bull

How do we know CASA didn't push for this inspections and we got a good result by being allowed to be L1 rather than say L2?Plenty of other differences between Experimental VH and RAA amateur build

Because Casa did not push for them ,,,as they have not pushed for SAAA to have 4 compulsory inspections of build quality based on accident causes and failure records because those records of failure simply do not exist, so over regulation and cost is not justified is it Jet

 

 

He said he wasn't well Bull, and would answer when he could.

Ok Turb,s ,sorry I did,nt know ,hope he get well soon, cause besides all the bullshit we are still all flyers and are here for the same reason [our love of flight] So all the best Don and thanks turbo.

 

 

Very quiet DON are you out there??? Can you please address the issue just presented to you about these inspections and the lack of CASA requirements for same .................

 

 

Great video buddy. The age old proven techniques, real nice to see. Long live timber.

Yep David but as DON has got his way based on no fact or figures, I might have an aircraft built to the highest standards using methods tried and tested and PROVEN , that according to the new rules I cant register,,,raa really sucks...................https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILBTjFTtny8 see it flying The blue and white one is the same as the one I,ve just brought lovely taildragger and sweet little plane ,,that I can see RAA being a royal pain in the #$^%@ to get it regoed

 

 

[GALLERY=media, 3789]plane construction - YouTube by bull posted Sep 30, 2016 at 10:04 PM[/GALLERY]

 

 

Check out this design and build of very high quality well proven aircraft construction for decades ,anyone building and designing a 95.10 aircraft ,,ALWAYS go to get the best advice and help from other very experienced builders and flyers ,because safety is always number one Don. Now this advice usually comes at a cost to the member doing the building ,of either multiple cups of coffee or tea or beers etc . Not having to try and find an L3 or 4 from some other district or area at large cost to the member must pay for them to come to us including travel cost etc {an example was when I had to get a condition report for my loehle singleseat 95.10 aircraft ,,ihad to pay 600 dollars to bring a l4 down to lakeside to do it as no other """LICENCED RAA inspector was available in my area so for no other reason than to make raa look good to CASA {who by the way DO NOT require these staged inspections.]..............RAA is becoming the money machine big brother.....

 

 

On the contrary Bull, I would much prefer this and most of the rest of regulations that affect Recreational Aviation to be in the form of RAAP (RAAus version of CASA CAAP). I think it is good advice to have somebody check your work when your life and the life of others depends on you getting it right first time. Trial and error are rarely afforded in our pastime.Regulation should be at a high level like "You are required to conduct each flight safely" and have that supported by lots of good advice about how to achieve safe flight.

As others have said, the test for regulation is "Does this proposed regulation have a robust risk analysis that shows a regulation is required"?

But Don, do,s this requirement for 4 stage inspections of aircraft built under ano,95.10 {an ano provided to allow experimentation of design ]show a hint of over regulation and added cost for members and as the record of failure to justify this,is not there, so where do,s your records of failure of experimental builder designed and flown SINGLE SEAT aircraft come from,,certainly not the incident reports of RAA as most if not all of recent failure have been factory designed aircraft and aircraft that have nothing to do with the original reasoning behind 95.10??????And do,s not this requiring others that are licenced by RAA to do these inspections then remove the onus on us of flying at our own risk? and put RAA at risk of legal claims because, an RAA inspector said it would not fail etc etc and would this not negate the need for our placards that raa make us put in our aircraft that we fly this aircraft at our own risk????PS and the reason I,m asking this question is these requirements for 4 stage inspections of 95.10 aircraft ARE NOT a CASA requirement but come from within RAA?????

 

 

Bull,For the benefit of us all would you explain the point you are trying to make about Don's post.

My point of this post is Don,s lanquage about ""HIS "" life being structured and the reasoning he use,s to justify 4 stage inspections of 95.10 aircraft construction to quote him,,, I readily concede that it is a step away from the ethos of design, build and fly it yourself. But, I come from a work environment that was totally systems based. All systems include checks at the appropriate point and feedback loops and those steps are in the system for only one reason - quality,,unquote. So by his reasoning if <HE thinks it should be done this way ,that's the way it has to be...................

 

 

The AUF was formed to put a body between CASA and ultralight flyers. CASA was reasonably happy with that for many reasons mostly it saved CASA money and they just didn't want to have to think too much about such small scale aviation.RAAus does exactly the same job as the AUF did both for Rec Aviation Pilots and CASA. CASA has no desire to be involved in administering the flying done by Rec Aviation Pilots or, for that matter, the low end of non-commercial GA.

BUt, anyone who thinks that CASA has delegated SAFETY regulation to RAAus and that RAAus can make up whatever rules it like is being mislead.

 

In its recent NPRM on the proposed Part 149 that is to govern bodies like RAAus, CASA makes it abundantly clear that bodies under Part 149 are there to ADMINISTER CASA's safety regime.

 

Accusing RAAus of becoming a mini-CASA makes no sense in that environment. The AUF and RAAus have always been a CASA delegate. Yes RAAus can and does have arguments with CASA about regulation but in the end, CASA calls the shots. Anyone who thinks that has not always been the case is missing the point of L, A, W law.

 

RAAus is an advocate for light aircraft pilots and maintainers and does a pretty good job of it as evidenced by the advances since the days of the 300 foot limit. It demands of CASA that they justify any restrictions placed on our flying. On that basis CASA is being pushed to lift restrictions on MTOW and access to CTA.

 

As regards staged inspections I readily concede that it is a step away from the ethos of design, build and fly it yourself. But, I come from a work environment that was totally systems based. All systems include checks at the appropriate point and feedback loops and those steps are in the system for only one reason - quality assurance and improvement. In our case read "quality" as "not killing your self due to an unforeseen design flaw or construction error.

 

Of course, if you are like a very special few who NEVER, EVER make a mistake then you can feel miffed about staged checks on your aircraft build. In the meantime, I'll happily stick with my belts and braces approach.

This statement hits the nail on the head,,because <YOU think that it,s required , it should be made law ah

 

 

And that's the problem Aldo,,,,RAA was formed on the back bone of the AUF as in ultralights and there are a lot of members who are still very happy flying ultralights and not needing 5700kg mtow or access to airspace etc etc etc As raa is evolving like the way you are saying , It is time for CASA to recognise that and they will hopefully allow another organisation to manage the lighter side of aviation ie ÚLTRALIGHTS ,as raa was originaly built for ,but has now mutated into quasi GA

The four stage inspections of 95.10 aircraft being built is a perfect example,as 95,10 was originaly formed to allow a person to design build and FLY an aircraft that was Affordable to build and fly .Remember when safe once stood for Safe Affordable Flying for Everyone ,well as Raa has mutated into a quasi Ga flying club by being safe Accessable flying for everyone ie; Accessable for those that can no longer, for whatever reasons , Access GA.......And before anyone starts screaming down my throut about ,OH we are only doing this to stop you all killing yourselves, have a look at the BIG list of incident reports for the last 10 years and see how many 95.10 aircraft are falling out of the sky compared with the long list of quasi GA aircraft masquarding as ULTRALIGHTS under the banner of an organisation formed for just that ULTRALIGHTS..............

 

 

PlaneyI agree the constitution must mean something and realistically you must abide by it, I'm sure RAA have had sufficient legal advice on how to set up the structure and get the organisation moving along to a workable operation and yes it all takes time but the constant chirping from the sidelines from people who don't want the job of implementing the change (or just didn't want change in the first place) doesn't help.

 

Any time you change from one structure to another and try to keep the business operating at the same time there are bound to be some things missed or not done to the letter of the law but it is not the end of the world.

 

Frank

 

The consultative approach works with smaller organisations but once you get over a certain size it just doesn't work because of all the differing opinions and positions that people take, you never achieve anything. In both large and small organisations you are never going to please all the members/shareholders all of the time in fact you will be lucky to please some of them some of the time.

 

If you just look at the recent change of structure of the organisation there are a number of members/shareholders not happy with the change but the majority of the members/shareholders who voted chose this direction.

 

Now that the structure of the organisation has been determined it is time to let the directors determine the direction of the organisation, the administrative team CEO etc to implement that direction and the rest of us to go and enjoy our flying.

 

If shareholders are not happy with that direction at the next elections they will have a choice to vote for someone else.

 

Anyone who thinks CASA will allow another new organisation to run its own little show for the benefit of a few types is dreaming.

 

I think the direction that will happen in the medium term will be that RAA will be pushed to take over all non-commercial GA below 5700kg so we best be a robust organisation.

 

Aldo

And that's the problem Aldo,,,,RAA was formed on the back bone of the AUF as in ultralights and there are a lot of members who are still very happy flying ultralights and not needing 5700kg mtow or access to airspace etc etc etc As raa is evolving like the way you are saying , It is time for CASA to recognise that and they will hopefully allow another organisation to manage the lighter side of aviation as raa was originaly built for ,but has now mutated into quasi GA

 

 

Done my bit........

 

 

 

The Constitution at 27.1 actually states:

"Where the Company has called for resolutions, any current Member with voting rights may give:

 

(a) written notice to the Company of a resolution they propose to move at the general meeting (Members’ resolution), and/or

 

(b) a written request to the Company that the Company must make available to its Members a statement about a proposed resolution or any other matter that may properly be considered at a general meeting (Members’ statement)."

 

For normal administration purposes and to save RAAus the costs of a special mailing to 10,000 members ($10,000 postage + stationery + staff effort) a resolution must be received by the organisation in sufficient time to meet the 21 days notice required for an AGM (Cl 21.2). N.B., 21 days is a minimum.

 

Therefore, RAAus was prudent in refusing your tardy request and thereby preserving members funds.

 

It would be grossly unfair to all members of RAAus for a resolution of any kind to be put to a General Meeting (including an AGM) where Notice of the Resolution has not been provided with the Agenda. The exception would be, I think, a resolution in relation to the conduct of the meeting. It is unlikely we will ever see more than a couple of hundred members ever attend an AGM or GM. Having a vote of such a small proportion of the membership deciding anything would be grossly unfair to the entire membership.

 

From what I read of your complaint, you have no grounds for such a statement. A statement that defames people and is manifestly untrue and is published could be grounds for an action. You might like to be more cautious what you publish Kirk.

 

Under the Constitution the Board was not required to even have an Annual General Meeting (AGM) until up to 18 months from the date of registration. If the Board was trying to avoid scrutiny it could have held the first AGM for RAAus Ltd late in 2017. Instead they opted to have it very early, just a few months from incorporation - just long enough to have an election to take the Board numbers to the MAXIMUM 7 not the minimum (5).

 

To me this seems like just another example of distortion to blacken the reputations of the RAAus Board and management and make the vapourware alternative seem more attractive.

 

Don

Therefore, RAAus was prudent in refusing your tardy request and thereby preserving members funds.

Tardy??? nice lanquage mister {note not king or boss or president] Ramsay ,your use of legal threats using members funds to challenge a VERY REAL member concern is not very "'professional''as you try to make us all think that you are ,,ah.............

 

vapourware alternative

Vapours can turn to gas real quick mister Ramsay and gas could be deadly for RAA

What AC is he using?

Don't know as of now ,but I was training in his lightwing early last year and that's how much I was charged

 

 

Is that with Ron still Bull?

No mate Carlo Pretti King reef Aviation

 

 

Hi Nick -thanks, but what are the dual rates for students?

$200 per hour at at Innisfail

 

 

I guess different people have differing views on what constitutes a crowd."None of them were really listened to." Really? Is that verifiable or an opinion. Keith, I'm not saying you are wrong -I am now very careful about appearing to criticise anyone these days . If you have some facts to back up your assertions than I'm sure we would all welcome the chance to see them. It might make it easier for members to make their own minds up as to what's true and whats conjecture. That would surely be a good thing yes?

If you are simply putting forward your opinions then there is no need to trouble you for verification.

 

p.s.I hope you don't feel threatened his post, or that I'm baiting you in any way, that is not my intention, I just expressing my opinion, and I'm sure you'd support Napoleon's dictum on opinions.

The end result for RAA will be how many members are left if there is another option ah Gandy

 

 

Easy to land on top of another plane and you never see it till you hear it. The Drifter is about the best there is for vis from the front seat. Try one if you haven't , and enjoy the view. Nev

My gt500 is pretty good for vis,but it really is just a drifter on steroids

 

 

too hard to see in the dark...

 

 

Says cancelled until the "end of may" old station is the end of may so perhaps will be their first display after fixing the problem. . Will be there Rouletts or not.

Not going to happen Ian , all the Queensland tour is cancelled.

 

 

My Dad was in the Royal Australian Navy and my first real memory of aircraft and wanting to fly was when I was 5 or 6 year old and my Dad had brought me a pedal car back from overseas deployment whilst he was on the HMAS Melbourne . A family day out on the old carrier saw me pedalling around on the flight deck under the wings of Skyhawk jets and sea Vampire fighters and those bloody big Gannets, while being chased by a number of able seamen around the deck ,,will always remember it ,they had set up one of the aircraft lift tunnels as a ghost tunnel with ab,s in costume scaring the shit out of us. Awesome memories of watching cat launches and landings from the viewing platform on the bridge tower and running around all over the grand old lady. {something that with todays safety culture and security problems will never happen again]

 

 

See following.Roulettes displays cancelled as cracking found in RAAF PC-9s | Australian Aviation

Mike

bugger

Thanks ave8rr

 

 

Roulettes grounded

Why is that Frank?

 

 

here,s one I took this morning from my GT500 flying at midge point...........

 

 

 

Took this one on Saturday.. would love to see this old bird flying again. Been sitting out here in the grass at Bankstown for as long as I can remember (which admittedly isn't as long as I'd like). I had a walkaround and it doesn't appear to be neglected, seems like things may be happening?Anyway, thought I'd share:

[ATTACH]37383[/ATTACH]

She is in for some flying mate ,going to fly the "hump