turboplanner

I would be concerned that with all this shananigans going on and if it continues that the umpire ( CASA) will blow his whistle and make a call that none of us recreational pilots will like. In most instances the umps decision is final and hard to overturn.Also, there are not enough members or potential members in this country to have more than one coheasive,effective and financial association under which to fly and even that entity will struggle due to numbers.

About 98% that I can see are speculation on here, with a little try on prune which went flat.

And yes, Turbs, can't help feeling there is a behind the scenes agenda for CASA in all this; could be a lot of jobs and promotions for their sports aviation folk if it all eventually fell to them to manage completely...registration, licensing and operations.

Just think about the public liability implications - better to farm them out where they belong.

And take a look at the other self administering bodies which are managing their affairs without the daily traumas CASA would have if it became the administrator.

The grass may always be greener over the hill and be careful what you wish for - you might just get it.Personally having two organizations is now not productive and we would be better served by one voice. The nature of the world has changed and free aviation has never existed and the constant search for that has lead to nil investment in infrastructure. Those who own and control airfields, do not invest as there is no return to generate the funds to maintain or improve the infrastructure. The organizations that have fought to gain the freedoms we currently enjoy are part of that infrastructure and I regret to say its not going to be free now or at any time soon and a third party will not acheive that by trying to run on "mates rates".

 

It may be a cruel when someone asks for a rate that gives a 5% return on investment but I bet seeing a 0% return on the your next super return would be unacceptable to the person asking for mates rates to use a large chunk of infrastructure regardless of what it is.

 

By the way remember the old line "Divide and conquer"

Perhaps if people had not continuously ridiculed them, blocked them, and generally laughed at what they had to say, they might not have resolved to start their own operation up.

I'm sure you're right TP, but what I was thinking was GA lite would move across for (hypothetically) more weight and CTA and leave RA for grass roots?Ideal world stuff but ild like to see both ends prosper.

RA could stick with under 600kg OCTA and start looking after the lighter end again and everyone wins? Or am I being too optimistic?

Under 600 kg has a bad case of root rot, as in forgetting the roots of recreational flying and becoming besotted with "GA Lite"

It badly needs a few rag and tube champions in a hurry.

This is not to suggest that n near enough is good enough but you should appreciate that reforming the organisation was only one of a number of major projects going on at the time.

A new Tech Manual

a revision of the Ops Manual (turned out bigger then expected)

negotiate with CASA for an improved Deed of Agreement

a removal of restrictions on RAAus pilots from entering CTA and a relaxing of the restrictions on the MTOW that RAAus pilots can fly.

A considerable number of qualified and experienced people looked hard at the proposed Constitution and judged it OK to proceed with knowing that if they missed something it was not going to be catastrophic and could be fine tuned over time.

Every one of the RAAus Members who didn't / don't like the wording of the Constitution have had the opportunity to:

• campaign and vote against it
  - done and lost.
   
   
   
   
  
• propose special resolutions to the upcoming AGM
  - no member used that opportunity.
   
   
   
   
  
• complain about the wording on an online forum
  - done, with the predictable outcome.
   
   
  

You can't just cherry pick a word here and there from the Constitution you must read it as a comprehensive document.

Agree and if rational heads had been held we could have discussed this in a more constructive manner. However, in fairness to Kasper, this issue has highlighted the constitution needs amendment to tidy up some clearly confusing clauses. The members should stop bitching about it and put up constructive resolutions for the change. We have done it many times before and it is a relatively simple process if you hold a rational head.Michael's letter explains the dilemma and even though the constitution appears to imply that a member resolution can be put to members with less than 21 days notice, I don't think Corporatuions Law permits less than 21 days notice to members of any resolution and rightly so. Corporations Law will always override our constitution. That in fact may have been part of the legal advice.

.Pilots who fly under the RAAus banner have the right to direct the company.

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

Just to help those who think canning the printed magazine was a mistake, I have heard from board members that the amount of "cash bleed" saved by this was approx $330,000 p.a.Also, that the books are expected to head into the black by the end of this financial year.

It would be nice if the mockers could find it in their hearts to give credit for RAAus achieving this.

Credit should certainly be given where it's due; just a question of getting the facts.

Agreed - you CAN have a set of staged inspections as other use ... but the history of failures/incidents in RAAus shows that it is NOT the airframes that are failing but the operators ... so whilst you CAN have staged inspections there is no demonstrable issue that says its actually required ... minimum regulation to address actual risk is what the association BOARD should be all about and the BOARD SHOULD be pushing back HARD against anyone in CASA or the Tech office who wants X, Y and Z that is not supported by evidence or in line with a philosophy of minimum regulation.

And that is of course quite achievable.

So #70 is short on fact? Can you show us where Kasper is wrong, quoting the RAA Ltd constitution rather than making one up or using the old RAA Inc. constitution.

Are you saying it's better to work illegally?

You can still have safe construction with multiple inspections like we do with race cars; you just need to set up a volunteer organisation same as we have.

For an assessment of the above comments, members might like to read the Self Administration Hanbook, which Don is now referriong to as an "advisory" document.

Link for #183 Sport Aviation Self Administration Handbook 2010

Google

Really? Quite an assumption without any knowledge and without merit for a further response.

Members might also like to read this handbook and see why CASA have been so agitated with the line RAA were taking.

And there is quite a bit of discussion on this site, about the job specifications of board members.

(Link to follow - pdf too large)

Not the Coal Mines Regulation Act or the Dept of Mines or the Joint Coal Board or the Unions or . . . .

I've wondered if it would be better to put the loctite on the face of the flywheel and NOT the bolts. This should glue the flywheel and stop it moving at all.And you would be able to retension the bolts easily. You could check the effectiveness of the loctite glue job by removing the bolts and seeing if the flywheel was still fixed there.

I may do this to mine unless somebody comes up with a good reason why not.

Once the clamp tensions ius lost and there's the slightest movement, it becomes cumulative.

I'd be having a bolt and thread test done.

Simple; if they're not set up yet, there are no members to betray.

Instead, from the launch you will have a finished document to review. If you like it you can join.

As they get down the track with a member base they would be nuts not to consult the members.

Octave, rather then nitpick everyone else's comments, why not read the document and make an original comment.

Clearly ELAA has not open for business at this stage.

If a professional process is used to produce a control document, and it complies with all external regulations which are applicable, then not only is CASA likely to simply rubber stamp it, but will breathe a sigh of relief that all is well in that particular self administering body.

That should be the aim.

Stirring, most likely.

The control there is unbelievably good; makes it look easy.

It was shown to members and was back and forth to casa over a long time, years?If it were reliant on being approved by all members we would be running on the old version for decades to come

I've previously mentioned that a good example of consultation is what Councils practice.

An example of reasonable consultation for a complete update of a Tech Manual might be.

Stage 1

Notification to all members that an update was planned.

Invitation for members to suggest improvements within 60 days of invitation.

Stage 2

Existing Manual components, proposals from committee meetings, submissions from members considered, and Draft Tech Manual produced

Draft Tech Manual circulated to all members with invitation for members to suggest improvements within 30 days of invitation.

Stage 3

Committee considers Draft1 and all member submission, and finalises Tech Manual for vote

Stage 4

Committee releases Tech Manual

In this case:

• All members knew there was an intent to update the Manual from the start, and if that was inappropriate, could point out why/stop it.
   
   
  
• All members given the chance to submit input at the start stage, rather than being accused of "sabotaging" a finished product presented for a decision. If they don't want to submit they don't have to.
   
   
  
• The Committee gets direct and well thought out submissions from members, some of whom are expert in various fields, then finalises the document
   
   
  
• All members given the chance to check a much more widely researched document for them to make a decision on.
   
   
  
• The Committee can finalise the draft knowing that all the members have made their thoughts known.
   
   
  
• The Tech Manual is likely to be what the members want.
   
   
  

They write the stuff we pilots cannot understand, and if you didn't notice the lawyer did more talking that the CEO at the senators inquiry re the Jabiru matter. Their influence is all pervading. That's been well known for years. Nev

The Senate sequence you are referring to was an estimates committee; the lawyer was also a senior executive, there for the estimates committee as his position dictated.

Lawyers draft the regulations, CASA is the regulator, no surprises there.