RE: AERO CLUB of CANADA  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> M.A.A.C. >> RE: AERO CLUB of CANADA
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AERO CLUB of CANADA - 1/14/2006 5:07:45 AM   
DSLarkin


 

Posts: 136
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Picton, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		I now have, for 2005, the ACC fees by association and the FAI fees by country

ACC
Balloonists $1380
Sport Aircraft $1300
Parachutists $8535
Hang and Paragliders $4995
MAAC $16040
Soaring $5825

I can get the membership numbers for each association but MAAC has at least 75% of the total membership, as best I recall. On a per person basis MAAC pays the lowest, Sport Aircraft the highest.

FAI
Class 1 200K and over Air Sport Persons (ASPs)
ChF (Swiss Francs) 95,000
USA

Class2 100K - 200K ASPs
50,000 ChF
France and Germany

Class 3 30K - 100K ASPs
44,000 ChF
Italy, Japan, Russia, UK, and Switzerland

Class 4 15K - 30K ASPs
30,000 ChF
Australia, Canada, China, and Sweden

Class 5 10K - 15K ASPs
18,000 ChF
Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain and Turkey

Class 6 5K - 10K ASPs
11,000 ChF
Czech Rep, Denmark, Hungary, S Koreaand S. Africa

Class 7 3K - 5K ASPs
7,000 ChF
Indonesia, Greece, N. Zealand,and Ukraine

Class 8 2K - 3K ASPs
5,000 ChF
Algeria, Argentine, Croatia, Israel, Lithuania, Romania, Slovak Rep, and Slovenia

Class 9 1K - 2K ASPs
4,000 ChF
Belarus, Chile etc

I'm not going to type out the whole list of 100 nations, but can send you the full scanned list if you send me your e-mail address



< Message edited by DSLarkin -- 1/14/2006 5:37:48 AM >

(in reply to Sharpy01)
       Post #: 51

RE: AERO CLUB of CANADA - 1/14/2006 2:12:58 PM   
gingertoad


 

Posts: 64
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Prescott, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		Thank you David,

for once again countering fiction with fact. The Naysayers will continue their attacks, but the rest of us are grateful.

There will always be those who resent Canada's participation in international competition, but if one scans the list, it is obvious that Canada's placement is not inappropriate, although, as you pointed out, China could do with a re-evaluation. The rest seem fair.

I did not see the name of any civilized country, in any way equivilant to Canada, that has opted out of FAI.

I doubt that your post will put the arguments to bed, but it should.

Richard Barlow

(in reply to DSLarkin)
       Post #: 52

RE: AERO CLUB of CANADA - 1/14/2006 5:59:28 PM   
DP01



Posts: 195
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: Southern Ontario
Status: offline 		As far as MAAC’s involvement FAI competition is concerned I am in complete agreement with support being provided. The cost per member is virtually insignificant. I am also in favour however, of limiting the associated costs as much as possible.

To this end, I have done some analysis (freely available from Transport Canada’s web-site) that may be of interest.

The total number of aircraft currently registered in Canada are 30,259, broken down as follows:

Aeroplanes – 26,890
Airships – 4
Balloons – 474
Gliders – 678
Gyroplanes – 192
Helicopters – 2035
Ornithopter – 1

The numbers for Privately owned aircraft are as follows:

Aeroplanes – 21,921
Airships – 4
Balloons – 466
Gliders – 678
Helicopters – 521
Ornithopter – 1

The balance being registered to Commercial and State operators.

Making a few (I believe - very) conservative assumptions, the number of aircraft registered to individuals (not for business use) is about 11, 500. These aircraft may be categorized as for Private and/or Sport Flying use. Many of these aircraft owners and/or pilots are members of COPA (Canadian Owners and Pilots Association).

As pointed out in previous discussion, COPA withdrew from the ACC (Aero Club of Canada), therefore these aviation participants are not included in Mr Larkin’s post. In fact, the fee payable by balloonists actually exceeds the fee paid by so called “Sport Aircraft”. Could it be that in the full scale world, the term “Sport Aircraft” refers to the quantity of aircraft actually engaging in some form of competition? If so, why then does the same logic not apply to model aircraft?

I feel certain that all involved in the debate over MAAC’s fee payable to the FAI would agree that negotiating a more favourable rate would be to the common good. The logic exists, indeed the precedent already exists. Removing a block of "Aviation Sport Persons" (ASP) may place Canada in a lower FAI category and save all Canadian paricipants significant FAI fees. Regardless, it seems odd that "Sport Pilots" owning, operating and maintaining $50,000.00 - $350,000.00 aircraft need so much support from model aircraft hobbyists.

Dennis

For reference:
Sport
n 1: an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition [syn: athletics] 2: the occupation of athletes who compete for pay 3: someone who engages in sports



_____________________________

Simplicate and add lightness.

(in reply to gingertoad)
       Post #: 53

RE: AERO CLUB of CANADA - 1/14/2006 7:38:01 PM   
DSLarkin


 

Posts: 136
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Picton, ON, CANADA
Status: offline
quote:

I feel certain that all involved in the debate over MAAC’s fee payable to the FAI would agree that negotiating a more favourable rate would be to the common good. The logic exists, indeed the precedent already exists. Removing a block of "Aviation Sport Persons" (ASP) may place Canada in a lower FAI category and save all Canadian paricipants significant FAI fees. Regardless, it seems odd that "Sport Pilots" owning, operating and maintaining $50,000.00 - $350,000.00 aircraft need so much support from model aircraft hobbyists.


The balloonists pay more (as a group) than the sport aircraft people as there are far more of them. There are only about 75- 100 people in the Canadian Sport Aircraft Association. So the Sport Aircraft people pay far more than the ballonists.

MAAC pays so much more as a group because we have so many members, all of whom, by definition, must be ASPs and are 12 -13000 of the roughly 17000 total). But on the other hand we pay by far the least per person. As I have mentioned about a dozen times, if we just list a few FAI participants , then the other associations will do the same and it will cut down the numbers of balloonists, parachutists etc listed - so that will do little or no good, even if we could (and should) get away with it. Yes it is different for the sport aircraft people who mostly participate in events like the Webster Trophy, seek records or are aerobatic flyers. We can't include all the Canadian private aircraft in the calculations as we have no way of getting any money from their pilots. And by no means all of the CSAA members own their own aircraft (one drives the Lancaster in Hamilton).

We have tried various methodologies, taking into account the number of say regional or national competitors. And once somebody takes part in a fun fly he becomes a competitor - would you like to exclude somebody from your fun fly until he had upgraded his MAAC membership to competitor? We did try to float the idea of a "Competition Supporter" category of membership but the MAAC Board (almost entirely sport flyers) would have none of it as they considered it would give people in that category added status and they didn't like the sound of that.

No, we are the main user of the FAI's services - by a factor of nearly 10 in Canada - because we have so many special interest groups, al with world championships.

Removing most of the modellers from Canada's total would not accomplish anything because all the other nations could and would, do the same thing. It wouldn't fly and the other members of the FAI would have none of it. It certainly wouldn't save us any money.

There are still people in the Aero Club Associations who would like everybody to pay the same amount per head. However we have been able to work out a deal that is acceptable. There are going to be some full size people who want the modellers to pay more, and some modellers who want the modellers to pay less. That's not going to change. We have to live with the best compromise we can work out.

Please don't go away feeling that I'm ignoring a new and cogent argument. Good grief no - we've been through exactly the same arguments before, time and time again. Nothing that has been suggested so far on this forum is new.

But I'm always open to a new suggestion. Just make sure it really is new, has validity and can be sold.

(in reply to DP01)
       Post #: 54

RE: AERO CLUB of CANADA - 1/14/2006 9:00:18 PM   
DP01



Posts: 195
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: Southern Ontario
Status: offline 		Mr. Larkin

I understand some of your rationale, however there are a few points that frankly, baffle me. You make the following statement: “We can't include all the Canadian private aircraft in the calculations as we have no way of getting any money from their pilots”. One could take this to imply that we include all MAAC members simply because it is possible to get money from them?

Your statement: “And once somebody takes part in a fun fly he becomes a competitor - would you like to exclude somebody from your fun fly until he had upgraded his MAAC membership to competitor?” does not appear to be valid in an FAI context. There are many model competions that have no FAI connection/rules, lets use Scale Aerobatics as an example”. Why should a fun fly be recognized by FAI any more than SA?

Another statement reads: “As I have mentioned about a dozen times, if we just list a few FAI participants , then the other associations will do the same and it will cut down the numbers of balloonists, parachutists etc listed - so that will do little or no good, even if we could (and should) get away with it.” Is it not so, that if all ACC members did the same thing, then the ASP count would dramatically decrease, thus decreasing the FAI fee, thereby benefiting all?

The following is from the FAI website:

“What FAI does

FAI activities include the establishment of rules for the control and certification of world aeronautical and astronautical records. FAI establishes regulations for air sporting events which are organised by member countries throughout the world. FAI also promotes skill, proficiency and safety in aeronautics. FAI confers medals, diplomas and other awards to those who have contributed to the achievement of these aims as well as for work done in the restoration of old aircraft.

In achieving these goals, FAI brings together people who take part in air sports from all over the world. They share the delight of gliding, the excitement of parachuting and ballooning, the fun of flying microlights and exercise their skill in aerobatics.

Within the framework of FAI, each air sport has an International Commission which is responsible for making the rules for competitions and which generally oversees the activies (sic) of their particular air sport.
All FAI Contests, Championships and Record Setting activities are conducted under the direction of the FAI Air Sport Commissions. Other matters are dealt with by FAI Technical Commissions. These are listed later.

Regulations, rules or recommendations which have been accepted by the Commissions during their annual meetings are followed up by the delegates themselves at the national level and with Member-countries which need help developing their air sports.”

It is fairly clear from this description that FAI exists to promote/govern aviation competition. No doubt there may be spin-off benefits to all modellers.

Further, this statement is interesting: “No, we are the main user of the FAI's services - by a factor of nearly 10 in Canada - because we have so many special interest groups, al (sic) with world championships”.

From the number of MAAC competitors that have been disclosed, I have some difficulty understanding that some 100 FAI model aviation competitors outweigh all other forms of aviation. For example the soaring association(s) holds a significant number of competitions each year to FAI rules. Additionally, many soaring enthusiasts earn recognition badges/medals for their accomplishments. Oddly enough, the FAI description above makes no mention of model activities.

Please realize that I am looking at the situation purely as an average MAAC member. Some elements appear contradictory and worthy of further examination. I fully understand and respect that you have devoted much effort in this regard. Thinking outside the box, often pays dividends. "'Cause that's the way it is" does not seek out new opportunities.

Dennis




< Message edited by DP01 -- 1/14/2006 9:01:52 PM >

_____________________________

Simplicate and add lightness.

(in reply to DSLarkin)
       Post #: 55

RE: AERO CLUB of CANADA - 1/14/2006 9:32:48 PM   
gingertoad


 

Posts: 64
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Prescott, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		DP01,

Your posts are taken seriously. The fact that you have taken the time to attempt analysis in the way that you have, indicates that you are not a stupid person and that you are really trying to find out more.

For those of us who have been directly involved in the ACC, and I was Dave's predecessor as MAAC representative, we have been through all of this many times. We have argued, wriggled, fought and suggested in every way we could think of in order to get the modeller in Canada the best possible deal. Quite aside from Dave and myself, some of the best brains in MAAC have worked on the formulae for many years. This picture is repeated in many other countries. Every time a "loophole" or "easy way out" is suggested, there is always a counter position.

If you want to discuss this whole picture and learn more about it, the things that have been tried, the successes, the failures, then give Dave or myself a call. We are not closed minded, but it does seem to me that no matter how many times information is provided, we cannot get the message across in a manner that is universally acceptable. Dave's number and mine are in the magazine.

Dave is a sport flyer. It has been years since I saw him engage in any competition, even then it was a low level local contest. I am not an FAI flyer either, merely a modeller who agreees with the concept of a competition pyramid, with the base supporting the pinnacle. Three quarters of our members have been shown to feel this way.

The MAAC fees to ACC FAI represent about 1 1/2% of MAAC's budget. Concentrating on safety and being accident free this year reduced our insurance premium by about the same amount as our entire payment to ACC. That is where I want to see our energies directed. If all our energy is focussed on safety, then we have the potential to save our members real money in terms of reduced insurance costs.

Richard Barlow

(in reply to DP01)
       Post #: 56

RE: AERO CLUB of CANADA - 1/14/2006 11:10:25 PM   
DP01



Posts: 195
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: Southern Ontario
Status: offline 		Richard:

Thanks for your reply. As I stated previously, I personally have no problem with MAAC supporting FAI. The only concern that I have is that the whole issue appears to be contentious and divisive between the various camps within the association.

The openness that has developed in recent times goes a long way (my opinion) to resolving these issues. There is almost never a perfect solution to any problem and I doubt that the current solution is perfect. Looking at the data presented suggests that possibly, just possibly, there may be a better deal to be had.

As a purely hypothetical example: Should the ASP numbers used by FAI include all recreationally used aircraft, this would mean that these owners would be “getting a free ride” and that the various ACC members are taking up the slack. If this were to be situation, there would certainly be a case to be made with FAI to remove the rec aircraft from the total as fees from this group are not collectable. In reality this scenario may not be the case but it is intended as an example of perhaps a fresh approach to an old problem.

No situation ought to be left closed forever. Proactively reviewing situations such as this and most importantly, keeping the membership informed of proceedings might prove instrumental in minimizing discord between opposing factions. As a minimum, it would help dispel the idea that a "good ol' boys club" is running the show.

Dennis


_____________________________

Simplicate and add lightness.

(in reply to gingertoad)
       Post #: 57

RE: AERO CLUB of CANADA - 1/14/2006 11:41:39 PM   
gingertoad


 

Posts: 64
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Prescott, ON, CANADA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DP01

Richard:

Thanks for your reply. As I stated previously, I personally have no problem with MAAC supporting FAI. The only concern that I have is that the whole issue appears to be contentious and divisive between the various camps within the association.

The openness that has developed in recent times goes a long way (my opinion) to resolving these issues. There is almost never a perfect solution to any problem and I doubt that the current solution is perfect. Looking at the data presented suggests that possibly, just possibly, there may be a better deal to be had.

As a purely hypothetical example: Should the ASP numbers used by FAI include all recreationally used aircraft, this would mean that these owners would be “getting a free ride” and that the various ACC members are taking up the slack. If this were to be situation, there would certainly be a case to be made with FAI to remove the rec aircraft from the total as fees from this group are not collectable. In reality this scenario may not be the case but it is intended as an example of perhaps a fresh approach to an old problem.

No situation ought to be left closed forever. Proactively reviewing situations such as this and most importantly, keeping the membership informed of proceedings might prove instrumental in minimizing discord between opposing factions. As a minimum, it would help dispel the idea that a "good ol' boys club" is running the show.

Dennis



I doubt if we can use that argument, but we can try, and if it works you will be credited.

Splitting off a separate sport flyer category into a different organization has been tried in several countries on multiple occasions. Apathy doomed the sport flying associations every time, The members just wanted to fly, and were not prepared to run the associations.

Every time Dave is at the ACC meetings, his job is to watch all the possibilities. Dave is a good friend, and one of the best informed people I know. The other well informed man is Jack Humphreys who actually attends the CIAM meetings of FAI in Europe. Rest assured that they consider, with open minds, what everyone suggests.

Dave can be forgiven for being irritated at some of the senseless drivel! I admire his patience. A lesser man who have lost it on many an occasion.

Involvement with ACC is not going to stop. It would take a total constitutional change, demanded by 2/3 of the members, to stop our involvement. As FAI support was last measured at 78%, rest assured that we will continue to afford our modellers the opportunity to compete on the world stage. Look back at the list Dave posted of countries that belong to FAI. It is hard to name a civilized country that is not on the list.

Given that this is the situation, constant striving to keep our expenses reasonable is a given, and is the combined job of the FAI delegate and the Executive of MAAC. It will not be sloughed off.

Richard Barlow

(in reply to DP01)
       Post #: 58

RE: AERO CLUB of CANADA - 1/14/2006 11:54:03 PM   
DSLarkin


 

Posts: 136
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Picton, ON, CANADA
Status: offline
quote:

“We can't include all the Canadian private aircraft in the calculations as we have no way of getting any money from their pilots”. One could take this to imply that we include all MAAC members simply because it is possible to get money from them?


We include all MAAC members because they are all members of our association - MAAC. We don't include say COPA members because their association isn't a member of the Aero Club. It's the same in most other countries. Do you think Canada would benefit if the FAI based their assessment solely on the number of aircraft and model aircraft in each country? And how would you handle the case of countries where all the aircraft are owned by the State?

quote:

does not appear to be valid in an FAI context. There are many model competions that have no FAI connection/rules, lets use Scale Aerobatics as an example”. Why should a fun fly be recognized by FAI any more than SA?

We aren't talking about FAI events, just defining who is a competitor and seeing if we can do this within MAAC for national or regional competition. We are just trying to see if we could get a useful breakdown - and it simply isn't easy or convenient. To satisfy an anti-competition lobby we looked at seeing if we could use more 'user-pay' for competitors. The Board wouldn't go along. They didn't say 'no' they said 'hell no'. In any case since then the FAI has defined an ASP, and put the whole world on an even footing (and brought Canada's fees down, while others such as the USA, UK, France, Germany, Japan and Switzerland, went up - France almost doubled).

quote:

Is it not so, that if all ACC members did the same thing, then the ASP count would dramatically decrease, thus decreasing the FAI fee, thereby benefiting all?

No - please read what I'm writing a little more carefully. The other FAI countries would not buy off on what we were doing and we would simply be expelled. Alternatively they would do the same thing and we would be back where we started. The FAI defines what an air sport person is - for this purpose.

quote:

I have some difficulty understanding that some 100 FAI model aviation competitors outweigh all other forms of aviation.

Arguably I've used a simplistic analogy here, but it is one that has been used against us. I'm referring specifically to the fact that we are involved in at least 10 world championships every two years, whereas the 'full-size' enthusiasts never have more than one.

There's also the numbers of records. But I certainly concede your point on performance medals.

quote:

"'Cause that's the way it is"

Hardly - we have been involved in one significant revision since the mid 90s. As I've mentioned many times before, I have a floppy disc full of the various approaches we kicked around trying to come up with the best possible benefit and still have something that the other associations could sell to their members. We have safeguarded our position as the lowest contributor - per person. Of course as we have so many members as ours is such a popular pastime, it ends up as a large total. If you feel that we should pay the smallest total because our toys are less expensive than theirs, I can't possibly sway you any more than I can hope to sway a full-size enthusiast who wants every modeller to pay the same as him. Mind you it didn't help us at a recent ACC AGM when our President (not Carl) was telling everybody about the Avro Jetliner he was building with four gas turbines. Now somebody flying in the sport aviation category may have a very sizable investment (if he does own his own aircraft) but the same isn't true for parachutists, hang/para glider enthusiasts or all soarers. And remember that these people often have been aeromodellers and many still are.

It's not that I'm not open to a new approach - I am. But as I've said, it has to be a genuinely new approach and one that we can sell to the other associations which have joined with us to form Canada's Aero Club. We have negotiated a reasonable deal. Obviously there are still people that would like us to pay more, just as there are people who would like us to pay less. Our answer to those who want us to pay more is "OK but then give us the votes on the Board that would go with any increase". That would give us total control and nobody wants to give up control to one of the associate organizations - it is better as a balance. But we've still got the biggest voting block. And Canada's VicePresident with the FAI is a modeller - Jack Humphreys.

(in reply to DP01)
       Post #: 59

RE: AERO CLUB of CANADA - 1/15/2006 2:26:17 PM   
cessna206a


 

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/28/2005
From: ., ON, CANADA
Status: offline
quote:

We have safeguarded our position as the lowest contributor - per person.


That perhaps is our problem with 7 or 9 out of 13,000 MAAC FAI competitors indentified per year.

DP01 has a sound idea, instead of rejecting it outright, take it to the board and see what can be done to improve our fee.

$16,000 for 7 or 9 members is a bit excessive one might say.

(in reply to DSLarkin)
       Post #: 60

RE: AERO CLUB of CANADA - 1/15/2006 4:27:14 PM   
DSLarkin


 

Posts: 136
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Picton, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		First of all, seven or nine isn't correct. It is usually 30 a year which over the two year cycle is 60. That's the figure for FAI sporting licences. About 15 a year get selected and go on teams, so that's 30 over one cycle. Last year the licence number was abnormally low with 19 and I've asked our FAI chairman if he has a feeling for the reason - but it looks like the cutback in MAAC support or particularly high travelling costs. I know some of the teams weren't complete. (Competition is by individual and by national team). In any case you will only ever get a small number competing for a place in the FAI teams. Normally there are only three modellers per team, and only a few people in a SIG are prepared to specialize (and spend) to the degree necessary. FAI rules are tighter than national rules and the models tend to be more complex and more expensive. People normally compete in the national and regional events until they have reached a certain level of competence and feel ready to have a shot at FAI.

Editing - I've just found some stats on my old MAC - we had 22 team members in 2002 and at least 15 in 2003.

FAI world championship competition is not an SIG all by itself.

We can take the notion to the Board, but frankly I don't see the point of bothering them with something that absolutely would not work. We run a risk here - if we were to go to the Aero Club with what is in fact an absolutely unpalatable request we could open up the whole discussion, get out-voted and end up getting a bill for a larger fee. And that wouldn't fly with MAAC so we would be at an impass again. I put in a report to the Board every year, and if required, I can be present to discuss it.

I'm absolutely prepared to go over the topic with the Board and expect to be in Ottawa for the AGM and Board Meeting. And there will be at least three other people present who have been to Aero Club AGMs and who are up to speed. However if you feel strongly enough about it, talk to your Zone Director and I will be glad to answer his questions.

And the main point here is that one of the reasons why MAAC was formed was to make it feasible for Canadians to compete internationally. There can never be more than a very few Canadians competing in world championship events evey year, any more than there can be more than a few drivers in Formula One. This has always been the case.

Incidentally I read a number of out-of-country magazines and I've never seen the argument in them that their country should get out of world competition basically because only three people from each SIG are selected to compete. However in the US and the UK, totally non-competition sport flying model flying associations were started and both foundered due to lack of interest.

I expect you know, but Canada has produced two World Champions - Bob Nelitz and Arend Borst.

< Message edited by DSLarkin -- 1/15/2006 6:39:29 PM >

(in reply to cessna206a)
<