turboplanner

When did it become a full time position? That's one of the "facts" that Ed created to try and force the decision. There probably is some need for a safety officer in the RAA but I doubt that its full time, unless its attracting a high calibre applicant like Myles.

Since 2010, and it has nothing to do with Ed; it's there in the documentation for you to read like the rest of us.

CASA, at least, do not necessarily require a "full time SMS Manager".

The CASA document "SMS for Aviation – A Practical Guide 2 - Safety policy and objectives" states that:

 

"Safety manager

 

Appointing the right safety manager is critical. This role can make or break an SMS.

 

A large organisation might have a dedicated safety department, led by a head of safety management.

 

A medium-sized organisation might have a separate safety manager, possibly with a small number of staff, whereas a small organisation might just appoint a part-time safety manager, or add these duties to an existing role."

CASA has a unique ability to muddy issues with "advisory" or "explanatory" documents which often use different wording to the legal documents, often creating confusion.

Just think about what radio transmission standards we are legally required to be using now vs. what you hear day by day.

Recreational Aviation Australia In. is a large organization consisting of 8,000 to 10,000 members, and a Peak Organization required to drive a Safety Management System since 2010.

The document you referred to is superfluous - the original documentation which I've posted here is pretty much in plain English and spells out what is required.

If what Andy is alluding to is true, one or more CASA employees have put themselves into the same basket as the board members and are taking a massive personal risk.

So Myles could have, as a board member, offered his expertise and knowledge for nix but chose to try and make a buck out of the situation?

Well...I'll say it again:Myles quit to pursue other opportunities. A couple of days later he got a job offer from RA,

 

That's what the membership was told.

 

Is it true?

 

dodo

If Myle's appointment was legitimate the board and members would have supported it. You seem to be the only one overlooking the poor governance and nepotism. I don't know what world Myles and Ed are living in thinking that they could pull off such a dodgy move.

How about you back up that accusation with some facts. You're accusing him, back it up!

I don't know Myles Breitkreutz from a bar of soap, but I do know fairness, and this thread I'd judge is one of the most disgusting ever to appear on Recreational Flying.

The man gave up his position on the board to do a job he saw as urgent; I agree with him.

No one seems to have bothered with what his present position might be; we only have silence to tell us that.

On the bright side this thread has shown us who NEVER to elect to a board member position.

caught me.

Tail wheels are like false teeth - originally very handy, but there are smarter options around today.

....ask your board rep........

Reminds me of a dog returning to its vomit.

Why?

Why isn't the Association communicating publicly with its members?

What is there to hide?

I think you're expecting too much from the 1 yo. Lying down in the car seat, just listening to the engine, shaded from the sun should be OK for a little while when awake; better to time the flight for a sleep period, then it's a breeze.

Thanks Sue for some honesty after top outrageously inaccurate posts above.

So the logic is now, if you don't hear anything that means things must be good?

like cruising a BMW bike at 180 (kph)[/font]

Julia Doubtfire

I agree with you Cherk, it's a sick, embedded cancer.

If so, then the Bata Scout Compass would be allowed.

The board could just start with the simple things, like just communicating with the members.

likes to play in the key of B flat, but....

Good, do your own legwork then

Well now you and Crezzi are starting to cross over under the feet of the Police who may well be gathering all that data to prepare a brief for the Coroner.

Go down to your local Senior Sergeant and have a talk to him about the dangers of releasing that information before the coroner's Hearing, or worse stepping straight into the Public Liability case.

We've discussed this in detail many times before on a number of threads, and it has been supported by professionals.

We've also discussed that what the Coroner wants and what we want are often two different things and rarely tell us about the lead up to the crash.

And we've also discussed several times the fact that ATSB offered to investigate our accidents, and appear to have been rebuffed, and now is a perfect time to ask ATSB to investigate RA accidents.

So where we need to go is crystal clear.

In the meantime, there is quite a bit of information on things like Gazelle flaperon hinge mounts, certainly enough that if I was buying one it wouldn't leave the ground unless the hinge mounting material had been carefully checked.

If an Ops person has been called to the scene as an expert advisor by Police, you would expect him to have a good knowledge of what was evident at the scene, ie before any metallurgical tests etc.

However, he is under police control so is restricted in what he can say, otherwise I'd suggest we would see regular reports. On the other hand the Ops guy may be telling you what he knows from personal discussions, which is likely to be a lot more than we know after internet discussions (although sometimes we dig down and find out things they don't know). All of that can be useful for general discussion as against a veil of silence.

Failures like a flaperon in a Gazelle which caused loss of control and life are likely to come out on RF discussions. Failures which just upend the aircraft come out in quite good quantities in Pilot Notes in the magazine, but at times it seems to me the report has been written by the local baker given the sparse information. That a Jabiru departed the runway and wend end over end into a ditch after landing doesn't tell us anything about which model, the wind, runway quality, mechanical failure, or pilot error.

You got me interested so I thought I'd look them up; these are the thread titles

January 2013 - Fatal Incident in Tasmania

February 2013 - Gazelle missing at YCAB (fatal, woman 56)

June 2013 - Gyrocopter down in Western Queensland

June 2103 - Western Australia Ultralight fatality

It would help a lot if thread starters used descriptions which would suit later searches, such as

Ultralight incident/crash/fatal crash at Bendigo rather than terms like Western Australia, YCAB (you know where that is but there are too many codes in Australia for anyone to bother memorising them), or "Oh no not another one, or Oh Dear, which don't help anyone trying to find a particular incident.

I know this is hard at the very beginning of an incident, I've made the same mistake myself, but Recreational Flying is a premium source of accident data, so needs to be as searchable as possible.

Many of these reports trail off into nothing and you can make your own mind up as to why that happens.

There is a little information on a couple of threads here I think

Rates are usually based firstly on zoning, so Residential, Industrial, Rural.

Each attracts a different rate base with Councils usually slugging Industrial because the owners usually don't vote.

Then it's usually up to Site Value and Capital Improved Value; when valuing for rates, the council valuer usually just takes a basket of recent property sales and works it back to a cost per hectare for rural

An approved DA just gives you the right to do something where a permit is required, ie something which is not an as of right use.

This could be a big shed for example.

So rates are not likely to go up, and council has no linkage to get involved in landing fees, which are usually charged by landowners, and the owner is not responsible to maintain the strip to an operating standard (but in terms of safety, would be required to mark it as unusable unless windsocks, cones, markers etc were removed, and the outline of the strip graded off to prevent any inadvertent landings)

If someone crash lands on your airstrip you are liable if you have been negligent in some way (such as misquoting the length, saying it is OK to land when there are cattle grazing on it, not putting out correct white markers if the strip is unsafe (say a flood washout etc) You do have a duty of care on a working airstrip, and the path a person of reasonable intelligence would have to take to get to the house, so no unfenced wells etc.

The advantage is that no one can just come along and tell you to stop operating.

If you are talking about the shell sample document RAA sent to you, we're not talking about that.

As we've found out over the past few weeks, CASA including RAA, CAA(UK), and FAA(USA) all reference the same ICAO document.

So there's no point trying to squirm out of it.

Gee with friends like you and Oscar who needs enemies?