dodo

Dead right. He was pulled upon it a number of times, but didn't get it - ever. Not any time he was told. I am pretty sure he thinks he handled the schoolroom well. I thought his chairing was a disgrace. He had to be reminded that a motion had been put, reminded that he should restrict speakers to supporting or refuting a motion, and had trouble organising a vote. And needed a lawyer to hold his hand. dodo

Be careful of what is called "vanity publishing". You don't want someone who is happy to be paid to publish you, you want someone who is carefully thinking whether they are prepared to pay to publish your book. Getting a good editor would be a big plus; a good editor will ask you what you meant in this part,why that bit is so hard to read, etc. and get to to rethink or re-write parts. So if you are going to publish, get someone who will push you to make it the best story you can write. After all that, I would like to read the published book - just make it the best that you can! dodo

You should carry an ERSA and current maps. While training or hiring, generally the aircraft or instructor will have an ERSA. Maps... depends where you are going. Buy a couple that seem most relevant, and see how you go. Check what their expiry date is FIRST (frustrating to buy a map which is legal for the next three weeks!) dodo

But why haven't I seen your 2011/12 tax return yet? dodo

Sounds like a good pick for Tech Mangler. But does anyone know who Mark Clayton is, or anything about him? Dodo

In practice, reality gets in the way of flying more hours, especially in RA. One example I understand too well, is that the weather tends to stuff with my plans for flying, and this has a direct financial effect on the flying school (no money from me today). My guess is that many flying schools find (sensible) ways to cut their costs before they concentrate on more hours. This has a beneficial side effect that they don't have to focus so much on billable hours, and more on flying issues. Either do your own maintenance (largely weather independent, but you need to be a L2), or fly somewhere without excessive airfield costs, or fly a Gazelle or LSA55 (with lower capital costs and well-understood maintenance issues and easy parts). dodo

Thanks. As an explanation of the legislative framework, that was fairly straightforward. But it does leave me wondering what justifies such a hierarchy? In my experience, most industries can operate quite safely with one or more Acts, and their subsidiary Regulations, Orders, and some ad-hoc explanatory publications where necessary. thanks again, dodo

But what is AC21-41(0), and how does that fit the CARs & CAOs. dodo

I think a J230 is going to cost more in fuel and depreciation than an LSA 55. The difference would have to be at least $15/hour in fuel, and I would guess $5-10,000/year in depreciation. Dave's flying school at the Oaks is very good value. Standards of instruction and maintenance are as good, or better, than I have seen elsewhere. I don't think the low cost does Dave's finances a favour, but my belief is that he likes what he does, so he is only partly commercial (there's a fair bit of lifestyle thrown in!). His flying school has been there a decade or more, so it is clearly sustainable. dodo PS I commented earlier that an instructor was more interested in the standard of my flying than in getting the certificate. That was Dave Rolfe.

Please Sir, can I have some MORE!

Graduating as a school priority...is that good or bad? The best instructor I have had wanted me to fly well. The certificate was secondary (not unimportant, but secondary). I think all of them knew exactly who had gone solo when, and when they got their license. Mind,all were small operations - max three instructors in a school, and at that one,two of them were part time. dodo

I agree with your assessment, but I found that judging the quality of the instruction is very difficult for a student. While it is very important, it is also too difficult. dodo

I am interested dodo

Near Sydney, Jabiru LSA 55, $150 dual Riverland, J170 $160 dual My opinion is that not much lower than $150 is feasible dual if the instructor is paid, $120 otherwise. The cost of running a training aircraft won't decrease much with a simpler aircraft. dodo

Are you sure this isn't just a front for getting the Drifter known as "the Greyhound of the Skies"? dodo

Sorry, should have answered that. My knowledge of the current audit was what I got out of the magazine, prior to the November shutdown, which was not very informative,and I wasn’t much interested, as I didn't see the relevance to me or other members. After the shutdown, I got what I could from this website. The night before the meeting, the current (11/12 to 11/13) audit report/reports were available from the RA website. I read that between about 9pm and 11pm. I deal with financial audits a bit, and was not impressed by what I read (but I have no experience with anything aviation related with audits). While smoking like your average addict outside the EGM I met Steve Bell. Never met him before, but I recognised his face from somewhere (prob the magazine) and asked him where I knew him from. Asked him if we had ever been audited before- he looked a bit surprised at the question and said yes, pretty normal, the last audit was about three years ago. ...so I have no special sources or knowledge, dodo

John, what was the bit about "and a resolution taken to address the issues raised."? Does that mean that the board could have voted to ignore the meeting? I thought the vote on a motion at a GM was binding on the association, regardless of the various opinions of the board members. I appreciate your recollections of the meeting, and that you agreed to join Daniel in the lions den. It must have been interesting (or daunting) to be representing another board member at a meeting that was full of passionate opinions, without knowing what you might be asked. I very much respected a number of people at that meeting for representing opinions I disagreed with, or for standing up for what they thought, or simply being accountable for their actions. Eugene Reid, for one...also, the gentleman who called "Enough, Mr Chairman" and told the the chair he should have stopped himself from speaking 20 minutes before... Geoff (Captain/ the Rat) for consistency and constancy in his approach and actions... Howie Hughes for his defense of the board. best wishes, dodo

The problems are if an aircraft does not meet legislated registration requirements. Many of the problems found in the most recent audit go back many years. Obviously, some are recent, but many are not. Many people have said "but you have been registering my aircraft for the last x years with the same aircraft you now won't register me on, so what's going on?" Either the aircraft is legal to register, or it isn't legal. No one has seriously criticised the fundamental quality of the audit in any way. Plenty have rightly criticised the trivial nature of some of the issues (photos etc.) - and that triviality might not reflect well on RA's administration, but also doesn't reflect well on CASA. But I would be angry too, in your position. Just not at CASA or the audit. dodo

My understanding is the last audit was three years prior to the current one. Obviously, you wonder what changed in those three years? The quality of the audit? Many of the problems are older than three years. However, the quality of RAs records and administration of registration was not good, and there is clearly a problem (although that would come across more clearly if there was less focus on the trivia of placards and photos). To those who suggest CASA's record keeping and database my not be perfect (couple of people at the EGM suggested this might be so), that might be true. However, unless you can get someone to audit their database and publish the result, it doesn't do any good for us in RA-Aus. dodo

I thought it was probably ambiguous, with lots of "ifs". In which case he could still have tabled it, pointed out the board thought it meant he should stay, and then calmly pointed out the only way a definitive answer could be provided was by a court. And that wouldn't have looked shifty or arrogant,but just a reasonable man trying to settle a complicated matter in a reasonable way. So I still don't get it, unless he was just angry at being challenged, and therefore became stubborn. dodo

Dead right! On all points! You wouldn't wave your legal advice in court (the judge would see it as usurping his opinion, I think). I don't understand why Steve Runciman wouldn't table his legal advice. Not doing so made him look shifty and arrogant. He could have put the issue to bed, but he chose not to. dodo

It's not about firing anyone. It's about RA being dysfunctional. Aircraft rego, governance, communications, good financial management. Affordable flying. I think if the a showdown had occurred at Saturdays meeting, it would have looked like a power struggle to many members. We would certainly have lost some very good members, and we might have lost some good people on the board. Now that we (the membership generally) have more information (gained at the expense and effort of an EGM!), I think we may get some considered proposals at the Natfly meeting - and if they are on notice, we might get a more considered debate than we have had recently. I think the membership that attended got a better idea of both the challenges the board faces and how they deal with them, and also of the dysfunctional aspects of the board. I think the board were surprised that Saturdays meeting wasn't just a lynch mob, and I think they did listen to some extent. Whether they understood what the concerns were, I am not so sure. I think they are in denial (to some extent) about the registration debacle, and I don't think they understand what the communication problem is, but I think they accept that there is a communication problem and I think they see the need for administrative reform. I think the membership that attended got a better idea of both the challenges the board faces and how they deal with them, and also of the dysfunctional aspects of the board. And if it becomes clear the current board can't run the organisation, then a motion to that effect (or whatever) can always be made in time for the Natfly meeting or the AGM. So I think I am halfway between DGLFox and some of the more hardline dissenters (if they will forgive the description), dodo

Interestingly, this was asked when the first motion was put. There was some confused discussion, and the chair asked for a show of hands. dodo

Your pickup on that was informative, especially for the Treasurer's response. I still feel we should be embarrassed by his response. dodo

My unreliable recollections...it ran for eight hours Opening and chair dispute: Started with some bickering about whether the pres could be an impartial chair,then whether the pres was even the pres. Result: Pres claimed legal advice, refused to provide it, and basically said he was pres until challenged in court,and refused to discuss further. Matter of impartiality was dealt with by the constitution which says the pres chairs, or if not present , member of the exec. At least that was clear. Discussion of legal matter, which was not very satisfactory for a number of reasons (legal sense, in that discussion damages our position, also some poorly aimed questions, also some petulance, and a general reticence by the pres to answer anything). Unfortunately,we got little information about insurance, beyond RA's lawyer pointing out the legal matter wasn't a problem as we were insured,but then it became apparent the insurance cover is or may be close to exhaustion. Bit frustrating Discussion of junior membership issue, somewhat better, but still not very informative. At this point, the meeting took a break, which improved it. Discussion of CASA audit issue. Pres explained his perspective, until after about 30 minutes an interjecter loudly and rudely pointed out the pres was the chair, and should behave like one,and anyway should have stopped himself 20 mins earlier, and he hadn't said anything informative. Despite this interjection being not in the spirit of holding a meeting, the interjecter was clearly right and the pres retreated. After that the discussion improved somewhat. However, it often felt like we were talking to the gatekeeper - the pres answered most questions, ran the process as well as participating, but when we occasionally got past this, some good comments by some of the board, particularly Paul Middleton (secretary) on the audit outcomes. We did get a fair bit of useful discussion and information, especially on some issues like the LSAs. OPINIONATED BIT (bias warning). In my opinion, the message from the executive (Paul M and Steve R were the only ones responding) blamed the past tech manager, and beyond that appeared to think it was an unavoidable event, sort of an Act of God. I felt they were in denial over the state of RA administration. END OPINIONATED BIT Result - nil (not very satisfactory, but somewhat informative). Temperature lowered a bit Lunch After lunch, the temperature had dropped a bit, as I think the board finally realised most members were there to find out what was going on, rather than being a mob of peasants with pitchforks and torches. Discussion of financials,where Eugene Reid got kicked about a bit, but that was pretty much inevitable (6 monthly financials not available, and the budget which David Caban got castigated on in the past was still not published). Can’t have been nice for Eugene, but he has the responsibility of being Treasurer. I respect him for his dignity, although I am sure he is the wrong bloke for Treasurer. One moment of Lightness occurred when Howie got up and defended the boards efforts, pointing out a good job in difficult circumstances,and pointed to the surplus of $34000. Unfortunately, the number was in brackets, and therefore a deficit of $34000. I still think Howie had a point, and his one word "oops!" comment managed to be both apologetic over the incorrect bit, and quite genuine about his good opinion of the board's efforts. After that, not a lot, but it still took until after 5pm. Discussion of various concerns - communication, technology, financials, compliance, future directions. Ultimate result: Two motions passed (review RA structure, and board to report at Natfly on regulatory compliance) I think the board realised that the membership isn't a mad mob of peasants with pitchforks and torches, but is still in denial over some or many of the problems. I think the member ship got a better understanding of the board issues. Several of the board (Michael Apps in particular, but others as well) presented some good perspectives and opinions. Too often, the response of the president was "we made mistakes, we will take that on board, we won't get it wrong again" The pres came over a bit poorly, running the meeting and participating in it, with an emphasis on control, had to be reminded of meeting motion process (!), and then referring to the board as they and the executive as we, which grated with me. With luck, this is a start. If I am wrong, nothing has changed. dodo