Flying_higher

If your ADS-B out transponder meets the requirements within this AC you should be fine to claim the rebate. https://www.casa.gov.au/ads-b-enhancing-situational-awareness

There is $20 mill third party property and a $250k passenger insurance IF the pilot is proven to be negligent, as I understand it.

Totally agree. Which is what I believe the board was trying to clarify in the constitution. That is 9 years and no more (for ever) unless 75% of the membership see fit to extend them. the Birrell motion sought that a 3 year break would be required before restarting a 9 year tenure again. And if we look at who put that forward, was someone that was in power for more than 30 years, including as president, and who would benefit from this very motion because he could be reelected and start a 9 year tenure once again.

It’s very unclear why you would put up an amendment when the board is already addressing that very issue with their amendment. Like I said in my earlier post, you were a director continuously for many many years but now you’re not it would seem like there is a bit of sour grapes going on. im happy with the 9 years and the ability, as a member, to seek a director stay on if we need it. Your proposal doesn’t give me or other members that option. Thumbs down.

But, hang on, wasn’t Rod Birrell on the board for like 30 or more years? But now he’s off the board he doesn’t want anyone else to do this. Smells fishy to me… Ive read both proposals, the board proposal and this one by Birrell. The board proposal simply tidies up the existing rules and keeps the ability of members (not the board or directors) to extend beyond 9 years if 75% or members at a general meeting vote in favour. And I note this is enduring so even if the members vote in favour of that resolution, the director would have to be voted in by special resolution every three years -unlikely to happen and unlikely to ever be needed. Birrell’s proposal doesn’t allow this, however it enables a complete reset of the 9 years after a 3 year break. So this would allow Birrell to have a three year holiday then come back again for another 9 years over and over again. sorry, I won’t be voting for the Birrell proposal.

Controlling part owner. He owns the largest share.

Or one could take a look in the annual report which is published on their website. That often contains this type of info. Otherwise call the Chairman, he's taken my call before and been most helpful is resolving my concerns.

That is a very good point!! Thank you for correcting me KR.

KRaviator - Because Bathurst is a certified aerodrome, there is a requirement for all aircraft operating there to have a VHF radio. I don't disagree with your premise though. The average age of the RAA fleet would be a lot less than that of the GA fleet. I would therefore expect pretty good fitment of modern equipment across the RAA fleet compared to the GA fleet. KGWilson - The term ultralight is still used in 95.55. An ultralight is basically a type accepted aircraft that can be up to 600kgs. It's basically a factory built aircraft that doesn't conform to the light sport aircraft standards. According to the RAA and under 95.55, they look after LSA, Amateur built, and ultralights (and of course trikes under 95.32 and microlights under 95.10). Given this is the case I believe that as the proponent of the AIP Supp has not mentioned LSA, that an LSA can actually operate in the restricted airspace if they have a CASA licence!! And without stirring the pot, the AIP SUPP (and many notams these days) speak about General Aviation or GA. Where is the definition of this?

RAA pilots are not permitted to operate in active restrictions anyway, so for the most part it's a null argument. Except, for those of us with a CASA licence as well that can operate an RAA aircraft in controlled airspace and restricted areas. Having a read of the AIP SUPP there are other errors too, like SAFA being called the HGFA. I would hope someone at the RAA is speaking with either the airport or CASA to have the AIP SUPP amended.

I guess thats what I'm saying here Nev. CASA only allow the RAA to do so much because RAA is not the regulator, only an administrator. That means that RAA can only do whats in their manuals otherwise they're breaking the law (Part149). Base on this, and from what I can see in their documents, in particular their disciplinary procedures (https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/man-2016-04-occurrence-and-complaint-handling-manual-final-2.pdf), I can't see how they can go outside of this otherwise CASA would be down their throats. And its my understanding also that they have to tell CASA everything thing they do with relation to enforcement to make sure they aren't just doing stuff willy nilly, as is being suggested on this post. I do appreciate that these are your views Rod, and likewise, you're entitled to them and for who you vote for. I just think if there are going to be suggestions that RAA is being unfair and that new board members are going to be able to fix your concerns, I'd like to know what the circumstances are. I also want to say that when I googled Mr Taylor and came across the article, I wasn't inferring he'd done anything wrong or if this is the reason he's obviously upset.

I appreciate you've been around for a while and that you say you don't want to cause harm to RAA, But 'm still none the wiser for what management are alleged to have done. It's still hearsay if you ask me. Given that, I'd prefer a steady hand at the wheel personally. The only thing I can find on google is that Mr Taylor appears to have had a prang last year. Seems to be an interesting accident too, so maybe the RAA threw the book at him? “I Thought We Were Going To Drown!” Plane Crash Survivor Shares Story - Mackay Whitsunday LIfe (mackayandwhitsundaylife.com) Whilst I don't disagree that we don't want police officers running the RAA, there are rules to be followed and I guess management need to uphold these rules, particularly since Part 149 came into effect - of which I believe you were a Board member at the time that was brought in.

If you've got such an axe to grind, why don’t you share with us your specific gripe. I for one will be then seeking the RAA to tell us their side of the story. Otherwise your plea for members to vote for your mates is baseless.

In fairness to the starter of this thread (and I was a little dismissive, sorry ….), the thread drift where the discussion has arrived at re different types, systems and variants of unit of measurement, highlights that standardisation is indeed needed globally. We actually need those like Old Koreelah to call out that standardisation is necessary to avoid confusion and make our lives easier! So I do stand correct mate. In saying that, yes, SportPilot may want to reconsider their choices in future, but I still reckon SportPilot is still a great read.

I was in the US recently and whilst speaking to someone about this very thing, I was told that the timber industry in the USA had been very effective at lobbying against moving to the metric system as they’d need to re-tool all their mills etc. don’t know how true it is, but it’s plausible I guess. Question. Given the passion shown here about the metric system. Should we all write to CASA and the RAA to ask for them to cancel the registration of any aircraft the doesn’t use the metric system within their POH? Surely this must be the only way forward (note my sarcasm…). I think it’s pretty funny that anyone cares so much what it written in a magazine in terms of the specs of an aircraft. Would have thought there were bigger issues to worry about.

Seriously, you may need to talk to someone about your ‘rage against the machine’…. Should I ask for my money back from airlines that fly Boeings as well? They use KGS for fuel but the nuts and bolts are imperial. Did you know that China uses metres for altitude instead of feet? Many nations also use MPH instead of KPH in their cars. Did you also know that Aircraft in Australia can have different airspeed indicators that quote KPH, MPH or knots? This is part of living in a global society where different standards apply. In a simple world this wouldn’t happen, agreed, but it’s not a simple world. As far as lazy journalism is concerned, if that’s what the manufacturer quotes I would think this is appropriate to be quoted by SportPilot too. Whilst having to mix and match can be a PITA, that’s life. As long as you know and don’t forget that you may have to convert, unlike those involved in the Gimli Glider, the world will keep turning.

Fair enough. 👍🏻

I’d be keen to know what you mean here I saw the notifications asking for nominations. Obviously others did too given there are 5 nominees.

Taking a look at their fees, those rego fees aren’t right anyway. They are for initial rego, not renewal.

Agreed!

Yes, two different entities. and CASA are there to serve us. A simple look at their webpage shows that they have a ‘client services centre’ and a ‘guidance centre’. That certainly sounds like service to me. as far as the prescriptive rules are concerned, the regs are actually outcome based but RAA decides how they will meet them (for those that are applicable) then incorporate them into their manuals for CASA to approve. Much the same as an applicant for an AOC such as a flight school or airline. and yes, you pay RAAus a membership fee, but you’ll pay CASA $160/hr for them to even look at most applications, and they must charge that by law. Try and apply for an MA or seek airworthiness advice then you’ll feel the full brunt of their fees. I guess the value for me in the RAA is that it’s a one in all in approach. We all want basically the same rules therefore why not come together under a single umbrella like the RAA to do so. It’s exactly the same as the glidering fed or HGFA. IMHO it works just great as I don’t need to deal with the government 🙂 I’m not having a go at CASA or defending RAAus, this is just explaining the facts.

Each to their own Derek, and good news you can keep your medical. I think that the level of misinformation that’s out there, such as the RAA owning a unit block, does keep people away and unfortunately that’s the intention of many. The way I look at it is VH vs RAA is like Holden vs Ford. It’s often an emotive argument that’s not based on facts. Yes RAA charge fees but I know when I call them to discuss anything about my aircraft or pilot stuff, I get a pleasant person on the other end of the phone (immediately) who wants to help. They return calls, and basically give me the service I’m happy to pay for. Not to mention more than $1500 in insurance as part of the membership fee. I n comparison, I called CASA about trying to find a weight control authority about 6 months ago, when someone was going to call me back. I’m still waiting…. And thankfully I managed to resolve the issue myself. CASA have got a big job to do and dont have the number of people it needs and that’s reflected in their lack of service, much the same as any other govt department you try calling. Anyway, it’s a choice and like I said, glad to hear you’re still flying because in the end, that’s what it’s all about.

What an absolute crock. If you read their annual report it is quite clear they only own the premises they operate from in the ACT. Regardless, as a not for profit, if they did own other properties, any return from them would flow straight back to members to keep fees to a minimum. In fact looking at their website and the strategic plan, they are aiming to diversify income to achieve that very thing.

Ah, actually, RAA is a Not-For-Profit. I might point out also that they aren't a monopoly (for the most part) either. Trikes and powered parachutes are managed by SAFA as well, CASA have LSA and other RAA types on their register too. Sorry not sorry for raining on your parade....

Don't get me wrong, I get your frustration, however.... I bought a car once and the tinted windows were pretty dark but I assumed they were legal. Didn't think much of it until I had to get my next roadworthiness. Turns out the tint was illegal. Did I have a leg to stand on with the previous owner? No, but I was pretty peeved with them because it cost me $600 to get it legal again. I actually don't think it's any different to this case, and I don't actually think it's the RAA's fault.