RAA financials

[T28D]

Nothing wrong with the RAA financials or the level of fees charged.

A striking difference to AOPA ( forgive me mods ) who simply have lost the plot.

[VH-XXX]

Not being all that conversent with RAA financials ah had to talk to some that do. Seems this thread is a bit of a beat-up as i suspected..

Don't know who you could have possibly spoken to Binghi that would have suggested that a decreasing bank balance is not going backwards ????

If you were a member you would know this because every member gets the financial records with the magazine.

[fencehopper]

As a real "grass roots" ultralight flyer that rarely if ever leaves the boundaries of the 80 acre private property i fly from, it annoys the crap out of me that i have to pay a small fortune every year for things i don't need nor want. The only reason i joined the RAAus is under the threat of jail if i don't.
When it was the AUF it was not mandatory to belong.
Poor showing of grass roots types at Temora? Majority of those still flying them do not want to be part of the RAAus so why go.
BTW i do not appreciate the term "rag and tube" for early ultralights. Rag and tube are really those vintage types. Grass Roots or the correct term 'Minimum Aircraft' should be used.
FH

[LeadSled]

When it was the AUF it was not mandatory to belong.

Fencehopper,

Wasn't then, ain't now ----- unless you want to go flying in an AUF/RAOz registered aircraft -------then it was mandatory and is now!!

That bit has not changed, where on earth did you ever get the idea that you could fly an AUF/RAOz aircraft (legally) without being a financial member, and having a suitable pilot certificate, ever??? ----- and the aircraft having the required volume of paperwork complete and current --- whether you own it or not!!

Unless you go back before the formation of AUF ---- and what some people were doing, all those years ago was never legally tested.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Funny thing , I recall (many, many, too many moons ago) the Tiger (as in DH 82A) I was flying was referred to as a "rag and tube" or "rag and string" machine, by all the untramegatrendoids flying their bright and shiny "spamcans", aka. Cessna C-1blah, blah, blah.

We preferred to think of our aeroplanes as real aeroplanes, and ourselves as real pilots --- DH never ran an ad campaign claiming flying their products was just like driving a motor car.

[rgmgbg01]

been a member of AUF/RAAus since 1995. Has been mandatory all that time.

Any complaints about RAAus fade away as a pleasant memory when you start dealing with CASA - Slower service (by far) and expensive (OMG! cant even begin to explain how much more expensive!!).

RAAus do a great job with very little. Good value at twice the price!

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Re. the financials, I pay my RAOz subs to be spent on running the organisation and providing member services ---- not to be accumulated in a deposit account for the purpose of earning interest.
Tootle pip!!

[metalman2]

I don't get the whole "small fortune" attitude, really, a couple of hundred bucks for a year is a small fortune? I spend that to take my missus and three teenage kids out to dinner. I've heard the whole RAA is ignoring me thing over and over ,fact is the RAA isn't ignoring you but the people trying to make a buck out of building aircraft certainly are.

[fencehopper]

Lead Sled,
How quickly some seem to forget. Anyone remember the "Parallel Paths" route that was around about 5 years ago. And before that i could just write a letter and tell the dept i will abide by the rules etc. No monopolies allowed in Australia. CASA did work out that they could 'fix' this with hidious admin fees. Rounded off a little later with questionable legislation.
Been playing this game since 1976. Seen the politics all played out over that time.

[LeadSled]

How quickly some seem to forget. Anyone remember the "Parallel Paths" route that was around about 5 years ago. And before that i could just write a letter and tell the dept i will abide by the rules etc. No monopolies allowed in Australia. CASA did work out that they could 'fix' this with hideous admin fees. Rounded off a little later with questionable legislation.
Been playing this game since 1976. Seen the politics all played out over that time.

Fencehopper,
No, I haven't forgotten, and yes, I think there should be parallel paths, and I don't like monopolies, but that has never got up, regulation wise, never got beyond a policy position. I have seen some of what I regard as serious abuse of power (not AUF/RAOz, but other self admin. bodies), because of a monopoly position.

We have what we have, and I am a supporter of RAOz, warts and all. They may not be doing a perfect job, whatever that is, something that will vary with the eye of the beholder, but I think they are doing a pretty good job under increasingly difficult circumstances.

I would like to see a major reduction if all aviation regulations that do not address a real (as opposed to imagined or perceived) and quantified risk, but in that regard, we have gone backwards 25 years in the last couple of years. Rational risk management is out the window.

Tootle pip!!

[Jabawocky]

Leadsled

What exactly ARE you talking about?

If RAAus or any organistation have funds invested for the future security of the organisation, they are being financially responsible. The good work and wise moves of any folk in the past does not qualify the cheap/free reign of the present.

If RAAus or any org act responsibly, they should be applauded, not slagged.

I have seen some of what I regard as serious abuse of power (not AUF/RAOz, but other self admin. bodies), because of a monopoly position.

The ones I can think of are groups like Warbirds? ASRA? RAAus?

How many monopoly orgs are there? And of them, they are not monopoly groups in the true sense of the word like say .....only supermarkets are Woolworths from here in. They are THE group based on the set of exemptions they administer, and if I can take a guess at it, none of these groups are blatently ripping off the members.

[LeadSled]

What exactly ARE you talking about?

If RAAus or any organistation (sic) have funds invested for the future security of the organisation, they are being financially responsible.

Jaba,
In my view (and many others that have thought about it) running a member organisation is not the same thing as running a household budget, or running a commercial business enterprise.

Members pay money for member services, the need for large "reserves", at the expense of providing member services "now" is all too often justified by resort to expressions along the line of "prudent housekeeping" , but what a member organisation is doing for its members has nothing to do with housekeeping.

Too often I have seen "conservative" board /committee members vote down expenditure, desperately needed "now", to preserve funds for some unknown future "rainy day" ---- to the very great dis-benefit of current members.

An important and unpredictable event is a Coroner's Inquest, if there is not balanced representation at an inquest, there is (as history show) a very strong possibility of a Coroner coming down with findings that are very adverse ---- simply because an alternative view was not put to the Coroner.

Unlike a household or a commercial business, a member organisation always has the ability, if things get dire, to call for a voluntary or compulsory levy on members, or, if it is more than a one off, raise the annual membership.

Provided members perceive that the end justifies the means, and that means good communications with members, (and in my experience) voluntary levies will be successful, also in my experience there will be a gratifying percentage of members who will donate more than the requested contribution ---- always a vote of confidence in the board/committee, and the continuation of the organisation.

If it's a matter of board/committee incompetence, and they have blown the budget, a new board/committee has to be the starting point.

If RA or any org act responsibly, they should be applauded, not slagged.

I most certainly was not slagging off AUF/RAOz, my public views are well enough known, I have been a strong supporter of AUF/RAAus for close to twenty years. I do NOT criticize the previous or present RAOz board for running down reserves, they are doing what they have to do in the interested, as they see it, of the organisation. ie: They are doing what they were elected to do.

They are THE group based on the set of exemptions they administer,

Not all of the self admin groups administer, or only administer, exemptions from regulations, think about it.

none of these groups are blatently (sic) ripping off the members.

Since you should mention ripping off members, one organisation that no longer has a monopoly, as it used to have, and which in my opinion did rip off its members, has been considerably improved, if not entirely divested of its "old think", by facing multiple competitors for its services.

However, in my previous post, that is not really what I was alluding to. In fact, I have seen (too often, once is too often and not AUF/RAOz) internal politics of warring factions seriously impact the commercial businesses of the "losing side" , to the commercial advantage of the "winning side" ---- do you really want the license on which you business depends being subject to the discretion of your fierce commercial and organizational politically successful competitor.

Matters such as various ratings, approvals and licenses should always be arms length and politically/commercially neutral administrative decisions ---- and it is not always so.

Tootle pip!!

[Jabawocky]

Thanks, I mostly agree, except that some reserves are better than an organisation on its kness.

I most certainly was not slagging off AUF/RAOz, my public views are well enough known,

Thats great, I never thought you did, maybe you thought that is what I meant. Certainly not my intention.

Unlike a household or a commercial business, a member organisation always has the ability, if things get dire, to call for a voluntary or compulsory levy on members, or, if it is more than a one off, raise the annual membership.

This is where I hold a slightly different view, but each to his own.

[VH-XXX]

Leadsled, are your contacts telling you anything about why there have been two RA-Aus board members resign in the last two days? (serious question)

[LeadSled]

Folks,
One of the things about elected boards is that, every now and again, somebody will be elected who turns out to be unhappy with the job to be done, or just can't adjust to working in a board or committee environment. A square peg in a round hole is neither the fault of the peg or the hole (or the whole)

Aviation produces many strong willed and opinionated people, often the ones, in the balance of probabilities, more likely to find it difficult to effectively fit in. Directors must exercise independence, but once a majority decision is taken, it becomes the decision of the whole board.

The two resignations from the RAOz board are nothing more, in my opinion, than manifestations of the above, and are certainly no threat to the future, financial or otherwise, of RAOz. There is a core of solid citizens, with a good cross section of experience on the RAOz board. Continuity is not in danger.

Undoubtedly, nominations for replacements, and the resultant by-elections, will be called in the near future.

Tootle pip!!

[VH-XXX]

So you obviously haven't heard anything then!

[LeadSled]

VH-XXX,
Actually, I have, and my last post is my take on the current situation. It is not some financial Armageddon. Beyond that, I have nothing to add.
Tootle pip!!.

[T28D]

Usual XXX Mischief

[VH-XXX]

To be honest, I found that cool animated gif and I was desperate to use it somewhere.

BS meter not actually referring to you LeadSled, moreso the situation right now which is a little screwed up.