turboplanner

election. Over the last day or so China Airlines has been disgorging thousands of "typical Australians" ready, in any city, and particularly out in our country areas, to wave flags and make speeches in every electorate (88%) where there  was now a Jack Chee standing for election.

The problem started when they began launching their campaigns, and saying .......

.........known for its many parties. You'd be wanting to know whether they were going to locate the new Sydney Airport over the top of your Drifter Field airstrip, and someone would pick up the phone and you'd hear Har, Har HAR!!!!!! and the clinking of glasses as they listened to the end of a schoolyard joke.

Then you'd get a helpful "Even WE don't know!!!!!!........you'd be better talking to Albo!"

And now here we are years later, with our Albo, even more famous than Macron who has just set the Tariff standard for the world in one night, except for the spiteful slash at Chairman Xi with the 125% whack in the guts.

Both Cappy and Turbo raced over to placate Chairman Xi, Cappy even bowing before him (which would never have happened in the goldrush), and Turbo stayed behind to console Xi and sign off a contract for the supply of toothpaste to every person in China in a Genuine cat skin capsule for 1 cent each, the price varying by the CPI, tariff-free, hence this late post. He left Xi showing praise on his old friend Turbo and promising........ 

21 minutes ago, FlyingVizsla said:

I have found them easily contactable, the staff & board.  They have been helpful with how to handle a couple of our aircraft, one for sale and one returning to the register.  Yes, they do hammer you with reminders that your Rego or Membership is coming due, but they were getting complaints that "No one told me it was about to expire.."  As for feedback - they ask what motivated you to take a plane off the Register, not renew your membership etc.

 

Admittedly, when it was the early days of the AUF, the Bunny Farmer & Myles used to visit our Club/Flying School each year to inspect and be entertained by the troops, so probably wider feedback than just listening to members at a Fly-in or seminar.

You've demonstrated the fundamental difference. Many Limited companies now have CRM (Customer Relationship Management) departments that promote the product, lend a sympatheic ear when something's going wrong, survey the clients (why didn't you renew membership etc) the CRM department then records the number of complaints etc and passes them on to the Sales department, Service department, Dealer etc in the form of a righteous admonition to do better in the future, and receive asnwers from the experienced field people in return. The RAA Ltd Company as a Self Administrating Body also has the duty of care/responsibility to handle every aspect of the aircraft class they manage.

The Incorporated Body has the same duty of care/responsibility butgets some Government protection for its officers who, by its definition are elected in every State and Territory. Under self management you can administer however you want to achieve the end result. You can appoint Stewards or Field Managers who arew close to the airctaft locations and can inspect them on a regular basis, you can appoint flying Stewards to manage skills and behaviour, you can have a risk management Committee and you can have a Promotional Manager or Committee. You can have a Specifications Committee to decide what new types of aircraft to admit and to phase out types no longer needed.

You can have regional meetings, State meetings or Federal meetings and so on.

50 minutes ago, jackc said:

Turbs, there is a lot of things going on in the background for many people, I spend time on the phone these days, and all I hear is unhappy people, my experiences with RAA have never been good mostly, I feel,I am the enemy to them.  They hammered me this week to pay my membership, a month early, I need to do an article for the mag, I bet they don’t publish it.

I am a target on their lunch room dart board, because yes I am outspoken.

we all have that right to express our selves.

RAA Ltd is just there to manage and take a fee for it, pretty much the same as an insurance company. There are plenty around these days who don't even advertise their phone number. It backfires because they never get the feedback that comes in to an Association so they lose the feel and the direction and service quality isn't what's wanted.

3 hours ago, spacesailor said:

I will second jackc .

I didn't even get notification that my aircraft 10-1103 was grounded .

spacesailor

 

He's talking about a completely different group of people to RAA Inc. so different people.

2 hours ago, jackc said:

You will keep hearing it, scroll right past if you don’t like it.

Because  I see no bright light ideas from you, only kicks in the guts for things you don’t like.

So what did they do to upset you?

1 hour ago, jackc said:

Look at what it’s doing to Recreational Aviation? Increased costs, more onerous regulation,

they grounded one of my aircraft on a phone call, no supporting documentation.

They could not manage a kids sandpit, from phone calls I have discussions about, it’s a mess, they have shut down flying schools and owners walked away, had enough.

Yes, there are some great people in the organisation, tainted by the few.

But don’t worry, plans are being made by CASA if it all goes down in a heap.

Sadly, that is what it may take.

For me? It’s no problem, even confiscate my planes, I will go to the U.S. get my factory built Aerolite 103, go there 4 times per year for 3-4 weeks a time and fly happy, in the most enjoyable aviation sector, who’s rules fit on one A4 page. 
Just image getting my radio call for the biggest air show in the World

‘Jack Aerolite, you are clear to land runway,  19 please exit taxiway J and proceed to ultralight parking’ 

Screw Australia, I don’t need any registration or licence to fly into the biggest Airshow in the World 🤩🤩

We've heard it all before. 

6 hours ago, jackc said:

Not if the whole show folds, it’s the the problem for those charged, IF found guilty?

 

In which case there would no longer be a board to sack.

1 hour ago, Area-51 said:

Point 1 - This post is way off track; its so far off track it does not even register... it had the hallmarks of motivation early on and is now just another forum post of speculation and meandering discussion... Its not even amusing; its just apathetically very very sad.

 

Point 2 - RAA has some seriously questionable internal cultural rot going on at the very top, and it either gets removed now, or, continues to fester and degrade the establishment, its resources, and its public image borne by its members (the establishment's owners).

 

Point 3 - Under the RAA constitution a minimum quorum of 10% (1000 persons) of the total members, as a group, can put forward and vote upon calling for a "special resolution - vote of no confidence" requesting the immediate removal and expulsion of either "individual", or, "all of" RAA appointed Board Members. 
 

The Board Members do not own RAA... They are Elected for a position upon the Board through member voting, or, members signing their vote over to a Proxy (aka a Board Member) - this is very bad if the Board is corrupt..

 

So the question that should be getting discussed here is "How will we, the rightful owners of RAA, assemble ourselves into a quorum of 1000 in order to immediately extricate this malignant toxicity from the establishment?"

 

Solution - Sack the entire Board swiftly in one go and move on by reinstating each vacant position with an officer that is able to display a proven track record of highly respected and developed standards of Ethics and Integrity.

 

That's what needs to happen. 
 

There is nothing to discuss about the matter.

 

Time to flush the stinking bog down the toilet and kick the inflated hagas into touch.

 

 

You've pretty much got it in a nutshell.

The last time that was tried was in the Inc days where a much lower number of votes was required.

The debate on what to do and how to do it, who should repace......etc  was conducted on this site, in public over months.

When the meeting arrived, the strongest agitators for change apparently remained silent and tried to get someone to move the motion for them. The motion was defeated by a very handy bagfull of Proxy votes which had been sought from all over Australia, thanks to the open discussions on social media.

So probably going to e repeated if the 1000 people are canvassed on this site.

If you have management experience/experience managing a big Association/know how to use the Constitution and know how to work quietly behind the scenes, that's one pathway.

The real question is why are the 9000 others, not saying anything?

58 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

There you go again with your selective responses.

 

"the rights & freedom to navigate, as the PIC determines, within the law"

 

Which bit of my comment did you not read/comprehend?

 

No more. 😈

No selective responses; the links I gave you earlier contain your within the law

parameters in any State. Nesting within that are the flying regulations. Most Ersa entries will do that for you, but ultimately it's your responsibility check whether the local Ersa entry is up to date.

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Turbs me old mate,

 

Much though I love a good debate, when the opponent just wriggles & wriggles, going off on ever more irrelevant tangents, I grow weary, not of the original topic,  but of trying to answer on topic (the rights & freedom to navigate, as the PIC determines, within the law)😈

Surely you understand there are parts of Australia you can navigate and there are parts you can't?

Skippy we're talking about routine Planning; you still haven't posted anything but opinions I've given you the links to find out for yourself but if a caution's all you can come up with, best leave the subject alone so we at least have official sites to work with.

......perform his signature "Double Hammerhead from Circuit Height" This person was known as "Chopper" because he had no teeth. He rarely landed at the airfield at which he performed his DHCH, usually picked a perfect paddock behind a hill and used a different registration every flight. The CASA FoIs had been after him for years and when Albo was Minister for Air..................... 

On 07/04/2025 at 1:48 PM, skippydiesel said:

 

A sight line issue is usually something to do with a visual amenity/historic vista or some such - very long bow, in try in linking that to the right of  air navigation😈

The sight line relates to the Planning Scheme requirement of the relevant Council

where the Council determines the nature of the precinct. No it's not an aeroplane flying over an airstrip; it shows that although you may have bought even a farm out in the country, you don't own what the local Council specifies above it.

Similarly in an airfield precint the Planning Scheme requirements may be to suit aircraft operations, with, for example a permit to collect fees, just as the Commercial Zone owners can sell industrial products but farmers can't and so on. 

18 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

If people want to talk they will.

You come up with wild theory's about everything why can't we.

 

As long as if Ian gets a phone call you're happy enough to stand up and provide evidence under oath in the court, in person.

Why not let those directly involved, go through their own processes without these amazing  conclusions which have very little to do with reality.

......16 of the flyins didn't read tgeir ERSAs and got tangled up in the netting balls that roll across the W sands endlessly, never catching a single rabbit and 16 lost undercarriages and props after landing in burrows (the burros of BigRabbits), 7 got lost in South Australia and one called the Broken Hill Tower with "Gday Mate, do I land to the left or the right, to which the Tower replied ........"..... 

.........Rabbit was the staple diet of W and they were shooting their food supply. We all know what's happening to New Zealand as the Cattle producers get rid of their stock in the noble quest of NZ achieving Nett Zero. They now have Nett ............

3 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

As far as I am concerned ERSA is the Bible on this - IF ERSA makes no mention, then any "air" charges are not valid.

 

"....I flight plan around restrictions..."  As we all do however if said levy does not appear in ERSA (example: Goulburn) then you may find yourself insuring an unforeseen charge 😈

 

 

That would be the ideal.

3 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

It seems to me that Turbs has "muddied the waters" by introducing the concept of tall buildings and their impact on the freedom to navigate through the air.  

 

As an intellectual  concept/theory ,this is valid however as a practical application - where the owner of the land has rights to the airspace above therefore can charge/toll passing aircraft its just BS😈

No you can't say that; you need to research the principle before jumping to conclusions. I only used buildings as an example of where you might own the property, but other laws apply. Out in hilly country you might own a farm but find that you can't build your house on top of a hill; it has to be below the sightlines.

5 hours ago, BrendAn said:

so you would be happy to pay a fee for flying over an airfield at 9500 ft. 

I already said I flight plan around restrictions like that; it's usually only a degree or so for a while and then back to track - usually zero difference in flight time. There are plenty of places you can't go at all. No point crying about it, just navigate to avoid them.

........."no! no!" from the cockies in NSW but the W's quietly looked at each other and smiled. Before long there wouldn't be too many ..........................

.........noting that the wing on that Imp was the one from the modified Thruster built by JohnnyD, the one that..................

........it's now up in the orchard doing a good job as a bird scarer.

The Hillmans disappeared off Australian highways and freeways after the cops were allowed to book drivers using the road at under 60 km/hr.

The Hillmans had other problems coverting to aircraft. It wasn't the 51% rule because the owners only had to show the stack of invoices for parts, but ........

7 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

My problem??? You jest.

 

Your problem, friend, is introducing, 1. the unlikly jurisdiction of a State and  2. the following that up with a vague statement to do with use of property, when this thread is about the air above😈

The air above is regularly decided by our State Tribunals so there are precedents under the relevant Acts, and they are searchable here: https://www.austlii.edu.au/databases.html

From that link go to the relevant Tribunal and you'll find the case decisions which set the precedents.