greybeard

Hi Gavin...kaz

Who's Gavin?

 

If the board ever told us anything, you advice would make sense. However, as usual, we get told nothing, and we find a little out via rumour and innuendo on a web forum.Pathetic, isn't it?

 

But I don't understand why you blame the uniformed.

 

What about the board informing those they represent?

 

dodo

That's my point, "rumour and innuendo on a web forum" and an expectation that the board will involve all of the members in every thing they do.

 

Yes, there's a lot of areas that could be improved, but maybe try asking instead.

 

Here's a contact list for RAA. http://www.raa.asn.au/contact/

 

Communication works both ways. If enough people contacted their elected representatives and spoke to them, maybe there'd be a little less rumour and innuendo causing high blood pressure. You do acquire flight planning information don't you?

 

 

Some of you guys need to join a bowling club to find something else to winge about.

 

Either call yet another general meeting and put forward a motion to kick out everyone you don't want in your committee, change the constitution to allow a vote by every member before anyone can get out of bed in the morning, engage a QC for every member to provide legal argument.

 

Or, for the majority of people who are taking affront, pick up the telephone, actually talk to a human being, get even one fact, then start sprouting off.

 

Some of the discussion about the committee is reasoned and logical and has a basis in fact, far to much of the discussion is reminiscent of a bunch of school kids playing guess what I don't know. I'm pretty comfortable saying that most of you are involved in aviation, are mature, reasoned and can put together a logical argument / discussion. After all you mostly seem to be capable of aviating. How about it? Put the speculation aside, stick to facts, even try finding out a few, and put a fraction of the effort and passion from castigating anyone who doesn't ask your personal opinion before doing anything into moving forward. You never know maybe everyone, including the dastardly committee, is actually doing the best they can to forward RAA and it's members interests.

 

 

I had no interest in getting a GFPT but was told I had to do it as a formality prior to doing the flying test for my PPL.

I think you may have been led astray regarding a GFPT being required for a PPL. It isn't a prerequisite for a PPL.

 

I never bothered with the GFPT and completed my PPL without ever having sat a GFPT.

 

 

Western Australia.

Well I did manage to work out that it wasn't near Perth in Tasmania

 

 

Hmmh, interesting. It's all RAAF controlled airspace up that way. RAAF GinGin field has the Pearce flying club operating out of there on the weekend.

 

 

Where is it located? N, S, E or W?

 

 

FWIW, I've got a PPL and haven't flown for a number of years. I'm now getting back into things again. I compared RAA and doing an AFR and enabling my PPL. If you take into account the annual cost of RAA pilot certificate against two yearly class 2 medical there's not much in it and I get forced into going to the Doctor every couple of years to see if I'm still alive :)

 

Yes, flying costs are typically greater in GA, but I've got a lot more choice of hire in GA than for RAA in Western Australia.

 

Comes down to if you can afford the $'s to complete your GFPT now or not. It'd take you a while ( read $'s ) to get back into it and relearn to do the GFPT after being away from things for a number of years.

 

I skipped the GFPT and went straight through for my PPL ( did it in a total of 43 hours ). I was taking lessons at least weekly though, as well as burning through some money :).

 

If I had the money, I'd do the GFPT now. But only you know your financial situation.

 

 

Maybe a civil response actually quoting the relevant regs and/or a link would be useful instead of RTFM!

 

Those who are so up with the relevant rules and regs would obviously find it a trivial exercise to do this as they know what they are.

 

Yes, we could all look up the rules and regs but every now and then imparting a little knowledge or reference instead of sniping wouldn't hurt and might make this a nicer forum to frequent and gain some knowledge. But we all get our jollies in different ways.

 

You deserved a better response Phil.

 

 

As far as I know there is no requirement to broadcast to centre ( VFR ) when changing frequencies.

 

I'd maybe do an all stations call advising position and intentions depending upon circumstances. An issue with the broadcast is someone nearby may be on CTAF and/or just changing frequency and may miss the call.

 

That said I tend to do broadcast as I come up to a significant feature ( not many in WA ;) ) when doing long xcountry flights.

 

If you're concerned about getting a SAAB as a new hood ornament then by all means give an all stations broadcast. Don't forget that most IFR know where they are relative to a nav aid and may not be full on with a position report relative to a ground feature. If that makes sense.

 

[edit] fully agree with your first paragraph

 

 

Here ya go http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/

 

 

maybe power poles are like car keys, you can look for ages but can never seem to see them or maybe with an overcast sky, a little stress, no shadow to highlight thin objects, observing other power lines and thinking you've seen them all........ or perhaps something completely different as I wasn't there.

 

 

I thought the rules were set by an expert panel on an internet forum, same as the accident investigation reports

 

 

I found this link http://maps.google.com.au/maps/ms?msid=208172682501724513260.0004ab2697c752a1eb177&msa=0&ll=-25.005973,137.021484&spn=41.56424,48.251953 on this site http://www.stolspeed.com/

 

He's got some great adventure stories on their as well

 

 

There seems to be some confusion about this 5 hour requirement. Where can I find this in the regs?Thanks.

section 2.07 of the ops manual http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Section-2.07-Flight-Crew-Certificate-Pilot-Certificate.pdf subsection 2

 

 

And you'd have to think twice about going for a streaker flight

 

 

Seems to me that if you don't like what's happening you stick your hand up at the next election and get on the committee or find someone who is sticking their hand up that you support.

 

It takes a lot more effort to change things from the floor of a general meeting than it does from the committee/executive room.

 

 

errr, check the date of the thread and quoted post ;)

 

 

What state / town are you based?

 

 

Greybeard, we are a tiny bit off topic. If you want to read all about the President's Resignation and reincarnation, there is another thread on here devoted to that mystery. But, you are completely right, Runciman once resigned could not un-resign there is no such process available (there is no such word even).I'm sure RecFlyers won't mind too much if we summarise it all for you as:

 

• Runciman said something to the effect that he didn't have the unanimous support of the Board, and that he therefore quit as Nth Qld Board Member and as President. His resignation was unconditional and did not require anyone to accept or decline it. By the time it was received it was a done deal and Runciman was an ordinary member like the rest of us. Well, perhaps not so ordinary - a bit more precious?
   
   
  
• The next day, it seems the Board decided by majority vote that he could be the NQ Board Member and President again.
   
   
  
• If he had only quit as President the Board would be completely within their Constitutional rights to reappoint him President but, as he quit as NQ Board Member, he ceased to be eligible for the Presidency. The Board does not have the right to make anyone a Board Member. To achieve that you must face an election process and win!
   
   
  
• That Runciman resigned is a fact he acknowledges. The Board have not been able to produce written legal advice that approves their action of appointing Runciman to the Board. They say they will seek such advice around mid January.
   
   
  
• A person with real integrity and respect for due process would stand aside until legal support was able to be produced.
   
   
  

 

 

So, FT's amusing statement on the irony still stands tall: an ordinary member presently holding themselves out to be President with the gall to accuse JT of improper conduct when all JT is trying to do is fulfil his duty as a Board Member. Gobsmacking irony! Could be the definition of irony that Wikipedia has been looking for.

 

Apologies to JT and now, back to topic . . .

 

Alf

Thanks for the summary, it pretty much summarises what I have read in the 'other thread', hence my comment regarding how anyone could 'illegally chose not to resign'. A resignation may be refused, or accepted, legally or illegally but to accuse someone of 'illegally not resigning' is illogical and detracts from the argument. Yes, the subject matter is emotive, but creating drama by the use of emotive and illogical accusations does the discussion no benefit.

Educating people with facts, clearly stating when speculation has occured, all allows for an informed decision. Once you start down the slope of making up events to support an argument credability suffers.

 

There is more than enough information out there to make the point without statements like this, ironic or not.

 

Let the facts speak, I'm very confident that the people who read this forum are smart enough to reach a valid conclusion.

 

 

Its ironic that the President who resigned and then illegally chose not to resign, is accusing a board member of improper behaviour...

I'm intrigued, how could the President 'illegally chose not to resign'? He may have chosen to 'not resign' but isn't the issue with the acceptance of any such decision? Surely any acceptance ( or not ) of the decision 'to not resign' was taken by someone other than the President?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with what happened but it tends to weaken an argument when using an 'created fact' as emphasis a statement on irony.

 

 

errr, check the date of the post you've replied to. Things may have changed in the last 4 1/2 years ;)

 

 

Bottom line to me is that if you are going from differing types of aircraft, high/low/CSU/retract/tail/conventional etc then it's a good idea to get a refresh /check on the skills with a qualified instructor. Only you can make that decision to do so. The BFR ( to me ) is a legal requirement along the lines of the old Democrats idea of 'keeping the bastards honest' ;)

 

 

Other information in the manual states that the GA BFR only covers high performance. Not long ago the GA BFR did not count at all. You had to do both. Nev

Which is a little contraditory as you could do a BFR in a GA Skyfox Gazelle ( low performance as it has a cruise under 80kts ) and it only counts as a high performance BFR for RAA. Do the same BFR in a RAA registered Gazelle and it's considered low performance.

Similar issue with the endorsements.

 

 

So while I am at it, does my PPL BFR qualify for my required RAAus BFR?

Reply I received from RAA on 20/9/12

 

We accept BFR’s conducted in VH registered aircraft as suitable for an RA-Aus BFR provided they aircraft is under 1500kgs MTOW, single engine and the review was conducted under day VFR (no multi-engine or IFR renewals).

 

Likewise, if the 90 day currency requirement of three take-off and landings prior to carrying a passenger are conducted in an aircraft which can be registered RA-Aus but holds VH registration, this is also acceptable for RA-Aus currency.