turboplanner

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.

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.

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

So what did they do to upset you?

We've heard it all before.

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

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?

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.

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.....................

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.

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 ............

That would be the ideal.

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.

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 ........

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.

....exposed the fact that the 1st one had not bothered to wait for a DRH mount from the supplier in Guinea Bisseau. The 1st one responded that since the 2nd one had made a calculation mistaking the weights for the balance hence the 12 foot tail, a mistake his 12 year old son pointed out before they attempted to take off, he was to blame for his own mistakes. The 2nd one refused to accept this, got in the car, a Hillman Hunter, and called into the AUF Office in Canberra where an official came out and ...........................................

Your problem Skippy is that you still haven't produced ANY laws. That would be a start. Then there is the matter of what is being discussed which is payment for using the property, which hasn't been addressed. Then there is the morality where the low lifes that cheat their way out of paying spoil it for the genuine users, and when costs aren't covered, it's an easy decision for an owner/council to find something that returns a profit like building houses or factories on the site.