individual Departments had resorted to using their own Excel spreadsheets for budget control (as I, and many of the faculties, had already done!) .

 

The ludicrous rigidity of the Peoplesoft design required that, to get to my monthly budget expenditure and project budget balance, I had to go in through the 'Goods Received' module! I won't go further with this, other than to say: it became apparent that under Peoplesoft, USyd (a $500m/year turnover enterprise) would not have known on any day where its finances were to within 10% at best. If you think I am critical of the implementation, you should see what the NSW Auditor-General had to say..

 

There is no way that RAA can hope to pick up a developed application that will do the job. It will have to be developed; it is possible that the cost of such development might be somewhat returned by on-selling (or alternatively, offering bureau services) to other recreational aviation organisations that have the same combination of circumstances. That would be cream on the cake, frankly; I think that RAA could get value for investment just on improving its own performance.

 

 

Oh, yes indeedy - avoid SAP, Peoplesoft, Sebel. I have had first-hand and regrettable experience of two Peoplesoft implementations (Uni of Sydney, Uni of NSW first-hand and they are obscenely costly). The small IT firm of which I was a co-Director developed a web-delivered RDBMS-based full-enterprise business process management system for less than $500k for a significant Australian consulting/engineering company ( $50m annual turnover) with offices in several Australian States, China, New Zealand and Dubai. The company (now owned by WorleyParsons) was sufficiently impressed that they made us an offer to become members of the company that we couldn't refuse - though I decided to retire rather than live permanently in Sydney again..

 

I personally don't want to get back into the saddle as a business process analyst/systems analyst, having spent from about 1978 through to 2006 or so doing that plus major project management, but I'd be happy to sit in to help guide the development of an RAA system. I live two hours drive from Canberra, so I can even do the FtF stuff..

 

HOWEVER: I have long, long experience of the fact that it is simply not possible to develop an effective business process management system without extremely thorough analysis and specification of the transaction process requirements including both the data elements and the process rules. The best programmers in the world cannot deliver a good system if they do not have an adequate specification of what the system needs to do. Unless RAA were to be serious about the system development and not take the 'let's just get a couple of web-page designers to knock something up' approach, count me out.

 

In fact, I think that a seriously effective development could be achieved for probably a couple of hundred $k, possibly less. It's simply not going to happen for $50k, or even $100k. If RAA are prepared to embrace the idea that they will have to spend serious $$ for a result, then it's possible to scope the project and develop a putative budget; if RAA thinks it can be done by two web-designers working for corn chips and Red Bull, forget it.

 

 

John M: you might like to know that CAMit have a 'solid lifter' conversion kit that you can retrofit to a hydraulic lifter engine; if you also add the new CAMit revised-geometry rocker arms that reduce the side-loading on the valve stems and the el-neato CAMit rocker arm bushes, you'll have a pretty good top end on that motor of yours. I was up at CAMit when a US owner who had just fitted the solid lifter conversion kit wrote back reporting on it, and as I remember, he told Ian Bent that if he could just get out to Australia, he'd kiss his (Ian's) 'rosy red butt', he has so happy with the results. At least one 3300 'new' CAMit engine is in the US, so you may be able to get from CAMit some contact details for a 'local' report on it.

 

Jaba: I believe there are at least 8 CAMit re-builds/new currently flying and gaining hours; CAMit may well be able to provide contact details (if the owners are happy for that, obviously). Since you're running a J430, I assume that it's VH-reg and running the certificated engine?. You may need to wait until the CAMit engine has achieved certification to be able to use it, but that hopefully won't be too far away. In the meantime, if all your engine temps are (and always have been) consistently good and you don't get caught with a load of bad fuel, there seem to be plenty of experiences of people happily getting way over that '400 hours' figure without trouble - I agree that the forums etc. paint a somewhat disturbing picture, but mostly it's people who have bad experiences that are moved to publicise them - after all, 'dog doesn't bite man' tends to be a non-issue..

 

That said, I think it is very realistic for you to be cautious - for sure, it only takes one over-temp situation to start a chain of deterioration in Jab. engines and not even the most one-eyed fan of them can dismiss the fact that they are less than stone-axe reliable if that happens. I've followed the various forum threads re Jab. engines assiduously, and it's noticeable that some owners have a series of way-too-early failures, while others (including some commercial operators) have happy experiences, and over more than just one engine, so it's not completely a lucky-dip. The factors here may well be a combination of things, such as not only how carefully they are operated and maintained, but even the reliability of good fuel delivery to the home airfield, even down to some seemingly insignificant difference in the cooling airflow set-up between aircraft.

 

There is not enough research done into the circumstances of the failures to provide rock-solid guidance as to what will cause the problems and Jabiru do neither themselves nor the owners any favours by tending to dismiss all problems as 'bad operation' instead of trying to do a bit more forensic examination and determine what combination of circumstances actually led to the failure. CAMit has done a heap of work in that area and taken the approach that working on the 'chain' of interlinked factors that can lead to failure produces more robustness all along the chain - they try to remove ANY 'weak links' in that chain. Quite a bit of that work is rather subtle in nature; it's a bit of a hike, I realise, from Cairns to Bundaberg but if you have an excuse to head south, I'd absolutely recommend spending a bit of time at CAMit and they guys there will explain how it all fits together, and I'll put a $ on the bar that you'll leave pretty confident in your ability to decide whether splashing the cash for the CAMit motor is worth it.

 

 

Don, some excellent thoughts. As I believe I indicated above, I can't really think of any reason for RAA to stay in Canberra, other than perhaps lobbying, which I don't believe it has ever done well (or maybe - at all?). Nor do I hold a brief for any other particular site, other than that I believe that any HQ location needs to be sited where it will be most effective at performing its key tasks.

 

That rationale has, of course, a number of factors, some of which have been well canvassed in this thread. For the sake of clarity, I'll list what I think are the significant factors that should be considered (and not probably in the right order of importance, but I'll have a go):

 

1) Accessibility by the membership. Rationally, this does not necessarily mean 'physical accessibility' as in - the most convenient place for members to be able to walk through the door. How many members visit - or feel they would need to visit - RAA HQ in, say, a year? I suspect it is a very low percentage, and with advances in IT-based teleccomunications, this is becoming less and less. So, accessibility in general terms may well be better achieved by ensuring that RAA HQ has very good telecommunications capability, with good local IT back-up etc.

 

2) Attractive to recruit and retain high-quality staff. If RAA retains a 'centralised' staff model, then the HQ needs to be located somewhere where the sort of staff RAA needs, will be happy to live and work. A complex one, because of course people's tastes vary, and you can't please all of the people all of the time.. Cost of relocation, climate, steady real-estate values, proximity to 'interesting' venues etc. would all play a part. Obviously, if RAA can operate on a more decentralised staff model (and I personally believe it can), then many of those issues diminish as problems..

 

3) Cost and value. Intertwined, of course, but both need to be considered. For instance, establishing a completely new facility even fairly cheaply say at an airfield somewhere might well result in expenditure that could not later be effectively recovered. Conversely, a flash suite of offices in a sought-after location might not in reality improve RAA's performance of its key tasks any better than something far more modest. Assets are only assets if they are negotiable! (There are plenty of 'technology parks' that have been established with high expectations, that languish for occupancy).

 

4) Symbolic quotient. Does RAA need - and would it get value from - having a high-visibility symbolic HQ? Is there a ROI factor that should be considered? By way of explanation: North Sydney has ( or certainly used to have) a high symbolic value as a location for IT companies; if you had flashy offices in North Sydney, you were considered a 'heavy hitter' in the IT game in the 90's and noughties. Effectively, you were purchasing cachet by installing yourself there. Whether it's North Sydney or Narromine - would it make any difference to RAA's perceived importance to say CASA / the Minister for Transport, make Recreational Aviation more attractive to new members etc. Hell, the current RAA HQ is literally a stroll from the Fairfax media major newspaper the Canberra Times offices - but I don't see RAA being consulted or quoted very often, unless there is an accident involving an RAA aircraft.

 

5) Opportunity cost. As with any enterprise, any cost for one element means a reduction in the opportunity to invest that cost in another element. RAA exists ( or at least SHOULD exist - though one at times wonders whether this has been the guiding principle in its management at all times since its inception) - to serve the interests of its members. What is the mix of expenditure that maximises RAA's services to its members, and where in that mix does the cost/value equation of any form of HQ reside? The answer to that might well require Solomon-like wisdom, but it's not a question that can be answered without at least some consideration.

 

 

 

Nick - well said, but I'd add a caveat to your last point: it isn't where, it is WHO - and it matters a lot WHAT they are doing!

 

For example: we need a Tech Manager who is across all of the relevant regs, AND we need that person to be spending most of their time sorting the problem areas, doing things that matter directly to safety etc. - not spending 90% of their time looking at bits of paper to check that routine re-registrations have every applicable box ticked, for instance. That's what a good business process management system will achieve - it will receive information, check that the details are in accordance with the 'rules' that apply, and throw up anomalies that actually need to be looked at. It will automate the sending out of information to the necessary recipients and check any acknowledgement / proof of action to comply that is required. It will compile necessary statistics and present them in a needed form etc.

 

It is wildly inefficient and a waste of resources to have someone with the technical expertise we need for a Tech Manager, or an Ops. Manager, to be doing fundamentally clerical tasks. Those can be handled - and handled auditably - by a properly-designed automated system. Get that bit sorted and the organisation has far more opportunity to take advantage of the opportunities you suggest are there.

 

 

Kg and Andy:

 

I see we are singing from the same hymm sheet! Absolutely, RAA needs a comprehensive business process management system that integrates all of its major administrative activities so that any changes to information that are either received from, or need to be passed out to, members is properly linked within a RDBMS and this endless paper-shuffling routine comes to an end.

 

The development of a proper system will require both the analysis and design of the RDBMS itself plus the integration of business process rules so that the actual process (e.g. Registration) that is supported by the RDBMS is also completely auditable - in other words, not just replacing bits of paper with screens of information but USING that information plus the data to automate the processing activities.

 

I personally put my expenditure priorities from my list above at around:

 

a) 50%

 

b) 30%

 

d) 5% - (it should in reality be a peanuts cost anyway)

 

e) 10%

 

thus leaving a meagre 5% for c).

 

That will seem a very mean amount to consider for a permanent home airfield consideration (less than $100k from overall membership fees in any one year) - BUT: once a) is achieved that should free up a whole lot of membership fees in the future to re-visit the home airfield idea.

 

In simple terms: I think we need to get the ESSENTIALS done, and done well, before we start to think seriously about anything else. A home airfield is not necessarily off the agenda for ever - but it just should not be a current priority.

 

 

We seem to be well and truly stuck on debating where a facility should be - but nobody seems keen on tackling the basic question of whether we should be spending the member's $$ on such a facility.

 

Ok, let me try another tack on the issue to see if I can get some traction here. Let's start by breaking it down to some very simple questions.

 

Of your $200+ of annual membership fees, what % would you like to see spent:

 

a) on the development of a fast, efficient, easy-to-use online self-reporting system for re-registration?

 

b) on the maintenance of a bulk Public Risk insurance scheme that provides members with a proper and sensible amount of coverage as a key RAA function?

 

c) on having a permanent, fly-in HQ set-up?

 

d) on suitable arrangements ( e.g. for a start, subsidised teleconferencing capability for all Board Members and the Executive) that would improve the level of communication efficiently so that Board Members can spend more time on actual deliberations etc. and less on unproductive travel time and costs?

 

e) on PR activities including the Magazine?

 

 

The AAAA submission is a excellent document, properly structured and strongly argued. It will have the Review Panel members returning to it many times as other lighter-weight submissions bring out points somewhat obliquely that perhaps reinforce concerns that the AAAA document has clearly identified and cogently addressed.

 

The RAA submission is, frankly, a disappointment. It will be read once by Panel members and basically put aside as a 'nothing to see here, move on' moment. While I have no point of debate with the points brought forward, I think it is a very poor effort in terms of breadth of content, and frankly woefully inadequate in terms of presentation. The idea that a 'gentle' approach towards CASA will somehow magically provide the RAA with Gold Elephant stamps and Brownie points with CASA that will in any way advance the interests of the organisation is amazingly naive. Our submission could have been polite, respectful, cogent and comprehensive without lacking in forcefulness; instead it is a somewhat rambling document that begs little more than a 'thanks for the thoughts' response.

 

 

Narromine is an equitable distance to travel for the membership living along the northern and southern extremities of the east-coast, whether from Melbourne or Rocky.BUT, the summers get very hot and bumpy (great gliding), there is no RPT, the population is just 3,500 and facilities for families are very limited.

Well, (and I know very well hot hot it gets in summer at Narromine, used to glide there myself), that means the peak summer time is the time for the GFA and HGFA guys to use the facilities - they're used to it. Spreads the load on the facilities more evenly across the year..

 

But we're still not getting to the nub of the WHY argument, people: we're still stuck in the WHERE..

 

 

Oscar if you had been following my posts over the last few years you would read that this is what i have been on about.

Which bit, Oz? - the 'improve the systems and forget the airfield' bit, or the 'this is what RAA could do' bit? I do believe that there are arguments for each side, and what I'm trying to do here is tease out the pros and cons for each, so we can all sit back and cogitate. Just that exercise in itself may, indeed, help the Board to look at the whole strategic development scenario; maybe even provide a topic for a session at Natfly where people can take the arguments further with at least some backgrounding of the issues involved. Just having people jump up and say: "I vote for X path to be followed' without being able to enunciate at least some of the reasons and justification, isn't going to be as much worth as having a group start to lay out a realistic plan for heading in one (or even both) directions. Whichever path/s is/are followed, they both mean very considerable expenditure of RAA resources.

 

 

IF RAA were to embark on expansion of its activities beyond the merely administrative plus Natfly, that would necessitate having an airfield-located presence, I suggest that a couple of areas worthy of consideration would be:

 

a) the provision of 'residential' training for L1 and L2 maintainers;

 

2) possibly (and here I suggest others with the requisite experience need to comment on whether this is at all practical or desirable), flight trainer courses / check flights. Such courses might include not just 'practical' air work but general training in the proper adherence to standards, SMS etc.

 

In regard to the first of these - a suitable facility with suitable personnel is obviously necessary. I'm going to go radical here, and suggest that (if we could leave turf wars aside), a shared arrangement with SAAA would seem eminently sensible: more consistent work for the 'trainer staff' spread over greater numbers of users plus more effective use of the physical facilities. Or, in crude terms - economies of scale by combining the client catchment size.

 

In regard to the second possibility - well, again economies of scale of shared use of facilities: classroom, training aids etc. perhaps between as many groups of recreational aviation bodies as can be mustered. Obviously, a site that has a high degree of decent flying weather would be essential; and shared use of the airfield for all of the different groups would be necessary. Ahem - Narromine has SAAA on hand, gliders operate from there, (the way to include the GFA in the shared use of resources) and I'm pretty sure that there'd be room for just about every other type of recreational aviation activity.

 

Heresy? Sell-out? - well, consider this: CASA lumps all of 'recreational aviation' into the one basket for most purposes, it's mainly the difference between aircraft types and operational characteristics that tends to separate these groups.

 

All of the above is highly theoretical and the very first consideration would be: 'should RAA be doing these things'? The next question, I think, is: 'if the answer to the first question is YES, then what is the most cost and outcome-effective way for RAA to be doing these things: directly as an HQ responsibility or indirectly through e.g. the use of existing facilities - such as well-equipped Clubs - with suitable support?' By way of example: the Darling Downs club has just about all the facilities needed including (some) on-site accommodation to run residential courses for the whole of SEQ at the very least - and it has, I believe, the highest numbers of members of any individual RAA club in Australia! Instructor work would need to be scheduled during the dry season, however - when it gets wet the airstrip becomes unserviceable for some days.

 

There you are: I've hung out some ideas as a devil's advocate for my own position. I'm offering, as it were, a possible 'half-way-house' argument for some sort of airfield presence - but I'd have to say, I believe that snuggling up to the SAAA would be by far the more cost-effective delivery option than simply going it alone. RAA would not have to actually go all the way and get into bed with them, but just perhaps a respectful and productive platonic relationship might be worth serious consideration IF indeed is is the case that RAA should engage directly in these activities.

 

 

With regard to priorities both in time and money we can afford to do both - that is, modernise the systems and set up RA-Aus somewhere that makes a lot more sense than Canberra.This is very probably entirely correct - HOWEVER, it is always wise to remember that just because one can do something, doesn't necessarily mean one should do something. There is a qualitative difference between simply having results of actions and achieving outcomes, and whatever RAA resources are spent on, the objective should always be the best outcome. Maintaining a useful cash reserve that generates ( a decent rate of!) interest may be a feature of the best selection of outcomes; without a clear forward strategy for the organisation, we are left with no metric for judging that.

 

The calls above for systems to smartened up is not just a nice-to-have but vital for RA-Aus survival - particularly if we have, as I suspect, a declining revenue stream. I doubt anyone would disagree with the notion that RA-Aus has managed its growth phase poorly. Growth has been accommodated by more office space, bigger filing cabinets and more staff. The office functioning look like something from the 1960s. RTing up and ask a question and somebody goes searching for a manilla folder.

We have had extremely tangible evidence of the fact that RAA's systems are inadequate, to the point of being close to hopeless, to meet the quality of service to members that is not just desirable but frankly critical as the regulatory requirements become ever-more complex. I doubt that needs any repetition of instances to reinforce the point.

 

For all of its life so far, the RAA has not had a 'home airfield' as such. Can anyone - and I am not trying to pick a fight here with those who feel that a place on which to plant the RAA flag is highly desirable - point to any tangible evidence that the lack of having a 'home airfield' has hampered the RAA development / operations? What would have been done better / more productively etc. had RAA HQ been located on a 'home airfield?' What could have been achieved that was hampered? Maybe, members could have had a mass fly-in and barricaded the Board etc. in with their aircraft and demanded better outcomes, resolution of issues, whatever - but realistically - would that have a) happened, and b) made any damn difference? If, for instance, the EGM of last year been held at an RAA HQ located at - let's say - Griffith, Mildura, Kingaroy, wherever - would there have been thousands of angry RAA members flying in and marching from the apron in serried ranks to confront the Board? It's a lovely image - but I contend that it would not, in fact, have happened.

 

Having a 'home airfield' is without doubt a grand symbolic image of strength, purpose etc. for the organisation. But - is it realistically going to make a vast difference to the way RAA will (or even should) progress? A difference that one can realistically point to and say: 'This is what will be achieved and that is why it is worth the investment'.

 

I'm open to persuasion, but to date I haven't seen any cogent argument put forward as to what real difference having a 'home airfield' could make. What the heck (not Heck!) is going to happen on that 'home airfield' that will advance the functioning of the organisation? What are these activities that will energise the development of a new, more vital etc. RAA? I ask this question sincerely, because the whole point of intelligent investment is to achieve a better outcome / outcomes as a result. I think it is of primary importance that RAA funds are not dissipated on providing a solution to a problem that does not, in fact, exist.

 

Is it possible that the whole idea of having a 'home airfield' has little more practical value than the symbolic one of being able to say: 'here we are and here we stand?' I'd love to see a vision of just how the RAA would develop if it does, indeed, have its own 'home airfield'. Seriously, folks, show me what we would get for our bucks. What is the potential ROI here?

 

In terms of the PR value of having RAA-level activity become more visible, regional fly-ins have, I suggest, way more impact on local communities than would be achieved by RAA having a 'home airfield'. Hell, even Natfly rarely gets a mention in the press unless there is an accident while events such as Summernats get significant (and usually grudgingly positive) press coverage.

 

So, to those who are excited about the possibility of RAA having a 'home airfield' - and being encouraged by the fact that it might just be possible within the sort of financial expenditure that might just be achievable with current RAA resources - please, lay out the vision for us all to consider. Surely, the 'why' for even having such a facility needs to be accepted before we go too far debating the 'where' - even if the 'how' appears attainable.

 

To me - and perhaps I am just insufficiently romantic by nature to grasp the importance of having a 'home airfield' - at the moment the debate over where that might be located is a wee bit suggestive of debating the size of a proposed inflatable dartboard...

 

 

As I understand it there is no overarching RAAus strategy, so no IT strategy, and therefore the expected progress.....Until someone can clearly articulate what finished looks like, and all stakeholders sign up to that then setting sail on a transformational journey is going to cost heaps and deliver little

 

PM 101 basics

 

Andy

Well, if that is so, then I suggest that we are in deep cacky, head downwards. While I think we all accept that there was much wound-patching and staunching of blood required, I would have expected that by Natfly we'd be hearing the triage assessment at the very least, and preferably at least the broad principles for the development of an overarching strategy. If this idea of re-location is purely the brainchild of the GM, then I would certainly be wanting to know that more urgent matters had been addressed before any time or effort was being put in to what is at best an entirely secondary issue; if it has been prompted by Board concerns, then I think we'd all like to be re-assured that the Board has grasped the full range of issues facing the organisation.

 

We've seen a lot of discussion on this forum relating to things such as 'how democratic is the RAA?', 'how well are we conforming to the articles of incorporation?', 'who is the President this week?' etc. Perhaps this just reflects specific concerns that matter to members of this forum and not so much to general RAA membership. However, the RAA simply cannot prosper if it behaves like a balloon in a hurricane; it needs to have and pursue a clear direction towards efficiently delivering the core services that keep members safe and aircraft reliably (and legally) in the air. Band-aids on boils is going to be utterly useless if the patient is suffering septicemia.

 

 

I believe this is a decision for the people we elect to make such decisions. It is up to the General Manager to come up with a compelling cost/benefits case to make the move an economically viable capital expenditure project.

I can think of plenty of good reasons to not choose Canberra as the permanent home base for RA-Aus. I think you might agree that if you were about to set up a Recreational Aviation body in Australia that Canberra would come close to the bottom of any list of preferred locations. But that decision was taken long ago for reasons that may have been quite valid at the time. However, now we have the opportunity to consider where the best permanent home might be and whether the expense and disruption would be justified by the result.

I would certainly agree that there are few if any reasons why Canberra should be the chosen site for any significant RAA HQ presence, and as a member within realistic commuting distance of Canberra (and indeed I visit Canberra probably six -eight times in an average year just for family reasons), I have only ever bothered to even visit RAA HQ on two occasions - and one of those was to drop off a condition report because I was happening to pass by the office and it was as easy to drop it off as post it. About the only justification I could see for remaining in Canberra would be to be close to the legislators if we were a highly-active lobby group, and we certainly are NOT that. In terms of doing the F-t-F stuff with CASA - Brisbane makes far better sense.

 

However, surely any discussion about re-location has the cart well and truly ahead of the horse until the necessity for and the actual role and functions of any 'HQ' facility are determined. RAA appears to me to already be operating as a distributed entity, with the Tech Manager as I understand it in Adelaide and the Ops Manager in Temora? I had no trouble in communicating with the Tech Manager recently; I used this wonderful modern device, a telephone! They are amazing little things, you can hold them in your hand and talk and listen to someone who is hundreds of kilometers away just as if he or she were there in the room with you (which might not happen if you dropped in to HQ on spec. and found they were out to lunch, in a meeting elsewhere, off sick for the day etc.) .

 

Let us imagine that we located, by statistical analysis, the exact geographical epicentre of every single member of RAA and created a terrific little airport there complete with an Admin. building housing every staff member of RAA. What percentage of RAA members would fly in to conduct their business with RAA over the desk / in the office? In a day, a week, a year?

 

I suggest that the main reason for having an office HQ presence at all, is the fact that RAA systems are so overwhelmingly paper-based that a co-located staff facility typical of the 'office' of the 1970/80's is a physical necessity so the paper-shuffling can be handled and managed effectively. With decent web-based business systems physical proximity of people undertaking different administrative tasks is completely unnecessary.

 

To illustrate: I live near Mittagong, NSW. My local Council office building is at Moss Vale, 20 minutes drive away. My rates bills are prepared and sent by a commercial service located in Adelaide..

 

If it is really considered necessary from a symbolic rather than a realistic need for RAA members to have the feeling that they can get to fly their aircraft to somewhere and sit down and chew the issues with RAA senior management, then perhaps a small office at Gatton Airpark would provide a location sufficiently close to Brisbane for the GM to conduct the F-t-F stuff with CASA and still be 'fly-in' accessible to members. However, I for one would far rather see my membership $$ going towards the development of effective web-based business systems than to bricks-and-mortar investment in a facility at all, beyond a basic simple office area that provides space at reasonable cost in a location with decent 'net access and good-quality support infrastructure (power, telecoms facilities etc.) so that RAA can have a high-grade server facility and a permanent address for contact purposes.

 

 

It's fairly obvious that there are competing elements in any possible selection of a different site for a 'home' for RAA (cost, location, transport options, accommodation options etc.) and there is absolutely no possibility that all of them can be equitably met - one or more will have to be sacrificed.

 

However, all of this really does beg the question of whether RAA operation needs a centralised 'home' at all. With modern IT-supported communications and the development of appropriate on-line administrative systems, the need for a single physical facility should be greatly reduced. In fact, I would suggest that even in the current situation, the single location in Canberra might as well be, for most members, located anywhere else - how many members regularly visit RAA HQ to have things sorted out?

 

Over 10 years ago I was part of the management of a small company that did web-based business system development; we had a small office in the North Shore IT-centric area with a meeting space for clients, two offices, a server room and a general work area for normally around three-four staff doing design, coding, documentation. Our chief programmer worked exclusively from his home near Mangrove Mountain via satellite link; we had a web designer working from Copenhagen and another from New York, a content-developer working from London and another from Wagga Wagga. We'd bring in specialists for different projects almost always via telecoms links, often with little more than a few face-to-face meetings over the life of a project. It all worked very effectively; we provided a help-desk facility via mobile phone (and that was sometimes personally intrusive, I admit - having to ask a client to hold on for a minute while we completed the start manoeuvering of our twilight yacht-race happened on several occasions..)

 

I'd be surprised if the economics of having say three Board meetings a year held in alternate locations and using purely commercial facilities (meeting area, accommodation) and transport options for Board Members at which general members could have face-to-face meetings would work out to be anything like the cost of establishing and running a single centre anywhere. Let's say, these to be held at somewhere like Mildura, Canberra, and Hervey Bay - all places served by RPT, with good accommodation provided one picks their 'off season' times. Yes, this is undeniably East-Coast centric but probably affords the best exposure to the greatest amount of RAA population; perhaps the CEO, Tech Manager and Ops Manager could do a 'roadshow' to W.A and Tassie at least once a year if the demand is there.

 

Natfly for the AGM and a general members chance to be a bit social, and maybe the set-up of a 'conference-call' session for members at regional fly-ins with the CEO, Tech. Manager and Ops. Manager on call, with that session 'chaired' by the local RAA Rep. - and the RAA keeps a small set of suitable gear (camera etc.) to facilitate the regional end of the link?

 

 

Frank - I'm sure that anybody who has had to deal with CASA would share your scepticism, based on long and wearing experience.... but things can change (eventually) if there's a will for change. That absolutely doesn't have to mean (and nor should it) that recreational flying has to be dragged to a place it doesn't want or need to go, but it seems to me that we have aircraft nowadays that are very capable of performing creditably in a wider range of roles; I see the sort of change I am espousing as a meeting point between what those aircraft can do and what regulations can be adjusted to allow those who choose to have a somewhat wider role in the overall picture of aviation.

 

However, it would take caution and a considerable application of both good sense and good will to make any such changes. Nothing is impossible until it's proven impossible!

 

 

"the other hand, if you’re taking a tourist for a sightseeing ride along the beach, the LSA piloted by a commercial rated pilot is the better choice. "......so you register it VH , LAME maintained, commercial pilot, commercial insurance, AOC.............

 

Even if it was permitted by law the cost of operation would be prohibitive for 1 pax???????????

 

With these days of everyone wanting to take legal action for everything they can and not accept any responsibility for their own actions I couldn't see the idea going any further then dream time. Certainly nowhere near RAA regulations.

Frank, the point of the article was that regulations can be changed. Changing standards for aircraft is a whole different barrel of herrings.

 

You're probably correct that carrying passengers for hire or reward is a step too far, but surely there's a half-way house between being allowed to do NOTHING with even the whiff of a 'commercial' interest to it and a sensible compromise based on the lowest common denominator of the capability of the aircraft and the capability of the pilot? What's the safety difference between a Stock and Station agent with his briefcase and laptop doing his rounds in a Landcruiser or a J230, by way of comparison? Or someone doing the rounds of small country towns collecting Path. specimens and delivering them to a distant Laboratory in a Tecnam or a Toyota Echo?

 

Now, if you accept the capability of the 'higher-end' LSA-type aircraft to do some tasks, then that would provide a mechanism for CPL pilots to get their hours up.

 

I agree, if one stays inside the current 'box' of regulations, there is no room for LSA-type aircraft. But if one were to step back and look at the potential, the operational 'problems' and seek a path through those that was not constrained by the 'regulations' as they currently stand, I think a channel could be mapped out to expand the role of LSA-class aircraft with little more than minor tweaks to the aforesaid regulations. The more sophisticated LSA-type aircraft are a generation or more advanced from what we had say 10 - 15 years ago, but are constrained by regulations that haven't advanced in a very long time.

 

Some see such a suggestion as being inimical to the ethos of recreational aviation. I disagree; revision of the regulations should in no way force people to use /operate their aircraft in other than recreational ways. However, we have LSA-type aircraft that cost $100 - $125k or so new that are equally as capable of certain types of operation in some airspace as GA class aircraft that cost at least twice that or considerably more. Why should we not look to broadening the possibilities of use of our aircraft?

 

There is a very apposite example of what I am talking about here. Yachts. One can buy a modern yacht or motorboat and simply use it for pleasure. Or, with some additional gear to meet the requisite standards, also put it out for hire as a charter vessel - crewed or uncrewed. Provided it has been built to a recognised standard, with the requisite additional gear one can have it used for commercial purposes for 90%+ of its life, if one wishes, and use it personally for recreation the rest of the time. Almost the whole of the Barrier Reef hire fleet is comprised of such individually-owned vessels, managed by a hire operator. I don't see why suitable LSA-type aircraft cannot operate at least part-time for commercial purposes (limited by reasonable risk considerations).

 

Seriously, Frank - you own a prime example of a 'suitable' LSA-type aircraft for such consideration. I'll bet that - if you just turn Nelson's eye to the regulations for a moment - you can see suitable commercial operations that your aircraft could very competently handle.

 

 

Worth a read and consideration: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/can-lsas-go-commercial.114302/

 

 

CT110 postie bike - not too expensive, parts are dirt cheap, and nice and simple mechanics to get you started. Haynes workshop manual gives you everything in pictures, and by the time you have finished it (presuming it actually runs and all the bits that came out went back in somewhere.....) you can possibly even make a profit. Or just use it as a cheap hack to get to work and back!

All the bits went back? ALL the bits? C'mon now, NOBODY gets all the bits back....

 

 

Aha, the old Taifun Hobby (?) motor? - vicious little buggers....

 

 

Maybe a lesson in transfering load and weak point, used to be the nose leg would come off firewall, this has been strengthened over time, now it can tear the firewall out if hit hard enough

JJ - it could be a factor of how high up the actual leg the force was applied i.e. if right near the bottom of the firewall, the leverage that would take the leg out wasn't there. We have the wings from an ST1 (factory-build LSA55 that was VH-reg initially) that put the nose into a deep rut on a forced landing and tore out the complete firewall in almost the exact same way. Our own aircraft needs those wings because ours did a classic Jab.'dead ants' forward roll over the prop - which dissipated the force almost entirely as it progressively broke, with no damage FWF other than a slightly bent nosewheel fork and a bent prop flange! Even the crank was fine.

 

The thing that I think this particular accident shows, is that the eventual failure of the firewall at the 'a-pillar' point absorbed sufficient of the energy in yeilding and then failing, to shield the pilot from serious head and neck injury.

 

If you have a look at this shot, (from the somewhat infamous 'down into the trees at Wedderburn' in 2001 accident), you can see partial failure of the firewall as well as a massive amount of airframe damage - and both occupants were able to get out and walk away, somewhat banged-up but not seriously injured.:

 

http://www.jabirucrash.com/images-crash-site/DSCN1887.JPG

 

 

good to hear Michael, I hope the market opens up for the Boomer. but sadly I think my comment two years ago may still bear the test of time. I hope I'm wrong for whoever would have invested in getting it back into production.PS.. Oscar it was Kingaroy not Dalby

Sorry - yes it absolutely was Kingaroy (at the UAV day).. I was subconsciously thinking about the floods I was caught in near Dalby three (??) years ago... time flies...

 

 

Nick, a damn useful source of a wide variety of information on 'general practice' is Ashkouti's: 'The Aircraft Mechanic's Pocket Manual'. It's a bit old now but a hell of a lot of it is still entirely relevant. I have a copy in electronic form, if you P.M. me I'm happy to send you a copy on a USB stick (it's 142 Mb as images). It's no use for fibeglass repairs, but if you're leaning to a Jab. then that's a whole subject you need to learn very carefully from someone who really knows the subject anyway - just because a Jab. looks like it's built like a surfboard (and in some respects it IS) you can't just go at repairs to the 'glass unless you seriously know what you're doing and have the correct resin, 'glass and knowledge of the techniques and the right equipment (soda blasting gear, preferably a vacuum bagging capability and a reasonable environmentally-controlled shed).

 

Looking after a 'simple' aircraft is not rocket science, but it needs to be done correctly. You don't need a million hours of experience to take a spanner to something, but you DO need to know what it is that you need to do! If you can develop a 'working relationship' with someone who is a reliable, experienced mentor (an L2, pretty obviously), you'll pick things up by asking how and doing stuff yourself.

 

FWIW - have you read Pursig's 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'? There's not much there about actual motorcycle maintenance and for some of it you need to have a good grounding in Platonic philosophy - but there's a bit about the psychological approach to either wanting to understand how 'mechanical' things work (and valuing that knowledge) or simply demanding that because you have spent the $$ on a top-spec device, it SHOULD work, dammit. Don't think that because you have a 'pencil-pusher' background, you can't understand mechanical things; I have a B.A. (most fundamentally useless Degree in existence) and am a Librarian by professional qualification, but I get a huge kick out of doing things 'mechanical' properly.

 

 

JB - not a 'latest problem' at all, just the general concern with Jab. engines not getting to their life expectancy figures and too many having early-time failures. We all know that operational experience varies way more than what would be considered a 'normal' scatter of failures, though it's also true that some people take that scatter and sheet the blame home to manufacturing, others lean towards operation being a critically important factor.

 

The whole cause of this thread was that one Board member chose to state that RAA was 'doing something' (unspecified) about it - a clear statement of intent on RAA's part. Further up in the thread I've outlined the results of my contacts with other RAA Board members and the RAA Tech. Manager and the simple conclusion is that the responsibility for 'doing' anything does not rest with RAA. So, nothing 'new' re Jab. engines, just some familiar drum-beating by a particular individual being apparently given extra status by dint of his position on the Board. Heat, but no new light...