terryc
-
Posts
248 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Store
Aircraft
Resources
Tutorials
Articles
Classifieds
Movies
Books
Community Map
Quizzes
Posts posted by terryc
-
-
That's ok but who's going to replace the funds back into raa's account. this was nothing but stupidity. Where do these people come from. They are the people who lecture us on the type of people they want on the so called board.Get over it fellas.RAA never asked for royalties. And they made that clear from the start.And they have (after all this mudslinging) withdrawn the application so if someone else really want to own the phrase, they can apply for it.
- 2
- 1
-
Turbs, you old scallywag! If you are going to quote the constitution you should QUOTE it, not paraphrase itYou said:
The constitution says: "34.4 Subject to the Corporations Act, the Directors may from time to time determine the process by which Directors shall be elected and re-elected by the Members in General Meeting. Any voting method employed for the purpose of electing Directors shall be consistent with those methods accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body." The additional emphasis has been added by me for clarity.
When you "forgot" to include the words that I have highlighted in the quote, above you changed the whole complexion of that clause and that could mislead people reading your post about what the constitution ACTUALLY says.
You then muddy the waters further by implying that as the AEC operates the Federal Elections ACT 1918, section 34.4 of the RAAUS constitution must comply with clause 157 of that Act. I would argue that the words "consistent with those methods accepted by the AEC do not necessarily tie us to all the clauses of the Federal Elections Act 1918 but allow a degree of latitude by the AEC to accept other methods. The question people might want to ask is has the AEC accepted the method used by RAAUS in this instance.
I'm sure you didn't mean to mislead members but as you regularly contribute to these discussions, some readers could take what you say at face value and thus be misinformed.
Surely the bigger question we should be asking is: Has any member suffer harm by having the deadline for the election extended?
A supplementary question could be: Would we rather be flying?
It's the vibe
-
g day cap, loved it
-
Hi Nev, we all fly raa registered aircraft without a licence . The polite did have an raa certificate. My understanding is that as a raa certificate holder you breach any aviation rule or fly an aircraft that is not airworthy then you lose your privledge to fly under the exception that allows the raa certificate. So the fact that he drank even one mouthful and flys this renders his certificate invalid. I understand any fault in your aircraft can have the same result. maybe a fuel gauge doesn't read correctly or door latch is lose or maybe a bald tyre etc .This is how he was charged with flying without a licence. If the drinking charge is dropped because it can't be proven then the flying without a licence will be dropped as well because one is the result of the other.Anything's possible isn't it. You don't fly that type of aircraft with a licence either. Nev- 1
- 1
- 1
-
Hi SD, I agree totally with what you have said with the exemption of cta. Don't for a minute think that things will be made simpler with these changes because they won't. Don't you think we'd be better to accept and keep what we have now because all we need do is get the training at our cost and away we go. can't get any simpler than that The costs are far more that what you have stated. I would like to know how much raa have spent on this item alone.Hi TerryC,Just because I have a PPL does not mean I should complacently site back and accept the ridiculous mish mash of rules/exemptions that seem to apply to aviators who just happen to have longer/shorter wings, radio/no radio, transponder/or not, or no wings at all.(If you are rich does this mean you should have no empathy for the poor?)
I view change for changes sake, as one of the social ills that bedevils our society, but when there are such glaring and illogical inconsistencies/impositions on our sport, it behoves all of us to support change for the good.
I doubt that additional rules/regs would apply to those flying outside CTA and who are not endorsed to fly inside CTA.
To fly inside CTA would , I imagine, require some additional training/endorsement and yes of course you would have to pay for the training and abide by the rules.
My reasons for supporting RAA (endorsed pilots) access to CTA is simple - other recreational pilots are allowed to do so, why not RAA?? (PLEASE EXPLAIN!!)
I am an advocate, for the most part, of the KISS principal - WHY MUST WE BE LUMBERED WITH RULES THAT ARE THEN COMPLICATED BY GLARING INEXPLICABLE EXCEPTIONS??
-
Hi SD, you have what everybody else can have if they want. So why don't they go and get it rather than try to change things at great cost and to achieve the very same thing they can have now. Plus the additional rules and regs that will be added will affect all raa.I am fortunate I hold both a PPL & an RAA Cert - I can, if a choose, avail myself of the privilege to enter CTA. Any change in the rules will have little impact on me. -
evidence please. [not I saw one day]Hard to get less regulation though when people are abusing the system as it is. How are you going to convince casa RA needs more priveleges with less regulation when we have some people blatantly ignoring/abusing existing rules, including some of the more reasonable ones and then having accidents?- 4
- 1
-
Quote from terryc ................ "We do have two distinct groups 1. Raa 2. Ga. Why for the love of god do we want ti fiddle with it." I agree, you agree, so why are so many people ( see poll) wanting to change R.A.A. into Pseudo GA, with Cessna's Pipers, 760kgs? CTA , access to controlled airspace, Transponders, ADSB (probably) Aviation Medicals ect., ad nauseum?
Please go somewhere else and play ( in a nice way, of course)
I can only guess the anwser, maybe they don't know that if they get cta through they will be required to meet all ga standards plus some more to fly raa rego'd planes in to cta. I think it would be easier to get your ga ticket and buy an raa rego'd plane that mets requirements and away you go. This of course you can do now and away you go. How could it be better or cheaper to change. Please explain to me the possible gain by changing. I'm prepared to be convinced.
- 1
-
From the poll you can see two distinct groupings. G.A. like, and Non-G.A. like. There's a good case to split the RAA into two groups and RAA can chase increased access and weight priveliges for those that want "G.A. Like" (non-derogatory! for want of a better description) and for Regs and Manuals and membership/insurance costs to reflect that. I really don't want the RAA spending my membership fees on chasing something that I have no interest in.I'm not "against"anyone wanting more, I just don't want to pay for it.....
We do have two distinct groups 1. Raa 2. Ga. Why for the love of god do we want ti fiddle with it.
- 1
-
The costs are made up in staff hrs spent, fees, legal issues, drafting etc. The cost I would suggest is tens of thousands if not more.Most RAA pilot's got their certificates in RAA Land which is well away from controlled drones because that was usually the only place to get RAA training.The conversion from GAAP (weekend controlled) to 7 day Class D drones with ridiculous access rules drove a lot of RAA pilot's at places like Camden away. The imposition of the restrictions on Jabirus made the situation even worse.Outside the metropolitan areas there are very few controlled drones. In the metropolitan areas there are very few uncontrolled dromes.
It makes sense to seek CTA access as there is a large proportion of our membership who would be able to immediately benefit (even though they will get screwed over by the major airport owners - but they are owned by the super funds anyway).
The board doesn't get paid so the cost to the members of RAA seeking CTA is 3/5 of 5/8 of bugger all.
- 1
-
A new try but we see through your trick to control the out comeYou should redo this poll as you are asking 3 unique questions but only allowing 1 answer.The unique questions are1. Increase MTOW
Choice a.to 750kg
Choice b. to 1500kg
Choice c. no change
Choice D. dont care
2. Permit CTA (one doesn't need Xponder in D)
Choice a. Yes
Choice b. No
Choice c. don't care
3. Increase stall speed
Choice a. Yes
Choice b. No
Choice c. Don't care
Remember - none of these choices impact on what you currently do. RAA/CASA cannot force you to increase the weight, fly into CTA or increase your stall speed. If you don't want to do these things then you should really answer "don't care" to each question.
- 1
-
Might I suggest it is legally suspect. They have to prove they do incur that cost and they don't. I think I might let mine lapse anyway. Anyone want to buy a plane.
- 1
-
It's time for it to go. I'm sick of paying for something I don't get. This whole magazine thing was a balls up right from the start. Get rid of it and give me my money back.
-
how many turns on an inch of lock wire. I must know
- 1
-
It's interesting how a bit of competition from a possible competitor makes them think they need to do something the members want. Now might be the time to wind in the thumb screws for other things the members want.
- 1
- 1
- 1
-
Hi akazia I doubt itSorry for the late reply Terry, are the 701 & 601/650 firewalls/engine mounts the same. -
Hi Tim, I have a engine mount for an E81 to go into an zenith 701 might be the same or similar enough to alter.
-
Best idea I have heard all year and the best site to use to promote and develope it as well.If this is done well it would improve the industry and also be functional to work cooperatively with the government and the department. I can already hear the critics. -
Thank you all for your comments and of course you are all correct, I will adjust my thinking accordingly.
- 1
- 1
-
The board will support fixing their mess. Is that good management, I don't think so. Should not the board fix their own ball's up. I know, isn't Don sitting around doing nothing, give him the job. Now that it's done can someone please explain what was the great hurry all about.
-
I'm amazed that they don't know the constitution that they fought so hard for and spent time and money going around collecting yes votes to get it passed.
I find it hard to believe these guys. What makes a man misquote the constitution to try to make his point. The other option is that his just plain dumb, I don't think so.
- 2
- 1
-
your've got to be kidding or your've not been listening.Just to help those who think canning the printed magazine was a mistake, I have heard from board members that the amount of "cash bleed" saved by this was approx $330,000 p.a.Also, that the books are expected to head into the black by the end of this financial year.It would be nice if the mockers could find it in their hearts to give credit for RAAus achieving this.
- 2
-
Hi Kasper, you certainly have my vote for item 1and 2. I need to think about 3. I think you also have Don's vote also because he has always promoted processes and procedures and the principles of good governance on this site many times so there's two already.
- 1
- 1
-
Existing L1 ONLY have six months before you need to do the assessment.See May 2016 Sport Pilot pg 35.[/quote
I'm over this, I think I'll give it all away I'm over the bullshit
AOPA and RAAus in Dispute over Slogan
in Governing Bodies
Posted
Raa responded not to "members" but to other very angry organisations. I'd like to be at the next get together of these organisations. Some of you guys are very generous to these clowns, very commendable.