Oscar

I understand that Ian Bent is taking two example engines down to Natfly, and (presumably) will have samples on hand of some of the natty stuff that CAMit are doing, such as the alternator kits, the new rockers and rocker bushes, and hopefully his new through-bolts as well to display. He's one of the most approachable and informative people I know and I am sure that anybody even vaguely interested in the CAMit developments will find it very instructive indeed to look at what he has to show and talk to him about what (and especially WHY) CAMit have done by way of changes.

 

If you are a Jab. engine owner - especially if your engine is starting to put on the hours and replacement / overhaul is on the horizon - if it were me and I could possibly get the Natfly and see the stuff and talk to Ian, I think you will find the time to do that will be time you'll find extremely rewarding. Ian can tell you more about Jabiru engines in ten minutes than you are likely to get from any other source in a year of seeking information and trying to make sense of the varying opinions and experiences of users.

 

 

There are also these typeshttp://www.aviaquip.com.au/pdf/Publish/qturnfasteners.PDF

I prefer these to Dzus, they are a more hardy type of fastener, can be flush (flat blade or Phillips) or wingnut types, and are retained in the panel on removal.

Aviaquip have ceased supplying most general aviation products including just about all hardware lines, which is a bloody nuisance..

 

 

I agree that a cheap ADSB would be good. just let me know when someone finds one. Cheap is relative and nobody is cheaper than my relatives. There is a new CAAP out from CASA CAAP 161-2(1), but it is only very basic info.

There's a horse-and-cart thing here: nobody will bother to produce a cheap ADSB 'out' device if it can't be used unless it's a TSO'd instrument. Which makes it NOT cheap, by definition. What is needed, I think, is acceptance by the authorities of such a 'second-tier' class of device; we are already seeing that authorities world-wide are moving to acceptance of commercial-grade electronics for EFIS; the FAA has suddenly found out about AoA devices and embraced them, what we need is an LSA-industry push for an affordable 'awareness-level' ADSB and suitable regulations that allow it to be incorporated as a secondary instrument. That would mean that a standard would be needed (naturally) and that takes time to develop, but it has to be something that has potential customer support.

 

 

I am definitely warming to the idea of moving Natfly around for promotional and equity reasons.

I suggest that Oshkosh as the paradigm model for an fixed annual event has the 'critical mass' element that we just don't have - let's face it, Oshkosh is THE international fly-in venue, with trade representation coming from all over the world. Everybody (well, nearly everybody) involved in very light aviation wants to get to Oshkosh at least once - it's the vibe... Without being churlish, Natfly is a family barbeque weekend by comparison.

 

We have an Ops Mgr at Temora, an Asst Ops Mgr based in SEQ and a Tech Mgr working out of Melbourne and I think all that works well these days. None of them would need to relocate.

And that's fairly much the point of departure for me: we are moving inexoribly (if glacially) towards a decentralised administrative model. I don't believe that any further consideration of the 'home field' vs other HQ location needs to be just put on hold until the development of the future RAA administrative system(s) is complete; however with a sufficiently detailed scoping of the tasks within a strategic plan it should be possible to refine the model for any physical infrastructure based on functions to be performed there and thus ensure that whatever decision is made, is made on 'form following function' grounds, not a nebulous idea of what an HQ should 'look' like. With homage to Parkinson's Law, I think we can see that 'functions (will) expand to fill the space available in which to do them'...

 

 

Many years ago, gliding. 500k attempt out of Narromine, heading for my first turning point of Coonamble. Big patch of what looked like potential sink area around the silo at Coonamble, so a quick 'in-turn-photo-out' routine the best option. Popped out of a nice cu-nim cloud atopping a strong thermal at around 7,500 (ahem, I know..) and headed for the turning point at around 100 kts.

 

Radio squarked into life (this was WAY before ABSD).. and with my knowledge of German, it might as well have been: 'Viennaschnitzel doberman eich bein ein Hamburger Coonamble'. I knew there was a German visitor attempting a task in the Narromine Janus that day, but I didn't know his task - I'd left some 20 minutes later. I assumed he was reporting his presence at the Coonamble waypoint, so I started watching out like a hawk. About two minutes later, we saw each other - on reciprocal at the same height, closing speed around 200 - 220 kts - from about 3 - 400 metres, if that. We both moved right and passed by close enough to wave acknowledgement from the cockpits. He was heading for the thermal I'd just left...

 

The point? Simply being aware of the presence of another aircraft in the immediate vicinity is enough to get your head out of the cockpit and into the airspace. The accuracy of commercial GPS devices is quite sufficient to provide that information, and more. It's a completely false and potentially dangerous position to take, that situational awareness reporting that isn't accurate to within - let's say - 20 metres vertically or horizontally isn't of value. Cheap commercial devices can already give us that level of accuracy.

 

With the sophistication of modern electronics, a cheap ADSB In-Out device could surely provide a warning of accuracy: let us say, a symbol that appears as a jet aircraft for ADSB Mode S transmissions and a red circle for 'commercial, non TSO'd' position and heading broadcast. There are probably a dozen or more different solutions that could work - but denial of the utility of 'warning' accuracy information as opposed to 'avoidance planning' accuracy information is a piece of technological sophistry that should be ruthlessly put down.

 

 

Quite a few years ago now, Amanda Vanstone (while still a Minister in the Howard government) wrote a column saying that the whole aviation safety thing was 'because we need to be seen to be doing something', rather than 'there is a need to do something'. I think it was in response to a report that a returning Australian passenger had a G.I Joe toy confiscated at Customs because it had 'a military weapon'.

 

NO, I am NOT joking. This happened, as did Amanda's article. Howard was in the throes of ramping up 'Security' massively - witness the ASIO staff increase and Palace Royale in Canberra. I won't enter the politics of the thing other than to say that the reasons for going into Iraq were starting to be vociferously questioned at the time.

 

Amanda was dropped in the next Cabinet re-shuffle.

 

 

The difference between a cynic and a pessimist is about one degree of separation: a cynic says to an optimist: 'yeah, as if', while a pessimist says ' 'No way'. Both operate from the basis of observation of real life. The travails of the RAA in recent times make being either cynical or pessimistic about its ability to sort itself out by far the easiest path by comparison to being an optimist.

 

Voter apathy is a metric that suggests that the vast majority of RAA members simply want to be able to fly under a set of rules and regulations that they can accept as reasonable. Let's not ignore the message here: I haven't done the number-crunching, but I suggest that less than 20% of the total number of RAA members have sufficient concern about who represents them to bother to vote. They just want to pay whatever it takes to keep being able to fly their aircraft around, and all the heated discussion about 'democracy' in the organisation, 'home field' and 'HQ office location' etc. - is immaterial. If a purely commercial organisation appeared that could ensure that registration was completed legally so they can continue to fly, they couldn't, quite frankly, be buggered to worry about all these peripheral issues.

 

And, to be honest, that position is very attractive to me. If RAA were to outsource the whole registration thing to a service provider operating under a guarantee of performance for a competitive cost, that would meet the majority of my personal requirements for keeping my aircraft in the air. The KPI here is a cost and time-efficient service that ensures compliance with all necessary regulations in force. Those regulations are (almost) completely outside RAA control; the only RAA-generated regulations (such as current membership status) are an overlay that is mostly (possibly all?) a result of the RAA governance and corporate structure.

 

More experienced RAA members can improve my understanding here, but I think that about the only regulation that pertains to Tech. or Ops. matters that is specifically RAA-imposed that is NOT a result of RAA corporate requirements is the minimum height over public events? ( a damn sensible move that helps diminish the 'public nuisance' aspect of our operations that has seen other recreational activities - noticeably jet-ski use - increasingly banned from general public areas by the uprising of an infuriated populace).

 

In fact, the whole idea that the Tech. and Ops. functions of RAA should be ultimately oversighted by and responsible to the Board may just possibly be a case of RAA trying to do the right thing in the wrong way. As Dafydd has suggested above, the current arrangement effectively puts the Managers of both areas in the position of having to serve two masters. (Some would say three masters, if one subscribes to the more extreme view of some members that the Board actually fails to properly represent the Members..)

 

However, I also see the operation of an RAA-class aircraft being impacted by other considerations, including access to airfields and airspace, training and endorsement and owner maintenance. We do need a controlling body that fights for the rights we need.

 

If we were to look at a model that, in crude terms, accepts that the 'technical' activities resulting from externally-imposed regulations (Tech. and Ops.) operate in a box defined by the regulations in force, and that the 'governance and administration' activities operate in another box that is a product of the RAA structure, it might help to bring clarity.

 

There is a considerable difference between the role of, let us say, the Tech Manager in the current situation being employed to perform a task set by the Board viz. 'keep the aircraft flying legally and safely', and the same position being employed to 'ensure the requirements imposed on us are met'. If I understand it correctly, the GFA operating under the latter situation seems to have puttered along pretty effectively. I presume that the GFA Board (or whatever is their governing body) acts as an auditor that the performance of the Tech Manager equivalent is adequate, not as the arbiter of HOW that function is to be performed.

 

In the RAA case, however (as I see it) the Board is expected to be the arbiter of how the function is to be performed and the mess starting in 2012 exemplifies that the RAA Board does not always have the necessary skills to do that.

 

 

Whilst ever the Board is comprised of members who are elected on a geographic rather than skills basis, its composition is - fundamentally - the result of a popularity contest.

 

I mean no disrespect by that; I think we have some excellent Board members who bring considerable skill and experience to the organisation, but in terms of getting the best possible people into the most useful position for them to serve the interests of the organisation, it has to be recognised that the whole basis for election by geography makes it a bit of a lucky dip: there is no guarantee that in any particular Board we will get the spread and depth of expertise that RAA needs at the helm. (and let's be realistic here - we see EXACTLY the same syndrome in governments of all persuasions from Local Councils upwards).

 

Since RAA's primary responsibility is for the operation of the organisation according to federal regulations, there is no advantage for any area to be gained by having a local Board Member. It's not as if the Board can adopt regulations in force in one area to the detriment of owners/operators in another area.

 

As has been suggested above, the first step is for the RAA to determine what it must do well and identify the skill set for each critical Board position with sufficient definition to allow prospective Board members to describe their field(s) of expertise as part of their candidacy statement, and for members then to vote to hopefully achieve the best-skilled Board that can be assembled.

 

Regional representation should be encouraged to provide an Advisory Panel - a conduit for information going upwards from local areas to the Board and vice-versa. Local area representatives can play a large part in promoting the interests of their RAA membership to local administrations etc. - I am thinking here of things like fighting for retention of airfields and suchlike. The value of having an enthusiastic, active local representative of the organisation keeping an eye on developments in the local region and being on hand to explain, advertise, campaign etc. the cause of RAA should in no way be dismissed - but should not detract from the best possible governance we can achieve from member resources.

 

The vast majority of the work that needs to be done by RAA is deeply technical in nature, and the fine details of that work is the business of the 'Managers' of the various disciplines: Technical, Operations,and of course, Administration itself (financial and corporate). The Board provides (or should provide) strategic direction for and general oversight of, these functions. To do that effectively, the Board needs people with the necessary skills and understanding of the subjects to be able to make the necessary decisions and evaluations. That we get Board members who have those skills should not be a matter of luck in the selection of candidates on a regional basis but a very conscious decision by members based on the information provided by the candidates of their suitability, drawing from the whole membership base and unfettered by the circumstances of their location.

 

 

Not a good idea. There are only two seats in the back of Moke, and just the 2013 crop would end up fighting in an unseemly fashion for the space.

 

 

Andy, I completely agree - getting the RAA admin systems working effectively is paramount. It's much, much more important than relocation etc., because this is a cart/horse situation: with decent IT systems supporting admin., the whole picture about re-location changes and the physical requirements will be different.

 

 

Well, that is an issue (and I don't question your statement, that's human nature at work) of setting the terms of use - call it the Ops. Manual, if we want to be provocative.. It's also probably a budgeting issue, but then I doubt that at any RAA event there is no set-up and 'make-good' cost.

 

As for the packing and security - thought put into what is carried and how the layout is organised would be required, but that's surely not beyond the wit of intelligent people? Hell, the entire motoGp (world championship of motorcycles) gets carried around in a fleet of jets - and at the busy part of the season, they actually have a race in Americe and then one in Europe a week later. The RAA 'travelling circus' would only require extremely simple stuff, on the lines of a large camper-van, I would think.

 

Certainly, good thought would be needed to layout, equipment etc. and it would be silly not to recognise that - but an intelligent approach taken in the spirit of 'maximise the opportunity, don't just focus on the problems' with input of professionals such as yourself could develop a scheme that can be costed and examined..

 

 

Would it not be possible to simply own the trailer and contract the hire of a prime mover and driver to deliver it around as required?

 

Alternatively, maybe a couple of ex-government buses? The ACT government sold off a batch of very good buses as cheap as chips a couple of years ago - my son got one of them, a Volvo, in excellent nick, for $4k (even had a set of all-but brand-new tyres); previously, 16 were purchased by a W.A. company who simply fuelled them up and headed the fleet to Perth - one had a broken fan belt ( I think it was), the rest did the trip perfectly - and they were purchased for $2k a pop!.

 

They'd need fit-out work, but (given that airfields are generally flat..) could perhaps be modified so they could be parked alongside one another and some sort of fold-out bridge built so they become two linked 'rooms'.

 

 

The coms. room idea is a very good one - maybe a 'mezzanine', and with a small room adjacent with a window and speakers so the casual visitors can wander up and realise that it's not all just a mob of people in aeroplanes luckily missing out on hitting each other? And then you add a balcony so that at the end of the day (last light), the controller calls the faithful to prayer over the Tannoy: 'No more flying, last one to the pub has to go back and tie down all the aircraft..'

 

 

Seeing as there seems to be some interest in this concept - here's a bit of 'blue sky thinking' (to coin a phrase that might resonate!)

 

RAA sells off its Canberra HQ and acquires a more modest office suite near Brisvegas - utilising the idea of (some) de-centralised office services to reduce the amount of space needed.

 

Then, it uses some of the cash from the HQ sale to set up a semi-trailer - one of those ones with an expanding side arrangement such as the motor-racing fraternity use - that is equipped with both some 'office space' so that RAA can conduct member business on-site at various airfield-related events, and that also carries the infrastructure for holding things like RAA seminars, on-line conferences etc. . This gets trundled around to not just the Natfly event but to regional fly-ins organised by State RAA members. Adds a bit of pizzaz to regional fly-ins AND encourages members to fly-in and become more familiar (for those, such as me, who would like a bit of a learning-curve before heading off to Natfly for the first time) with a busier sky situation. and the locals who come out for a gander at all the little airplanes get to see a 'professional' level of administration etc., which can't do RAA any harm at all.

 

Once upon a time, whole orchestras would go on tour around a region, bringing 'culture' to those unable to get to the capital city. Very popular. Art shows go on tour to regional galleries. And with a great big, nicely-painted up trailer with RAA emblazoned on it, a lot more advertising bang-for-the-buck than just one building on one airfield perpetually.

 

 

Can I propose an alternative view about Natfly? While I can appreciate the idea that we might be in a small way (and let's face it, it is and will remain a small way) emulating Oshkosh, is it worth considering the advantage of in fact having Natfly as somewhat of a moveable feast (and trading off the additional cost of having translocatable facilities against other possible advantages)?

 

Here's the reasoning.

 

Firstly, any one permanent site will obviously continually favour one set of members over the rest. I suggest that if Natfly were to move around from year to year, it might generate more enthusiasm for members in the area it is to be held to attend, plus give other members an incentive to try flying to somewhere different, just for the challenge. Heck, we might even get the stimulus of different areas competing with each other to put on a 'bigger and better' Natfly each year...

 

However, I see a perhaps larger advantage in using Natfly as a tool to generate community awareness across a broader spectrum of areas of the desireablilty/ viability of having recreational aviation activities in their region. We know that Councils have a tendency to regard airfields as potential greenfields for urban development; but Councils also love events that publicise their region and bring in money to the local retail economy. One only has to look at the eternal competition between cities and towns for inclusion as venues for sporting etc. events to see this effect at work. If Natfly is 'secured' to one airfield, then everywhere else scratches 'aviation' off their list of potential advertising and hence, the attraction of having all that 'unused' airfield area on their doorstep is diminished. The regional (at least) media will be more encouraged to give the event some decent coverage if the story is more 'Natfly is coming to town' stuff than 'It's Natfly again this weekend' - if you get my drift.

 

I suspect that commercial participants at Natfly would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate their wares to a broader audience than just 'the faithful' who turn up each year at the one permanent site.

 

And finally, the whole idea of RAA being somehow entrenched in one area at the expense of others, would be at least reduced. I reckon it's worth consideration.

 

 

Nev - no assumptions on my part whatsoever; however I do suspect that most of the RAA membership would like to see some stability at the top table. I think it's worth remembering that it's not just the President's chair that seems to be somewhat at the whim of whenever the music stops, because with Michael Monck as this week's new President, we now need someone else to be Secretary.

 

I believe that the Board has a hell of a lot on its hands to overhaul the organisation; I seriously doubt that any new member of the Board can get to grips with all the issues in just a few months of being in a position, given the small amount of time any Board member can realistically give to RAA business. It takes time to analyse the situation, gain insight of the past performance of any position, look to formulating a strategy and bring that forward for Board consideration, have it approved, put it in place and then fine-tune it. Continual change of the occupants of any important Board position is almost (though not quite!) as bad as stagnation.

 

 

I don't see the value in this 'who said what, and should they have' business; it would be more useful to know if there's anything more behind the resignation than what has been stated.

 

Rod Birrell is a high experienced member of the Board, one would think he had a keen appreciation of the workload facing him when he took on the Presidency. If this personal situation has changed significantly, then that is perfectly understandable that he'd need to adjust his time availability; it would however be instructive for us to be assured that we are not seeing the result of tension within the Board that is making things difficult for a cooperative effort by all Board members.

 

 

The guru: http://www.amazon.com/Meteorology-Glider-Pilots-C-Wallington/dp/0719533031.

 

 

I think Michael will make a good President even though there will be the incessant mutterings (ravings, even) about him being tainted by the Canberra based, left wing, public service, trade union rubbish that will bring the RAA to its knees..

There will be the mutterings, we can be assured - but how well did RAA do with a succession of 'good old boys' including FNQ's finest... RAA's business isn't being best at holding barbeques and swilling beer, it's a damn technical administrative function. Anybody who thinks it can 'get by' by shouting that people who seem more than marginally educated and seek to apply intelligence to the problems that RAA faces are chardonnay-sipping leftist wankers, is going to find her/himself sitting on a deserted shore wondering to where the tide of their aviation activities went out..

 

RAA painted itself into a corner by the actions - or indeed, the inactions - of an 'old guard' that was incapable of accepting that things were moving inexorably onwards. The only way out of that corner is through a window of rapidly-narrowing opportunity (to severely mangle some metaphors). Some will point to a 'fiefdom' mentality on the part of certain members of RAA management of past years, with justification. The idea that RAA management has been an 'old boys club' cannot have grown without some basis.

 

There has been a significant, though not tectonic, changing of the guard on the RAA Board. The election of Michael Monck as President is simply a part of that. Let the capability of the man be judged on the results of his actions, not prejudged by imagined factors ascribed to his location.

 

 

Well, yes, we found that when we moved from Sydney to a rural property near Clifton. It's quite old-fashioned; the tradesmen come when they say they will, the postman knows the names of the people on his round; the post office will accept an unstamped letter left in the box, and send a slip with what we owe in postage - or the change if we put cash with the letter because we're out of stamps; the vendor of the block of land put us onto a house that was available and could be moved onto it. The people are friendly. One can leave one's house unlocked, and the neighbour's kids can leave their bikes by the letterbox after riding to catch the school bus. Really backward, after Sydney.

HA. Next you'll be saying that it's always warm and comfortable up there. I've left from near Clifton in the early morning to return to civilisation and STILL had ice on the damn (car) windscreen when coming down the last Moonbi hill into Tamworth. You have snakes up there that can kill by just glancing in your direction, spiders that kill the snakes in spido-a-snako disputes, frogs that bark like the hound of the Baskervilles, soil that swallows entire small villages in one gulp when it rains and an electricity supply that shuts down if someone spits within a kilometer of the transformer. At least down here at North Macquarie Island, the climate is predictable and the damn frogs don't bark.

 

 

Of course, the problem with Qld is you need to carry a canoe with you to get into town, from anywhere, half the time...

 

 

How come a consultant got into the Unis?Where were all the computer deans/professors/tutors researchers?

They should have been doing that work and teaching at the same time.

 

I thought a uni is a place ones goes to learn.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

Um... they needed someone to actually do something...

 

 

I delivered the (second) 'Bat back to Bundaberg last year for an engine implant, and worked on a different aircraft while George worked on the 'Bat II in the same hanger several years earlier, and George was without doubt the guy who won the 'World's Most Annoying Person to be Near' award - with no runner-up, the competition was just not in the same league. However, possibly he was he right person at THAT time for the AUF.

 

The Horscots transcript shows that a too-aggressive/combative approach (read: George!) simply does not work (and certain members of the current Board need to realise that), but neither does total submission. The key is getting the balance right.

 

WRT egos vs. commonsense: I suggest that the times have changed and the vision for everybody in sports aviation (and low-end GA, for that matter) is no longer securing a beachhead for a brilliant new future, but rather of bunkering down and accepting that a sensible shared future is better than none at all. Every time a regional airfield is sold off for development, no one group loses; every incursion into the 'peaceful' operation of aviation activities is a strike against us all.

 

 

This was on the cards well and truly back in 1983 when the meeting was be held at the SAAA Fly In at Mangalore. It seemed at the time that all sporting disciplines were ready to come under one banner for representation to the then dept while maintaining their independence as such. But this was shattered when George and his friends rolled up and insisted that their AUF setup was the ducks guts and with the persistence of a pit bull started a 3 year crapfight until every one just gave up and the AUF got its way and that has finally taken us to what we have today.Old Guard paranoia! very real! When I was at Airventure a few years ago I ran into Eugene and he went into a super rant of how the SAAA wanted to take us over and cause all sorts of problems. I find that hard to believe as who in their right mind would want to take on the RAAus with all its problems that will take years to sort out. Even if we asked them all humble and like to please help they would probably slam the door in out face now.

Wasn't George off chasing his errant Ultrabat? - but yes, trying to talk calmly to George when he was in in full voice ( i.e., always..) was like to swim up a firehose. Yet, George helped the re-write of Part 103 ( I think it was) and became one of the best-versed people in Australia regarding the regs. that affect us all - better than most of CASA's own staff. About 18 months before George died, I was actually working with him on a vision for a commercial service to provide full admin. support to sports aviation bodies that would have been a simple pick-up for RAA, it could have pretty much offered a turn-key system with a fixed price per member/aircraft. RDBMS-based, web-delivered.. then he got sidetracked on the Blanik life-conversion project and it sort of died off, but the principles were sound and the design starting to work out rather nicely.

 

There's no reason that individual sports aviation bodies have to meld their administration, but co-operative use of physical facilities makes damn good sense. For teaching practical skills that any maintainer needs to know is no different for SAA, RAA, GFA etc. Securing an AN bolt is no different no matter whether it's on VH-reg, RAA-reg etc. aircraft, lock-wire techniques are the same, glass/metal/wood repairs are the same.. The room, chairs, seats, coffee and tea facilities for class-room activities are the same for us all. A residential facility for those undertaking training are no different: we all - no matter to which organisation we happen to belong - need the same sort of beds, toilets, toothbrush holders.

 

I don't believe that the idea of shared physical facilities for what may be best termed the 'hands-on' aspects of Recreational aviation needs to be seen as any one group capitulating to another. No one group of sports aviation has the need for 24 x 7 use of such facilities and unused time for any such facilities is wasted investment. If, for example, RAA were to approach SAAA with a decent proposal for co-operative use of their existing facilities (and perhaps offering by way of inducement, some additional investment in the facilities), the principle of symbiosis says the nett gain to both organisations is more than the intangible value of retaining independence.

 

HitC above mentioned the great value of having the local Council on-side in regards to the choice of any physical facility for a 'home airfield'. It's a good point. Though I personally have fond memories of gliding from Narromine, I hold no other brief for there (and in fact belong to the Darling Downs club, so his preferred home site is actually closer to my power-flying 'heart') - there is something to be gained by all the sports aviation bodies combining to provide a 'critical mass' situation at a particular site. A Council that had inherited the title of the Council with the 'home' of Sports Aviation, isn't going to lightly give that up. As it happens, Narromine is pretty well accessible to the bulk of RAA members, and although it is hardly an exciting site from a social POV, (when I used to glide there, when we'd go into the local pub for a drink, you needed to find a parking space between the utes and the Combine Harvesters, and it was the only place I ever visited that was STILL playing 'Blue Hills' episodes every morning between the stock sales reports and the country music oldies and goldies programme), if your business there is training, that really doesn't matter that much.

 

For sheer enjoyment of visiting an RAA HQ facility and 'hanging with the guys', I think it would be hard to beat Hervey Bay as a site offering great accommodation, views out of the aircraft etc. Bundaberg has great seafood and good accommodation.. However, if one looks realistically at the likely 'drop-in' rate of RAA members - NO site is ever going to suddenly become a hive of incidental 'drop-in' activity, even if it offers the only Cap and T-shirt sales outlet... so, people, let's try to look at this whole issue on a business basis rather than an emotional one, and push for the best bang-for-the-buck option.

 

 

Don - here's a thought way out of left field.

 

What if RAA considered thinking about its HQ administrative functions and its 'value added' member services as disparate functions? An administrative HQ sited for maximum efficiency for that purpose, and an airfield-based facility that supports activities such as Natfly, L1/L2/home builder/instructor training? All of RAA's administrative functions do not require proximity to actual aircraft/flying facilities; the other functions, do.

 

RAA 'HQ' in/near Brisvegas. RAA 'hands-on' operations in shared facilities with SAAA at Narromine... Too silly to consider?