Aldo

Thirsty

Glad to see it all ended well and the student was happy to get back on the horse (you were obviously on top of the game early, better to land half way down and not 100 m short, don't be too hard on yourself, also glad to hear you were happy to listen to someone else in the air at the time) .

To all you clowns out there who think just because you have a Rotax or any other engine for that matter that it will keep running keep your heads planted firmly up your backsides until the unthinkable happens then see what happens.

All engines can fail, Jabiru just happen to have more engines out in the market place than many others, in ultralights, so you would expect to see more Jabiru engine failures associated with the statistics. I personally know of several engine failures with other engines that have never been reported (I wonder how often this happens) so the stats end up skewed.

I agree Jabiru engines require good engine management but I fly every aeroplane with the same mindset, try flying some of the supercharged and turbo charged Lycomings & Continentals without the correct engine management and see where you end up.

I believe it depends entirely on your training and your understanding of what physics keeps an aeroplane (with or without power) in the air, I practice on a regular basis positions where I can get back to the strip, I also allow (when I'm able) myself to drift downwind after take off thereby reducing the number of degrees required to get back on the reciprocal track.

In my 230 if I have 700 feet and I'm on crosswind (and it must be crosswind i.e. wind from in front of you not with the wind behind you in a normal left circuit turn) I can make it back, if I'm not on crosswind don't bother as it is very unlikely that I will make it, but every aeroplane is different.

I have been told that 60 deg is the optimum angle of bank for the least loss of altitude for degrees turned in this situation (I haven't tried it) but it would take a brave person to allow the nose to fall away to remain above the stall in that situation, but it makes sense from a mathematical point of view.

Andy said

"5) those that have survived an EFATo and landed straight ahead I wonder if that was because the WTF moment was long enough in length for them that by the time they were through it and ready to do something there was no alternate but to land ahead....."

I don't believe this to be true in all cases and what you are insinuating is that people who land straight ahead are not as aware of what is going on, maybe they are just doing what they have been taught.

I have been unlucky enough to have had an engine failure after take off (Comanche 180) with 4 pob and lucky enough for all to survive without injury (aeroplane wasn't that fortunate) I had no thoughts of turning back but this may have been due to the fact that I had only just completed my PPL and 6 out of 10 take offs (with an instructor, back in the time when instructors were 50 years old had 10,000 hrs and knew how to instruct) you had an engine failure it became so ingrained to look 20 deg either side of the nose for somewhere to land, additional to this it was also part of the pre take off checks to determine what we would do in the event of an engine failure in several different scenarios, prior to rotation, just after rotation, after 300 feet and after cleanup. I do this mentally if I'm on my own, if I have passengers I brief them on what I will do should this happen (this tends to make the decision making process faster). Additionally as I fly Cessna's a lot I also brief the other person in the front that if my seat rails fail and I go backwards to grab the control column and push it forward to maintain level flight until I'm in a position to take over.

I'm no expert but these are a couple of things that I have learnt over a 25+ years of flying.

Allan

He has answered it for all to see.... He is an electrician..Regards

 

Keith Page.

So my suggestion to you is unless you have something constructive to add to the conversation or the balls to come out and say what you really mean nick off back to where you came from.

Arlo, what is the relationship between A and B in your example?

Example A is ABC Pty Ltd and B is QGC (as an example)

There you go again Aldo taking information that board members have taken the time to share with you, and twisting it around to suit your point of view....I wonder why we even bother on this forum. Merely stated that office relocation is something on the agenda...I never at any time mention a timeframe...short or long term...just that it is being considered. Jim on the other hand has offered that its not going to happen anytime soon because of current financial restraints. What part of that don't you understand ?...............Maj...

Let's get one thing straight I have never quoted a board member in any post prior to this post and I don't have any particular axe to grind apart from having an organisation that is run responsibly, effectively and efficiently for the members.

Second, being a board member is not a popularity contest it is about making decisions on the direction of the organisation and very often these decisions are not popular with a percentage of the members but that is the job.

On the issue of shifting the HQ the board is either seriously considering the move or not, I don't care one way or the other but let's not mess with people by leaking information that hasn't really been seriously considered.

On the issue of board members taking their precious time to share information, I don't believe board members should be discussing board business or possible business on a forum. The information should be released from the MD to the GM (if we have one) and then via the organisations information dissemination processes, this prevents conflicting information being bandied around between members. If the board is looking for the members opinion then this should be done in the correct way, not on a forum.

You guys need to get the flow of information from the board to the members correct so this organisation is able to move forward.

That said, I do understand and appreciate the time given by board members in their job but for Christ's sake lets get it right.

Allan

Kaz

You are correct, the situation that I was referring to goes as follows

Employee 1 works for company A

Employee 2 works for company B

Our agreements between company A and company B states that company A will not approach employee 2 and vice versa.

On the other side, should employee 1 approach company B our employment contracts cover these situations.

In the situation Coljones mentioned above the employee works for the labour contractor and is contracted to company A, this can be a very efficient way to have personnel on your books for contract requirements it is also a very effective method for getting rid of a particular employee without having to go through all the BS if they work directly for you. An email to the labour contractor letting them know you will not require employee 1 on his/her next work rotation, cleans up the HR and IR issues.

As far as the office needing to be sold, well that is clearly false..............the board has recognise the need and advantages of getting out of Canberra, and we have been looking for a suitable alternate base which would supply an 'all under one roof ' type approach which would include a training centre, and hangar facilities, and be at an airfield that would be easily accessible to all members, by both adequet public transport services and owners flying in in their own aircraft.This could also be where the Natfly events may be held. A List of suitable sites has been compiled and looked at but is ongoing, with nothing put foward as yet as being the ideal site.

Whilst I was cooling my heals in Narromine recently I took the opportunity to visit the SAAA headquarters there, and spent some time talking the whole concept over with their President, who was very friendly and accommodating. They are now fully headquartered a Narromine airport so have already done what we are looking at doing. They appear to have benefitted greatly from their move, and there very visible addition to Narromine airports already impressive facilities has added well to that facility.....One thing I have noticed as a board member is that there are many many rumours out there amoungst members..and most of them are totally incorrect or out of date ! .......If you want the real current story just contact your local board member, or check what the latest is on the RAA forum before going off with incorrect info that does nobody any good......Maj......

As per below you guys need to get on the same page one saying the board has recognised the need to get out of Canberra, the other saying we need to remain, which is correct?

At present I believe there is no intention of relocating the office. It has been discussed (and will continue to be so) however as pointed out by a member we are currently under significant financial pressures and still working to protect our rights. We have many challenges to face in the coming months and relocating would add stresses that at this time are not needed.

Regards,

Jim Tatlock

RAAus Treasurer.

Thanks Kaz, I'll have you on the payroll before I know it. Really appreciate your input.

Allan

Allan well of thread but if the ACCC get involved you have nothing to worry about. Jim

As a general rule you are correct they are essentially a toothless tiger but we may not be big enough to ward off their attempts.

A fair chunk of the major IT companies in Silicon Valley (San Francisco) had similar clauses....just recently I believe that the employees have started (or perhaps concluded with an out of court settlement) a class action against the companies......It would seem to me to be relevant to the industry you talk of Jim, USA court actions and outcomes are very relevant to Australia, as are English outcomes and other common law countries.

 

http://www.benefitspro.com/2014/03/12/workers-sue-over-silicon-valley-anti-poaching-pact has the details

 

Andy

Interesting article.

Aldo, it's interesting that your lawyers are comfortable with such an Arrangement.It's not unlawful discrimination and I can't see that a person who failed to obtain an interview would have a cause of action, but it must sit at least on the edge of being anti-competitive and that might excite ACCC attention.

 

Not my area, sorry.

 

Kaz

Appreciate your input and I will investigate further on our behalf to ensure we are not outside the legal restraints of competitive trade.

Thanks

Allan

Aldo an employee's legal advisers may have an entirely different point of view.I don't know, but would think this would contravene the Trade Practices Act.

I'm sure they (all the left wing do gooders) would but if you can't get an interview then the point is moot. As I said we already pay well above the award. If you or someone else is able to advise me to the contrary PM me by all means, as I said I'm no expert in these matters but our legal advice does not advise us otherwise. Our contracts are all with very large multi-nationals, not that this mitigates any local responsibilities.

Kaz, The oil and gas industry are doing this at the moment. It's an agreement for a period of time that they will not poach each others employees (an attempt to control wages and manning). I have heard of it but never seen it written. Colusion at its best if it is truly happening.Jim

I don't know that collusion is correct, the employees are able to go work for any other company if they so choose other than the one/ones you are dealing with during the period of the contract, as you stated previously it is a way of containing wages to a reasonable level, we already pay between 2.5 and 3 times the award for the personnel we require.

Kaz

PS to my last post our legal advisers don't seem to have an issue with this process

Also, I'm confused. Is it an employment contract...ie an agreement between the employer and employee? Or is it an agreement between 2 employers?If the latter, it seems unusual but I have no idea if it is lawful.

 

These things usually don't become an issue until an employee has left his employer and is attempting to find alternate work..then all hell breaks loose and there are threats of litigation and even writs flying around.

 

Kaz

Firstly my apologies i didn't realise you were a lawyer, but yes it is an agreement between employers (employees don't have a say), we sign no poaching agreements between employers and as such each employer will not employ an employee from either company for the stated time in the contract. I have no idea whether it would stand up in court if contested but I have never seen it get to that stage as we (as employers) will not accept applications from employees from the other company.

Kaz

It is a signed agreement by both parties (employers) i.e. neither party will take an employee for the other regardless of anything else, it has nothing to do with the employee.

Jabiru recommend 72"/lbs which equates to 6'/lbs, if you are re-torquing make sure you loosen the nuts first prior to setting the torque, if you are using nyloks they will need to be replaced as they are a one time use nut, torque wrenches have around 30% accuracy depending on the user, facthunter's comments above are the most accurate way of obtaining the most accurate torque.

Anyone interested in restraint of trade might do no better than read this article from Corrs:http://www.corrs.com.au/publications/corrs-in-brief/restraints-of-trade-cautionary-tales-for-former-and-future-employers/

 

My take is that there is probably nothing that RAAus has that it could reasonably restrain the departing employee from engaging in with another employer

 

Kaz

We sign as part of our contracts non poaching agreements, i.e. if we are working for or under a company/organisation we are not able to engage their employees in our operation and vise/versa for an agreed period of time, I believe (even though I'm no expert, Andy may have a different legal opinion) this could easily be written into our contracts. While we don't work for CASA we effectively work under them.

Gee Aldo I'm glad your not in the aviation business !!..........

Me too, but I still expect the organisation that I belong to (in aviation) is run professionally and effectively, other wise I may as well just go back to GA, I have done over 150 hrs since December 100 of which is in my Jab (which I think is a fantastic aircraft) but if we are not able to get our act together I may as well ditch the Jab (while I still can) and RA-Aus and go buy a Bonanza/Barron or something of the sorts, the cost may be higher but the long term viability may be much better. An RA aircraft will be worth nothing if we don't have an organisation and we are unable to fly them.

Aldo

Johnm,I believe the current vacancy is being advertise with a $130 k package. I'm sure president Michael Monck will be on the interview committee so we will end up with the right person with the right talents and direction...........Maj....

I can understand why you are not able to attract someone who will remain in the position if this is all we are paying, this position is worth 250K + expenses (including accommodation, travel etc) and if that means we as members need to pay more then so be it. We need people who know what they are doing and you are not going to get them with 130K pa.

To use myself as an example, I'm an electrician by trade and I have spent 25 years in the drilling industry (the last 15 not as an electrician), an electrician on a land based rig is now paid around $160K with 6 months at home. An electrician on an offshore rig is paid around 230K with 6 months at home, and the responsibility for the electricians is nowhere near what the GM of this organisation takes on, who would want to stick their hand up for this job for 130k even if they do have the experience required, you would have to have rocks for brains.

Personally I wouldn't get out of bed for $130k a year.

Aldo

My wife did and the found the flying easier in GA aircraft.

For mine, flying is flying you just need to learn the differences between types.

but the question here wasn't about using a GPS as primary ,it was just about what brand works best in the opinion of those that use them, maybe a good question would be " who NEVER uses anything other than a chart ,clock and compass?Matty

I also use a 495 and they are very good, I would think (providing you are able to afford one) you're not using all the tools at your disposal if you don't have one (a GPS) especially if you are doing some serious cross country, the work load reduction is substantial.

Johnmon's statement was, "Hi, my sense of direction is terrible, I need a g.p.s but what to buy?" this is not telling me that he is competent with chart, clock and compass as you are supposed to be. A GPS will not help you if your sense of direction is terrible, you still need to know where you are going and where everyone else is in relation to you, if you don't then you are an accident waiting to happen and I don't want you flying anywhere near me.

Aldo

Good document Ross, similar to the old crash comics in the original flight safety mags, hopefully this will encourage more people to report.

Hi, my sense of direction is terrible, I need a g.p.s but what to buy? Would like to be able to use it in both plane and car, dollars as always are limited. HELP.

Compression test vs leakdown test.To describe 30:80 as not particularly good is to me the same as suggesting that government in Iraq is a bit below our standard.......... I mean reality is that 59:80 is unserviceable, 30:80 is to me so completely stuffed that to choose to fly with 30/80 without investigation first is going to look really ugly in the event of an engine failure resulting in an insurance claim..... (and I acknowledge that Aldo never said he did that....just me making sure no one is under the misapprehension that 30:80 is only a bit below serviceable)

Just not being to dramatic about it, and you're correct I certainly didn't fly it.

Aldo