turboplanner

The magazines saga is a good example. I'm sure if the members had had access to the discussions there would have been a different outcome.

 

I've always followed a policy that members should always have open access with the additional provision that, if they don't want to attend meetings respond to surveys, respond with opinions, then the daily work goes on without them and they have to put up with what the meetings decide.

 

Occasionally someone who didn't bother to attend the meeting will arc up about something, and I usually reprocess that through subsequent meetings, so the policy ensures an almost unanimous support.

 

 

An open Association will still have a very small number of in-camera matters, such as those involving personal privacy, sanctions and so on. There's no need to define it here, but the number will be very small.

 

On the other hand that doesn't apply to Policy discussions and decisions, financial planning and decisions, Manual development, decisions by an "executive", board of management discussions and decisions where the members own the Association.

 

As I recall you Don, and Major actually signed agreements to keep information from the members, so dumping that little procedure would be a good start to opening up the organization.

 

Dumping the "Executive" provision, which really is just a Committee of the Committee, would also see decisions being made by all the representatives who were voted in.

 

That was an interesting comment about keeping employees out of board meetings, because it's significance is based on what they are employed as. If they were employed to perform a specific function, then there would be no reason to separate them except for situations such as remuneration discussions, which would be normally held in-camera.

 

As Major says, communication has been improved, but there have been a few waves over financial matters which have affected members (like the magazine), and issues of specifications/training/safety, where people from two groups have been posting about a growing number of unlicensed, unregistered flyers, which, if not corrected very quickly can bring a self administering organization undone.

 

 

Yes Ada, the secrecy just goes on and on. I've managed to run Associations in total transparency, with the sole exception of in camera meetings to discuss penalties for bad behaviour, and the members always knew all the facts all the time and could, and did provide robust input.

 

 

I suspect that what HITC means in his last sentence is more to do with CERTIFICATION of the aircraft. Meaning that if you want someone else to be responsible for the manufacture, and certification of your aircraft, go and buy something certified like a Cessna or a 737.That said, I don't think that uncertified machines should be playing in areas of high density RPT (CTA)

In the DIRD system, of which aviation admittedly is a small and not very well known player there are two categories - one for the high volume market, and one for low volume certification. While the low volume signatories are vetted for qualifications by the State Authorities they hold authority, and take responsibility for low volume certification, and the builder/modifier has to comply with the Act and their decisions for the vehicle to be certified. This has been the case since 1989, and it has worked very well, cleaning out poor quality mass-produced vehicles, and allowing people like me to build certain vehicles which would otherwise be off the road.

So I would have no fears about experimental aircraft facing any sort of unfair threat.

 

 

I think many in GA would be very against RAAus operating in CTA. I doubt many Rec pilots really know what is involved. accurate ETA's' position reports tracking tolerences altimetry and altitude tolerences Standard ROD for descents holding entry and pattern procedures and Tso'd imstruments, power load capable and reliable electric systems, radio fail procedures and so on. AND higher medical standards.Nev

Some RAA people still raise it publicly; in fact it got quite an extensive run just recently.

 

 

I still think this whole 'blame someone else if possible thing' is a nonsense and thoroughly undesirable. If we want many of the freedoms we have, we need to be willing to be responsible for own actions, and that is and always has been the spirit of intent of the CAO. If we want to be able to shed the personal responsibility then get a licence and fly GA.

Interesting juxtaposition.

 

A plaintiff has to prove someone was negligent, and that's not as easy as it sounds - many steps above blaming someone else.

 

The steps in the law fit well with the freedoms we have, and we still have to be responsible for our own actions; but we are protected against someone else's negligence.

 

I think you will find that CAO fit in with that.

 

Your last sentence is interesting. In GA CASA appears to have a lot more exposure; so my guess is they cringe every time someone from RAA publicly suggests they should be able to expand their operations into CTA etc. where there are going to be more Dash 8s etc.

 

 

That's just the point, he didn't buy a Certificated (you can call it Certified if you like) aircraft, he chose to buy an Experimental aircraft. When you fly Experimental YOU are responsible for it being airworthy, not anyone else. It's time people stopped looking for someone else to blame all the time. If you want Certificated, get out of RAAus and go to GA ...

When you sell it though, other factors kick in:

 

The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 for example, where the product sold has to be suitable for the purpose, and the transaction has to be free of misleading and unconscionable conduct etc.

 

And the seller may have certain duties of care, such as with the forseeable event where, with CG out of envelope, the aircraft will be unstable.

 

So Ada is making some good points.

 

Placarding is the centrepiece of how the DIRD works these days, and if a product is not in accordance with it's plating, then whoever altered the product without having it recertified and replated, usually has some serious stress time coming. I think these types of issues are why DIRD seems to be moving to push the old guard out.

 

 

I wonder how much came out of the members' pockets for what seems a vague survey?

 

 

Looking at the video again, what appears to be the left hand flap extended appears to me to be the left hand intake scoop and it's flat rear outlet (see the photos I've attached above).Further once the plane is on the truck there us no major damage to the left hand flap, so it it was extended it would have a lot more damage and perhaps dislodged.

In the photo I posted, you can just see the LH wing intake. The under-engine intake and the two under-wing intakes are all streamlines and all slope upwards to the rear, so we would expect to see a small profile at that angle, and although the photo is blurry you can just see the LH intake and it's slightly lighter colour in front of a sharp rectangular outline angled down. If you were to draw a perspective line across to the vanishing point to the left, you would expect to see matching hardware under the right wing, but there's none.

If you go to your second photo, you can see the flap, split from the black and white section, and painted plain blue, and there is an actuator showing at the split.

 

 

True, but both but at both of these times you can see the left flap and right flap position are the same. Post crash there would be no need (and the pilot wouldn't even think of retracting the flap post crash).So if there was flap asymmetry you would see the left flap down, which you don't.

You can see it here.

 

 

 

What counts was when it lifted off the ground Gafa; linkage could have been disconnected, loose.

 

 

We're the flaps asymmetric?

Yes, RH flap wasn't down.

 

 

Yawn

 

 

Unless you are avoiding overtime . . . or ?

there is an anomaly.

 

 

That's how it's done in formal elections - voting closes, vote processing begins, including validation.

 

 

https://cce.sydney.edu.au/course/PPSU - $60 for 3 hours of groundschool.

I think that was a great idea. The point is the partner does not have to pull off a greaser of a landing, just a survivable one. If you think back to all the first landings you did with an instructor, I'd suggest even the worst would have solved this problem, but better to get an instructor to teach her than risk being an unnecessary victim just for the sake of $1,000

 

 

Read what I said gentlemen.....the votes are not counted before the 17.00 deadline, they are simply VAATED as coming from ligitiment members...that's why you have to put your membership number in the box on the back of the envelope remember ?....one member= one vote. This can be done as the votes are received in the office....doesn't mean the votes are counted at all.

That's a naive response Maj. Given the traditionally very small number of RAA election voters, and the reasonably well known status of the people who do vote, just the list of names would allow strategic stacking, so the result could easily be challenged.

 

 

If votes are counted before the poll closes, they should be invalidated because they provide an opportunity for someone to shore up votes to match the known results before closing.

 

 

I think you can Phil, not sure where to start.

 

 

Luckily Turbs doesn't need to be concerned about any of this since he gave up flying. Isn't that right, Alan?

Looks like she's managed to get through the cracks again.

 

 

Very droll Octave, a better solution might be to let the butterflies out of your purse and buy her three or four hours of instruction, since she will be PIC on your departure. If necessary, CASA could then chase her up for unlicensed flying after she landed.

 

One of my precautions was to take a treadmill ECG test to put the heart under maximum pressure, but that by no means covers all possibilities, especially on car driver licence health standards.

 

 

Why bother sending your wife to a flying school, in case you have a medical problem. Just give her some tuition yourself in your own plane. Unless of course you are thinking you will have a medical problem in your next flight, or she wants to get a licence / certificate.

Because it's illegal to allow a passenger to manipulate the controls unless you are an instructor (see applicable CAR), and for very good reason; you have not been trained and qualified as an instructor has, to recover the aircraft from any one of the many situations an inexperienced person pulls it into.

 

 

Thanks for the replies fellas.the aircraft is all wood with fabric skin

.....the club lounge method.

 

 

How would older pilots pass the medical? You have to tick ALL boxes or revert to class 2 or 1. If you have had ANY medical issues " investigated" you have history which excludes the RPL for you. It did start out as a restricted PPL with supposedly a driver's licence type medical. That got distorted hopelessly under Mc Cormick

Older pilots without medical issues then. If you can't meet the medical requirements, you're out.