kasper

Yen, You have to be a member to see the policy. Log into the member portal Tab = Governance - Corporate Documents - Policy select Privacy Policy The version up on web today is dated 1 Aug 2018 and has: "5.3. Use and disclosure of personal information RAAus will only use and/or disclose personal information for the purposes for which it was collected (the primary purpose), unless an individual has consented to another use [APP 6]. There are certain limited circumstances in which RAAus may use or disclose information for a different purpose (a secondary purpose) without consent, such as where the secondary purpose is: • directly related to the primary purpose for which the information was collected • required or authorised under an Australian law or has been ordered by a court or tribunal • necessary to lessen or prevent an immediate and serious threat to the life, safety of air navigation, health or safety of any individual, or public health or safety • to facilitate the investigation of an occurrence involving an RAAus registered aircraft and the death or serious injury of one or more persons • a permitted general situation or health situation, as defined by the Privacy Act • an enforcement related activity and the use or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary or • for the purposes of collecting fees associated with airport use and access. If RAAus uses or discloses personal information for a purpose other than what it was originally collected for, RAAus will keep a written notice of that use or disclosure as required by the APPs. " The last dot point about landing fees was added to 'allow' disclosure without consent because they bloody well know that its not a primary purpose ... whether its effective as a seondary is very much an issue ... all other secondary ones are around life and limb and legal requirements. And search my previous posts on the privacy issue around the very sketchy and inconsistent way they 'get permission' through a non-selective note in the renewal online form that is buried under the payment details.

Very sad outcome. Reporting steadfastly has it as a fixed wing but it clearly isn’t. It’s HGFA registered so over to the coroner and police with assistance from HGFA. And frankly that’s a very low speed impact from the looks of the ‘wreckage’. The spat’s are not even off the wheels and compared to the Qantum 912 that came out of the English Channel about 10 years ago from a full stall entry to the water after fuel exhaustion that airborne airframe is in remarkably intact condition. It will be interesting to watch for the reports on cause.

Turbo. Outlanding was and in my opinion should still be considered with RAAus aircraft. I’ve been flying from rag n tube stall close to 20knts through to jabirus. All are RAAus eligible and whilst I do not look forward to it I have by what you might consider 1 crash - airframe failed on landing off airfield after engine and airframe in air failure 3 forced - airframe fine after landing but engine/fuel issues meant I was coming down without a choice or power 2 outlanding - I chose to land off airfield with power due to unexpected met. And dozens of off airfield landings where I decided the paddock looked good and generally I wanted to take a break. All of these I was trained for in my initial training in RAAus in jabirus. I was retained/tested in the Uk for my NPPL(m). The reason / justification for the RAAus aircraft outside GA is the low energy low stall. Keep that and demand to keep the distinction. And an area you touch on that boils me every time is what I would call levelling up. If RAAus don’t have something - medical - extensive training to be allowed to use a spammer in an engine - and another area doesn’t that is not a justification to introduce the higher level to RAAus to level the operations. The logic as I see it is that unless there is demonstrable evidence based need to change the OTHER area of aviation should be using the RAAus evidence of safe ops to reduce and remove their requirements !

Only if you want to be regulated and GA. Where is the evidence that in practice the owners out there are getting it so wrong that they are dangerous to themselves or others ? Adults will tend to self select - I’m not comfortable with doing this/I have no interest = engaging an L2 or LAME or a trusted friend. And a point that keeps coming up is engine failing and not being cars able to coast to a roadside. The reason RAAus reg aircraft exist seperate fro GA regulation was that they are low energy and are expected to be able to Outland at lower risk to people that are in a recreational aviation that is NOT supposed to be as controlled as GA. Do not get me wrong. I think offering practical L1 courses is a very good benefit to members who want it. But requiring it to exist to do your own maintenance is not on my opinion alighting with the fundamental reason RAAus exists seperate from GA

But this is NOT a for profit company. It is a special purpose company with a dictate to work within recreational aviation for the betterment of the members. So yes as a director you do have responsibilities and obligations around governance BUT these can very easily be managed and learned from either a course or time on the job. I’m the finance manager of a medium sized not for profit -$25m income - and our board is mixed with over half coming directly from the target of the not-for-profit and they get the need to maintain the core focus on the charitable purpose of the company. Finance and governance are absolutely still in their mind and is governed but the strategic direction is not driven by process and governance but by their personal knowledge and enthusiasm for the charitable purpose. The worst that could happen here is ‘career’ directors come on or enthusiastic directors are scared off with focus on the responsibilities.

Ok - I have decided that I can commit to the time required as a director so any members fancy nominating me? 1. member and pilot since early 90's 2. instructor and L2 since mid 90's (not current) 3. have designed and built a 95.10 weightshift, owned and restored thrusters and drifters have a half built homebuilt of my own design here 4. hold a UK and US private pilots licence - the UK one is for microlights 5. was an elected board member in the UK of the British Microlight Aircraft Association Currently not involved in any commercial aviation. If you want to understand my opinions and stand on the current directions of RAAus and the management of the org wander though my posts on here. Any RAAus members feel like nominating me? PM me through here.

If you had ever seen a gyro thrown around you would understand how effective they can be in mustering. They are very loud can out perform a fixed wing

Just ask RAAus two mikes how it complies with legal requirements ... privacy principles specifically give as an example of improper and invalid consent exactly what RAAus did. Maybe the much touted director responsibility pack could in passing mention directly breaching members privacy for an improper purpose might just be a bad thing. But never fear. People who are member don’t give a flying fcuk about direction of management or breach of rules and laws so long as they can just go flying at lower cost than GA. And RAAus management appear to equally not give a fcuk about members privacy or laws because they are well aware that the govt departments will not enforce and as a company it’s up to the shareholders to hold their board to account ... and I refer to many members not giving a fcuk. members were warned about the real risks of converting to company form and three years on pretty much everything I said would happen has. And apparently their is an election in RAAus soon. My annual question to the fcuking board - where are the rules to the election published and made available to the members as would be required under the bloody constitution you pushed through and have steadfastly ignored for every year since? To the current directors of RAAus - wake up and make at least a passing effort to appear to give a fcuk about communication and compliance. And my thanks to the Uk clothing brand fcuk for providing such a useful name for unhappy forum posters where software really stops fuck being posted.

I'll bet on Mong Sport ... there are so many variations on that one with wings and cabanes

So no motorist should be allowed to touch their cars? All mechanics must prove full training in using any tool they might use to work on your car? Consider the risk difference ... a ton of steel and fury 1m from another ton of steel and fury at a speed difference greater than many light aircraft ... and all with innocent non participating public standing and walking around without so much as a guard rail. Would you advocate for something similar and cars nowhere near people ?

True that it’s not within gliding distance ... but has anyone actually tested the legality of using victor1 in an aircraft registered with RAAus? Just because Airservices have a GA VFR lane does not mean we are allowed under CASA rules to use it. I wish RAAus would put a stack more effort into working out these practical issues with aircraft ops AND PUBLISH THEM TO THE MEMBERSHIP rather than running around trying to make all ours level up to GA and expand into GA. Look in the Knowledge Base of RAAus and thee is not even a heading for aircraft operations or pilot resources.

Sorry for thread drift but FYI my trike has mtow of 415kg and a 80hp R912 with fixed pitch 3 blade 60knt cruise 4,100rpm 11lph for 3hr legs incl climb and descents etc. with start at mtow. So I get pretty much 10l per 100km. Much worse than my car but I do enjoy it more. And for the masochists I have the same wing on a 447 powered trike with mtow of 367kg that burns 15lph for 50knts. It’s saving grace is it only cost me $2000 to buy complete.

Yampy has the basics there but there is a but. Starting point. All RAAus registered aircraft and RAAus issues pilots certificates are only operative within Australia. Next step - flying over water not within gliding distance of land in RAAus reg aircraft have further limits. The BUT CASA can authorise quite a lot of flight within Australia that is outside the limits of the CAO ... and it’s still an RAAus reg aircraft and certificate holder ... you might get CASA to come on board ... and that will get you to the international flight boarder. THEN you will need to get recognition from the next country to operate your non ICAO airframe in their airspace on whatever certificate or licence you have. Can be done but it’s a big hassle. And to be clear all nationally registered aircraft and pilots licences are not icao compliant. In the UK my aircraft all had G- reg on them and I held an Uk NPPL(m) neither the aircraft nor the licence are icao compliant BUT there was goodwill between countries and I could fly pretty much anywhere in Europe because each county agreed to accept non-icao aircraft. Nothing to do with the EU but country to country agreement. So any of those visiting Uk reg ultralights over the years have not been flying here due to icao reg but due to casa allowing them to operate on non- compliant reg and licences. Good luck.

You don’t need it in writing beyond the fact it’s the tech manual. It’s not an aircraft specific exemption or ruling. The fact that the ruling on dual inspections make absolutely no sense when if you design it to come apart it’s not applicable but if you do not it does is just one more conflict between the way RAAus is making GA lite and aligning to ga when existing design features in many older designs are in direct conflict.

Well if it’s RAAus reg and under the tech manual the out for us is the exception to allow non dual inspection if some assembly is required prior to daily use. This covers all wing folds on things like kitfoxes or vampires. Even covers the thrusters that have wings that come off and fold down to ladder. Oh and the weight shift guys n gals not only fully fold the wing and disrupt the entire wing control system but also fold the fuselage in half. All excluded from dual inspection. And i confirmed this with tech office when issue 4 came out.

Not so much regulations on crew training but a very strong marketing desire from Boeing. To counter the sales boom and market share that the A320 family had establish with a single training across most of the family Boeing has to maintain what has turned out to be the fiction that they too had crew commonality with little to no training. The fiction was not from training requirements but from a sales requirement to have a extremely low training requirement they used to sell it into airlines as a practically nil training cost aircraft that cut seat miles with the new engines being so efficient. Reality appears that the changes the new engines imposed required systems that from an external eye look poor - single point of failure - and it appears a difficulty of control fairly rapidly appearing even if the processes Boeing said to use. When there is an automated system I would expect to know from training what it’s doing doing and what failure modes the system might have.

Sad to hear that the last UK flexwing manufacturer has gone into administration. No idea what that means for P&M Australia and ongoing parts support for what in Australia are type approved airframes now without a manufacturer [/url]https://www.bmaa.org/information-library/news/bmaa-news/p-m-aviation

Well yes. The 25 series are type accepted and unless a manufacturer changes the accepted specifications you live within them. The manufacturer is no more so you are limited to going through the RAAus MARAP process ... but given mtow changes are significant changes affection pretty much every aspect of the type acceptance you are likely to be less than welcome at RAAus ... plus the cost and time involved would probably be better spent getting to know your aircraft within its limits and then if you love it but need more then sell your 25 on and buy a 19 reg home built one which has a higher mtow and performance.

Welcome to sapphire ownership. If yours is an early uncertified one it’s got 95.10 reg and technically you can declare to fly it at any weight up to 300kg. There are both fabric thick wing 95.10 sapphires and thin wing glass wing sapphires that were approaching the certified spec. You choose your mtow and in the sapphire like many it will come down to cofg management. Mine is a fabric wing kfm engine sapphire so it’s really light. Even with the full canopy and brakes it’s under 122kg empty and only burns 8-9L an hour when I push so it’s quite a different aircraft to the 447 glass wing version. Anyway. Enjoy you sapphire.

I did say as a single seater you’d still need to Criss your fingers ... that your claimed stall met the refs for RAAus might be one reason to have them crossed ...

I suppose - being generous - it’s had one seatbelt removed and a placard added single occupant only and 600kg mtow with corresponding changes to the ops handbook on all load charts etc That would satisfy the requirements ... if I squint in a dark room whilst crossing my fingers. If not then .... hmmmmm

And if I was being really picky on the board and management I’d point to the “policy” document they created that garbage in and point out they didn’t even read it well enough to notice how they refer to the key documents of the member charter ... and they all ignore the supremacy of the constitution and the fact that whilst the constitution allows for management documents those documents can’t be at direct conflict with the constitution ... ask yourself what type of member is he/she to become ? Never any announcement of seperate membership groups so if you’re a member you’re a member and the ops manual does not have the limited ops aspects envisaged by the statements. Basically I’d hate to be RAAus defending the group of documents we have in any court.

Unfortunately they can write tripe like that till the cows come home - the actual governing documents do not include that requirement so the statement is very much subject to challenge. In particular as it would imply that there is a class of membership that has limited entitlements to pilots certificates that are not in the ops manual. Hate to say say it because it’s coming close to me pointing at the management and board of RAAus and either Saying emperors new clothes or basically calling them incompetent. I chose to to lean towards emperors new clothes as I actually fear that i am at risk of being challenged by RAAus managment for bringing RAAus into disrepute but basic problem remains that the core documents are still as flawed as they were when adopted AND management appear to be just putting what they like into practice on the basis it’s what they intend.

If you do not have a ppl for any reason there is no bar to you joining RAAus and obtaining a pilots certificate. Your prior experience is valid to count towards RAAus certificate hours so you really only have to prove competence to the CFI on the entire syllabus and do the flight test to get the restricted certificate. You can’t use any now non-existing licence to get endorsements but cross country will be relatively easy to complete as is passenger. If your old cancelled licence was old school you will find that you have a pilots licence and a seperate radio operators licence. Check to see if the cancellation did applied to the radio licence as well. If it did not then it is still valid and you can get the radio endorsement off the back of that. So there you go. You can have access to some flirt in oz after some retraining and certification. Only one BIG flag on everything above ... you have to be accepted as a member of RAAus ... and if you have a cancelled casa licence they MAY refuse membership based on that being evidence of a lack of honest agreement to abide by the RAAus governing rules etc and bringing the RAAus into disrepute. It’s unlikely but it’s possible ... and would be challengable in court if they did. But casa can’t force RAAus to refuse membership or not issue a certificate so IF you are serious then RAAus is a way back to flying non-GA in oz.