coljones

Keith, I can't find "Board member or ROC". Cheers

Sorry Neil, I was working off the Application for membership form here https://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/student_pilot_member-with-under-18-amount-November-20141.pdf The disqualifying conditions you showed are those that need to be worked out if you want a conditional drivers licence through a GP, and therefore need to satisfy if you want to hold a drivers licence and hence a RAA PC

try http://vocasupport.com/avmed/ or vocasupport.com/avmed/

For an RAA Pilot Certificate (not GA) all you need is self certification eg "I certify that my health standard is equivalent to that required for the issue of a private motor vehicle driver’s licence in Australia" A GA "Recreation Aviation Medical Practitioners Certificate" (RAMPC), (the old DL Medical) an alternate to a Class 2 for GA, is based on the AusRoads Drivers Licence standards with a list of aviation related exclusions. If you can't hold an unrestricted drivers licence (insulin fx will lead to a restriction) or offend any of the aviation related exclusions you can't hold a RAMPC and you either go get a Class Medical or say farewell to GA. The CASA AvMed info on depression is contained in http://www.casa.gov.au/SCRIPTS/NC.DLL?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101517. read it and talk to your Physc. and DAME. Being a "Colonial" is not such a big problem. It has a certain cachet, including being able to stir the Poms. Some of our families helped colonise the place from 1788 to prepare it for later hoards of boat people from GB including our current PM and others. Some might even say that we stopped the wrong boats.

Hence the necessity to maintain the continued use of proxies as well as seeking postal ballots in a mix to be determined after further mosquito castrating.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion even if it is to not to have an opinion except to trust the opinion of the person who they give an open proxy to. Democracy is a real bugger at times but it beats a lot of the alternatives.

But we need to ensure that the proxy holder is obliged to vote the proxy, and that if the proxy holder fails to attend the meeting it flows to someone else or the chair and that the office should collate and publish the proxies to minimise misdealing of the proxies. There is probably a need to permit open proxies so that the holder, on the day, can hear the arguments and caste proxies appropriately. A postal vote would not support this capability. I see no need to minimise proxies each member holds as all the members are entitled to be involved in the governance of their association and a limitation on the holding of proxies would disenfranchise them. I recall some legal issues over proxies at one of our leading not for profits where the chair forgot to vote the proxies he had in hand that didn't support an increase in directors fees. He was initially barred for 5 years and overturned on appeal when he successfully argued that ASIC didn't prove that he did it deliberately.

Snip...snip...snip There needs to a bit of a wide ranging discussion about the specific limitations and solutions as well as good ideas even before the board streams off on its escapade. (remember the Ops manual debacle - I don't think anyone knew what they were up to with that) This should probably happen first so that principles and alternates can be work shopped. The final,mosquito castrating, rules should then follow - we don't need 10,ooo opinions on grammar. Or Qld N or S

If you have a medical clearance to drive a car you are clear to fly RAA. Is there any reason that you can't pass a Class 2 medical - which is all you need for a PPL

And The Oaks is pretty quiet. SRFC does Foxbat training on Thursdays and Saturdays and you have only a short run to get out of the Sydney ratrace without having to put up with the big ratrace called the Pacific Highway. Call Dave on 0425 251 939 to enquire Enjoy

Not sure about Slings but you can have Jabirus at The Oaks - Dave on 0414 740 766 or John on 0408 202 009 Foxbats at The Oaks - Dave on 0425 251 939 Jabirus at Wollongong - Bruce on 0412 209 953 Enjoy

Timb, below are the parts of the Act that cause problems for us as a widespread organisation - "Alteration of Rules" (Part 33) and "Special Resolutions" (Part 70)) . It is a major headache with the ACT Legislation that is not replicated in Associations Incorporation Acts in more enlightened jurisdictions. I do know an organisation registered under the ACT Act that provides for postal rules changes but my reading has it that that is not permissible. You could easily go through an easy, but illegal, rules change, the registrar staff don't read every bit of paper but you leave yourself in legal limbo if the rules are ruled out of order and you have relied on them for some activity. It may well be that the easiest solution is to move our incorporation to, say NSW, and work on the constitution from there. There is no need to move our office as most jurisdictions have quite liberal residency rules. One of the issues with a change of domicile is the service of documents and the viewing of records but this could be achieved by nominating a solicitor in Queanbeyan, NSW as our agent and public officer. Associations Incorporation Act 1991 Page 20 "33 Alteration of rules (1) Subject to this Act, an incorporated association may, by special resolution, alter its rules in whole or in part and may, in particular— (a) adopt as its rules the model rules as in force from time to time instead of rules other than the model rules adopted under section 16 © (ii) or 26 (1) (b) or paragraph (b); or (b) adopt as its rules other rules that comply with section 32 instead of the model rules adopted under section 16 © (i) or 26 (1) (b) or paragraph (a). (2) If an incorporated association has resolved to alter its rules, the association must, not later than 1 month after the resolution was passed, lodge with the registrar-general a notice setting out the particulars of the alteration, and including a declaration by at least 2 members of the committee of the association to the effect that a special resolution referred to in subsection (1) was duly passed by the association. Maximum penalty: 2 penalty units. Note If a form is approved under s 126 (Approved forms) for a notice, the form must be used. (3) If a notice relating to the alteration of the rules of an association has been lodged under subsection (2), the registrar-general may give notice to the association that it is required to lodge a copy of its rules with the registrar-general. (4) If an incorporated association has been given notice by the registrargeneral under subsection (3), the association must, not later than 1 month after the date of the notice, lodge with the registrar-general a printed copy, in consolidated form, of the association’s rules as altered and in force at that date. Maximum penalty: 2 penalty units. (5) A resolution to alter the rules of an incorporated association is of no effect until a notice has been lodged by the association under subsection (2). 34 Illegal objects or rules An object or rule of an incorporated association that is inconsistent with this Act or with another law in force in the ACT is of no effect. " Associations Incorporation Act 1991 Page 45 "70 Special resolutions A resolution of an incorporated association is taken to be a special resolution if— (a) it is passed at a general meeting of the association, being a meeting of which at least 21 days notice, accompanied by notice of intention to propose the resolution as a special resolution, has been given to the members of the association; and (b) it is passed by at least ¾ of the votes of those members of the association who, being entitled to vote, vote in person or, if the rules of the association permit voting by proxy, vote by proxy at the meeting.

can you provide chapter and verse as there is a belief among those who know, and their legal advisors, that postal ballots are not permissible under the ACT Act and Regs, which takes precedence over an orgs rules, which take precedence over the model rules.

"Most members seem to agreeable to the idea of reducing the number of board members." Most members - or some members - or a couple of members - or a closet full of members? By all reports we have a board of 13 made up of people with eminently impeccable qualifications and experience. We are told that the board members all have their shoulders to the wheel pulling RAA and Jabiru out of the mud. Reducing size of the board to 7 will achieve what? It seems to be that the work output and effectiveness of the board will halve if they all keep their shoulders to the wheel and we can't guarantee that we will get top quality board members with a wide range of expertises (plural). While we still have the willing workers on the board I would like to see them complete and deliver the "vision" documents and then have a discussion across RAA and its members about what sort of governance we need to have. RAA is both a regulatory and advocacy membership based not for profit association - A BHP model is not appropriate, the NRMA model is bastardised so maybe we need to look elsewhere. I am afraid that most lawyers and MBAs would be completely lost in the model we actually need. I am quite happy with the changes that have been made, thus far, to the rules (but more than less) but "going forward" there needs to be a wider discussion (no more "cop this") which may take longer than a half hour block at an AGM. IMHO

Piggy Muldoon once said, about the Kiwi Diaspora to Oz, that the IQ of both countries increased as a result. Not only was piggy a buffoon but he got it wrong, Australia was the only winner. (with apologies to my Kiwi friends) I think this thread has reach its end. FT, I am sorry that I doubted you.

So, in fact you seem to know nothing at all and are parading it for the world to see.

I don't have a problem with the rotax engine - I even flew a foxbat today, for my peace of mind and health. What bothers me is the crusade that some people get on using all sorts of trumped up statistics born of dubious data. It is a bit like the fluoride debate with the gummy old woman saying - "I don't need fluoride, I don't have a rotten tooth in my head" Keep well Col

Point 2 and the last paragraph might have some sustance and validity if you were able to validate your assertion. Very few Rotaxes make it beyond 2000 hours but that doesn't mean that the ones that are not reached TBO have failed. You need to plot the data points for the age of failure of each engine and include all of the engines that have not yet failed. A 990 hour TBO engine may well be an acceptable engine with the owner dying of boredom or fear of the unknown before anything happens to the engine. If you feel that your 14% is not reassuring then I suggest you try something other than maths or stats.

You get around, don't you?

In a major phone company, and probably common practise in all phone companies, there was a hands off policy except for system failures in the week before Christmas and January to prevent f****ups becoming embedded in the system while customers were grumpy and and staff were making sure things didn't fall over. Perhaps CASA should try this. With the deskilling and deprofessionalisation of the public service I suspect that there are very few inside CASA capable of making a qualified review of the facts or even being able to formulate the questions to ask.

http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/education/fact_sheets/titanium.html but this is a gov site and they are all liars

FFS David, this thread is about Jabiru failures. I am not sure what Ornis is attempting to achieve but he is using the wrong figures and making spurious imputations to achieve it. He/she may not assert but does imply. I recently saw a TV show about fire alarms that suggested that only half of the particulate detectors and non of the ionisation detectors actually worked. I have since been informed that the second particulate detector finally worked (but not shown) but neither of the ionisation ones did. If I had gone with the TV show I wouldn't have installed any detectors as a 75% chance that none would work appeared to me that smokies are a waste of time - you need to dig through GOOD data and the data that Ornis presented is next to useless in relation to the 7000 Jabiru engines. A side note - I went and bought a barbecue as I was getting sick and tired of the smokey going off if I cooked a steak on the stove. Another side note - 60 Minutes (the same 60 second of info dragged out 60 times) showed its usual lack of depth and proves again that it is a waste of space. Perhaps The Checkout can do a better job on smokies in the house. Keep well

You imply that 6500 have failed. I would suggest that the failure rate is much smaller than that.

They may have all the answers but do they know what the question was.

I'm not sure how well travelled or if and how many rebuilds. For more details checkout http://srfc.org.au/blog/?p=2817 Keep well