turboplanner

Also, bungee jumping, parachuting and motocross all have their own heavy handed legislation to deal with.

Win, the Constitution is one of the more amateurish around with many aspects which could do with improving, particularly the ones which led to the current fiasco.

If there is a Technical Manager's job description, it may not be that relevant to what is actually required in terms of certification.

Fatman, I know where you're coming from; I don't have an engineering degree, yet I'm the best in the world at one of the things I do, and if a case came up I would have to hire an engineer, explain to him, then have him sign off - that's just the way it is.

There is a good chance that in fact this is either a dual role of Service and Design, or we even should have employed two people.

As for your comments about Adam, no need to defend him, from what I'm reading he has the support from all the posters.

FH, regarding the current case RAA and CASA are two of the defendants in the case. You talk about co_joined but each defendant is responsible for defending himself. Since this centres around who did what which is central to the case it would be sub judice to discuss it, but taking a hypothetical case in which RAA and CASA were defendants, CASA might be out of the court on the first morning after explaining they were not involved in what happened.

So the finding line you are arguing is a bit thin. What is stunning is that there should be any mention about running out of insurance money - that doesn't involve CASA. I'd hope readers don't insure their houses for 50 bucks, so the solution to that one is astute management of insurance coverage, particularly Public Liability where the coverage needs to be in tens of millions for an RAA size operation.

Don Ramsay argued that he resigned because the Association's insurance coverage had run out, and I would agree with that decision because of the personal liability, however that has been denied by the President, and the broker took the unusual step of confirming that at no time was RAA without insurance coverage, and explained the sequence which caused the anxiety. Their explanations have not since been challenged, so you are worrying needlessly about that one.

As for our board serving two masters, the recent action by CASA has not been conveyed to the members, apparently with the exception of one or two on another site, and that makes it very difficult to assess just how big the CASA issue is, and whether it is all a screw up by RAA, or whether CASA may have caused some of it (which I doubt).

He was being a smart alec.

.....(in a hushed voice after a look around) spoke to a board member!....

Will this do Andy:

And the legal industry, while handling some of the most delicate subtleties of reason has been absolutely hopeless at explaining the reasons, needs, and processes of what they are doing.

You have been Kaz, and it is derogatory to the lawyers who have saved people's freedoms, careers, livelihoods, and property.

However, you do have an Industry problem when it takes $750,000.00 to make a decision on a divorce settlement.

And the legal industry, while handling some of the most delicate subtleties of reason has been absolutely hopeless at explaining the reasons and needs for most of the laws we have today.

And I mean plain bloody screamingly hopeless.

And all this started from a little Ibis being groundedStill no official notification........ Still no paperwork ....... Still nothing to show the bank manager..

Quite frankly, RAAus sucks big time

Self certification is normal within the Department of Infrastructure and Transport in Australia, and the processes work very well in the automotive and transport industries with very little criticism, apart from a bizarre PBS system.

However, the DIT systems assume that people know what they are doing - that they are qualified to design, test, and complete paperwork.

The chalk on the floor cowboys were weeded out years ago.

i think the ripples from this are going to get wider.

...fireman's suit.....and Captain and his....

Well as I understand it we've got 5 or 6 fatalities, most stall/spin, in aircraft with no C of A, so in at least a couple of those this discussion should be sorted out.

Why oh why do we still attach so much weght to the fact that 10, 15, 20 or maybe 25 years ago, somebody managed to get a degree ?I'm a radio engineer and I've lost count of the number of idiotic university graduates I've encountered .....

For exactly the same reason that police use radar cameras now instead of patrolling the roads.

Do you know the difference in the knowledge base of a LAME/AME/Aircraft Mechanic compared to an Aeronautical Engineer.I think you will find the Mechanic a lot more up todate on the regs as he needs to sign off/certify all his work on a day to day bases as opposed to an Aeronautical Engineer.Cheers

When you say "we're" it seems that some aren't else how can you account for Sapphire's statement?

I certainly couldn't fault the RA forced landing training - the procedure was much the same as GA, but there seems to be different levels of training in different geographical areas.

Yeah Right!

Mr Adam Finn is no longer the RA-Aus Technical Manager.....This is not good... Adam used to do the spanner work on 24-5083 for me. He was a totally decent bloke and a good mechanic too.

 

What is going on in RaAus that they/we lose people like this?

 

Marcus

As I mentioned this is not reflection at all on Adam, just looking at the position and what the incumbent needs to assess.

Ah sh$t, you meant Thomas Jefferson SEAGULL!

Yes, I think Peter's model vs Incorporated Association should be revisited, analysed and debated, but after the fires have been put out, otherwise the animal has too many heads.

You saw the big pot of "Office expense" with no breakup?

You could say that people who WANT the job are unsuited. You should find someone who can DO the job and twist their arm. I don't think Steve Runciman needed the job. I think he perceived a NEED for a job to be done properly. I think events have overtaken him. Nev

If you had bought the Annual Reports like I did, and like he had access to, then 18 months ago you would have known there were issues with the financials, and that would have indicated that some delving was needed in the financials and that would have uncovered poor administration in other areas. The evidence was glaring, so I'm critical of him there.

He also could have made things a lot easier for himself, and got volunteer support if he'd communicated with more transparency, and ended the Executive/board secrecy which many members had been loudly complaining about.

He had substantial support here from many people when he started out, but he lost it.

None of the above relates to events overtaking him.

I have been watching this type of thread for some time and I did vote at the AGM by proxy.What I have not seen is a record of what is being done wrong by the board, set out in readable fashion. There have been many "snide " remarks made about people but when I have asked for particulars I have been told that the information can't be put on the web and I should phone someone.

I do not know what is happening. I know that there are some unhappy members, but they do not give me enough info to let me make up my own mind. They could PM me with all the details and I would treat it in confidence. As far as I am concerned RAAus still lets me fly and that is what it is all about.

You received good advice; many people argued that unproven statements or hearsay should not be put up on the web. Others argued that some of the information could be damaging to RAA, and the advice was to phone and get the inside story. You obviously didn't do that, or you would have known that the advice was sincere and wise.

Two years on and we are now getting facts out in the open, and clearly RAA, and quite a number of pilots would now be much better off if more people had actuially made the small effort to make a phone call.

Slightly off topic here , but didn't Bob Hoover do that same routine at one of the Avalon Air Shows a few years ago?

From memory that consisted of a low pass, climb, 1 engine cut, dive to get energy then a loop on the one engine, 2nd engine cut, some funny business, dead stick landing possibly on 1 wheel and a long roll to stop with the prop spinner virtually in the hand of one of his ground.

Some pilot

This is the sort of thing that made Bob Hoover stand out above us all:

He was flying an Aero Commander Shrike (twin engine - the one he did the glass of water trick in)

After a normal take off he sensed something was not right, even though all the gauges were showing normal (part of the Hoover genius)

There were ravines ahead and it was too far back to the airport.

During his cross-country Mustang flights he'd often worked out how he would handle a situation like this and had built a plan into his subconscious.

This is his story from his Book "Forever Flying":

"Recalling those thoughts I dumped the nose of the Shrike, I kept my best glide speed until I reached the very end of the ravine. Landing in the bottom of the canyon meant no survival.

Our only chance was to pull up and land on the side of the ravine.

"As my airspeed bled off, I dropped the landing gear and flaps. I wanted to be at a minimum forward speedon impact. The landing gear would cushion the impact along with the tires and struts before the impact hit us square on.

"I was down in a V-shaped ravine. A thousand feet wide at the top, it narrowed down to nothing at the bottom. I went right to the bottom to maintain the best glide speed. I then pulled the plane up and landed into the side of the ravine. I didn't travel very far at all before I hit a rock pile that caved in the nose. The instrument panel was torn out of its mounts and dropped down on my shins.

"Neither of my passengers was hurt, but there was one fatality. We ran over a rattlesnake with the belly of the airplane when the gear tore out from underneath it."

Reason for the crash?; the aircraft had been refueled with Jet Fuel instead of petrol.....................................another one for HF.

The yank guy flew Mustangs in combat; he and Chuck Yeager used to race each other along the sage brush tracks around Edwards Air Force Base (Muroc) leaving prop marks in the sand.

IMO the best pilot in the world.

However Human Factors wasn't his best subject - he smashed up at least 20 aircraft, many after making silly mistakes, all reported truthfully in his biography.

he also admitted to an "excessive number of deadstick landings.

I think a glider pilot would be more likely to glide a power plane down with a failed engine. It takes a lot of experience to do it accurately and you have to know your a/c glide performance in real practice.

Turbo, I am sorry that it appears that I have rejected your view there out of hand, I haven't. I really do apologise if it looked like I was just cutting you off I just don't awant to see us go off in all directions and fragment. My remark wasn't directed at you, specifically, but was a general thing, consistent with my view that splitting off into different thought groups can distract us from the critical situation we are in NOW. The argument you bring up will work or not based on facts, which will speak for themselves. 4 or 5 experts, at most, would be best to assess that sort of matter and they could prepare a report which should be reliable if the right people did it with the right motives. Convincing the whole forum of the merits might take a while and do we have lots of time here? Some ( not you) act as if there is all the time in the world and it will fix itself. We have to be carefull not to get into a situation where nothing productive comes out of all our efforts. If it gets too complex we will not get to the essentials. People lose interest if it looks too hard. Nev

I agree with you about the 4 or 5 experts, particularly if they spend time doing their research

Good points Andy, I can remember about 6 to 8 years ago being in a theatre with about 300 others when the global warming issue started.

We crossed to one of the key journalists of the British Guardian, a world standard commentator who updated us with what was happening TO THAT DAY, then offered to take questions. Our chairman did have a couple of mics expecting questions after the segment was finished, but the journalist explained how to hook the mics in and I jumped up and carred a mic around the room, then someone got the other mic and we were asking questions in Melbourne directly of a world authority in Manchester live.

The next speaker was a scientist from Chicago, and the same sequence occurred, and so on.

It is absolutely crazy to fight with bows and arrows when machine guns are available - particularly so in Australia, with its vast distances.