terryc

I have been following this for saga for ages and is a great concern to me, if this called meeting goes down the road of ''no confidence'' in the board and what else they give a ''no confidence" in what I have to say be very cautious...What will CASA do when there is no one at the top of RAAUS.??????? THINK HARD..

I am having nothing to do with it as I am not going to be held responsible for the pending results and eruptions.

 

It is better to work through with what we have, give support to the board and help sort the mess in a civil manner not all this "blaming rot" which is happening at the moment.

 

I will help the board members as they are doing their best and they are volunteers.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

Keith, I don't know what forum you've been following but I doubt it's this one. In the various threads I've been reading on this site your message and most all the others appear to be saying the same thing. A comment hear and there does not change the over all tenor of the message. As far as having nothing to do with it I believe the opposite. I don't want people to say I was well aware of the problems and sat back and watched it fall. It's fine to say you will help the board members, it's hard to do that when it appears they don't realizes they need help. The very fact that they reinstated the president attests to that.

 

We wouldn't be having this conversation if the board had a inclination to communicate. Some of the new board members got elected on just that promise. Now they tell us that meant that they would answer the phone if it rang, I'm sorry to tell them that is not communicating. Finally to answer your first point last I don't see that casa will do anything if no one heads raa. The very same as would happen if a plane crashed killing all members of the board on their way to canberra. The proper processes and procedures would be followed to elect a new board. Scare mongering has no place when matters are as serious as this is.

 

 

good post Nev...there are major problems looming at the moment...personalities are clouding the issue...and..(unfortunately)..a bit of 'bloody mindedness'is creeping in....

 

i'm buggered if i am going to forgo the priveleges i have now...for the sake of a cheap win at a meeting....there are troubles...at the moment..CASA is giving RAA time to sort it out...if we don't....we become part of history..

 

ALL elected members need to reflect and ask themselves.."..do/can I represent the people of this organisation...and do my actions strenghen our position???""

 

RAA has reached the crossroads......is it going to be the HIGH road.....or the low road?.....

 

Get your head around this members!

so cficare are you saying your prepared to allow raa to continue to run in a incompetent manner, operate without being covered properly with insurance, operate outside of the constitutional guide lines set down, bring raa into disrepute and all manner of failings and you don't care so long as your privileges are not affected. Well I got news for you, if only some of the things we've heard about are true you can kiss your privileges goodbye with or without a meeting.

 

Geee what is it about this you don't get.

 

 

The problem I have is that if I vote for a GM {and I'm 100% behind the need for a one} I feel the pressure to be present at the meeting to back up my position. I feel I may not be alone on this. I would like to see an agenda for the meeting so I know I do support what's put to the meeting. When I deal with

 

this "in my head" Andy I"ll be right behind you. No I am already right behind you I just need more info.

 

 

Pete is legally correct, the whole Board is responsible and they should have been more assertive with a potentially controlling executive.I believe in our case the executive have taken control and the problem lies there, but it is of little consequence in the end because the whole Board is responsible.

Hi David, it seems to me with what you and others have been saying is that a small group [the executive] have in effect taken control of the board process and the rest of the board have allowed them to get away with it. If this is the case then our voted in members are not up to the job, they should take back control .

 

The idea that you can operate without a monthly board meeting is rubbish. This in my opinion is the first thing that needs to change and that way there's no need for an exceutive.

 

 

I have followed this thread with interest and offer the following as my opinion and only my opinion. It seems to me from previous posts and from what I hear generally is that members of the board are urgently in need of a job discriptions. The board are responsible for the mess we find ourselves in and nobody else. A previous poster mentioned he new a board member that worked very hard on our behalf, and that might well be so, but if he fails in his responsiblity to hold the management arm to account then all the hard work is for nothing. If he was to find himself in court as a board member offering a defence of " but I worked so hard" that isn't going to cut it. He will be sunk.

 

I have some experience as an elected unpaid member of a board running a not for profit organization and it gave me some insight into our obligations when we take on a job such as board member. This organization spent much time and money making absolutely certain that we as board members knew our role and responsibilities. This appears not to have happened with raa and it's board members. From where I sit the role of a raa board member is one of oversight first and foremost and then to implement policy and drive change and in that order. The oversight part is to make absolutely certain that the management side of raa is ran within the boundries set by casa and following the processes and procedures set by the board . If they get this part wrong as they have over the last couple of years they leave themselves and our organisation open to legal action. If I was to tackle the present problem I think I would firstly educate the board as to their power and responsibility and how to act as a board and have their directives followed and what to do when there not. This might appear simplistic but if the foundations are not strong then the building will fall. I'm sorry to say it but I don't see casa's response to be over the top when you think of the implication's that it has for our organisation.

 

 

The L2 has a duty of care to carry out work to the current cutting edge standards of professionalism and safety, and not be negligent either knowingly or unknowingly in any way.So an interrupting phone call, followed by "Where was I" followed by an unwired nut etc exposes you.

A regular one through the years is to repaint the aircraft, but forget to take the tape off the breathers as obvious as that sounds.

 

So I'd certainly be recommending substantial public liability insurance cover.

What I had to say in no way suggests any of the above can be put aside. All of that goes without saying, it's an absolute.

 

I had a situation a couple of years ago where my insurance company had added a clause relating to the use of naked flame which would have effected the ability of someone with a claim against me to claim. This type of deceit appears common in the insurance industry, deliberate or otherwise.

 

I needed to change company to one which understood my occupation. My policy now has written in it my use of naked flame. This policy cost no more than the previous one did. My point was that a policy to cover an L2 should not cost any more than the average industry policy and I would strongly recommend not to operate without it.

 

 

mick an l2 that does not have coverage and works on aircraft he can kiss his you now what good byeneil

ps cant elabourate

I was under the impression that an l2 is not the responsible person, the pilot is so after an l2 has work on your plane it's your responsibility to check his work and accept it, that being the case an l2 should only need basic public liability insurance which is not too expensive. This is how it appears to me but I could be wrong.

 

 

Frosty, I don't have any spares but you can get the rear ones from nubco, they have a full range from the smallest to the largest and the front rib fitting you can get from aircraft spruce, cheap as chips.

 

Terry

 

 

Hi Frosty, are you after the wing rib plastic ends

 

Terry

 

 

In the thruster manual it states the plane can be flown from either the left or right seat with one person on board. I understand that to fly an raa registered plane from either seat it must state this in the POH.

 

Terry

 

 

Hi Paul, The 701 should fly straight and level at cruise, this issue cropped up in the 90s due to a drawing error in the plans, a simple fix was put out by zenith.

 

It's quick and easy to fix.

 

 

My understanding of this type of take off in a 701 is that if you have a problem like lose thrust below 100 feet you die. The savannah is the same but not as critical because of it's longer wing. some 701s have longer wings also, but all the same I don't think I would be in either at that aoa at that speed. The last flight I had in a savannah we did climb at a very steep angle but only after picking up speed and then continued picking up speed as we climbed. Having said that I love the 701 and the savannah. I'm not one of these people that try to compare the two and pick one over the other, their both great for what they are.

 

 

 

very very nice got any more pics terryc?

 

 

 

very very nice got any more pics terryc?

Hi Kermit, yes I do but I have trouble loading them, I loaded that's how I did it. this is my dash, not nice and shiny like I like it and not a good photo but shows what it's like. I took the photos with my phone.

 

 

 

my pride and joy and she flies great

 

 

I watched and enjoyed it,but is it me or was the planning from start to finish a total balls up. I do more planning for a 30 minute joy flight. I'm surprised they made it off the ground at all. Human factors out the window. Maybe just playing to the camera.

 

 

recreational flying for my vote too Ian.

 

 

arent viking engines out of written off honda cars

Hi Crashly, No they are brand new engines from honda so I'm told. I think they would be a great engine and I hope to buy one.

It appears I've been misled. Thanks guys for putting me straight.

 

 

24 rego your in, 582 non certified your out.

 

 

I enjoyed this thread. I just read it all. It interests me that in all pre take off briefs I've heard, they include will land straight ahead or 30 degrees either side unless above a set hieght then I might attempt a turn back. Why if that is so wrong don't we say,

 

In the event of an engine failure I will prepare for a controlled crash. Attempting to land straight ahead or no more than 30 degrees either way In this case the turn back is not mentioned only to say don't do it at another part of our training. Turn backs occur because their mentioned in our take off briefs, don't mention it and it won't happen. Call all landings after the engine stops as controlled crashes then the problem will go away. What do others think, I know some will say it couldn't be that simple but I think it is.

 

 

The CAAPs are advisories...you don't have to comply but if something goes wrong it's a pretty good argument that you landed somewhere unsafe.That said, if the landing site is an ALA, you are sweet irrespective of any departures from the advisory because the powers that be have said its ok.

 

If you have an engine failure and force land somewhere unsuitable, you have a pretty good reason for not following the advisory providing your engine failure was not attributable to you (eg fuel exhaustion).

 

Kaz

Kaz, I think you are being too pedantic on this very important subject about what's legal and what's not. If you have an engine failure we do not want low hour pilots thinking is this my fault, will I be in trouble, can I talk my way out of this. We need them to be able to have a clear head and make good sound decisions and carry them out. The

legality of it will come along in due course. Their first responsibility is their life and that of their passenger.

 

 

From my training with two cfi's they said any and all areas bar none are available to land on if needed. Obviously safety to other people is paramount and I'm sure no one's going to take out a preschool to save themselves but what's legal and what's not is not an issue if you have a problem. Dead people don't have to explain anything. I think someone made the point that if your doubtful of making your destination then you land. The land owners opinion doesn't count. [He might make it sound like it does ] A friend of mine needed to land on a farm due to low fog because he didn't want to try and run and risk it. He was met by a farmer and his wife with a big smile, a three course meal and a bed for the night. Then he had a dickin's of a job getting them to accept $50.00 for there trouble. My Point is worry about the reception you might get after your safe. But of course I live in Tasmania, we have a much more lay back attitude down here.

 

 

i have just seen this thread. We have had some threads recently on how we need a culture change in raa, that people need to speak up when they see something wrong, that people need to change the aussie way and become dobbers, that this would be best for all of us to protect us from having our freedoms curtailed. Then someone posts a video in an open forum for all to see with the comment that they need a talking to by I suppose the tech manager. Too cowardly to report him himself but hopes someone else will. Then the rego gets advertised once again too cowardly to report him himself but hopes someone else will. Then someone else says they used to do just that and loved it and misses doing it.

 

Then someone else calls everyone twits . Then as a means of trying to support a previous post this same person tries to tie in an recent incident which ended in a fatality. From there the thought was put forward that this may well be legal.

 

Then it is suggested that it wasn't who we thought it was so were back to square one. Maybe it's time to put our brains in gear before we open our mouths. This is the type of thread that damages rec flying not the ones that may be unpleasant but include facts and first hand information. Then we wonder why a board of 13 can't keep 10,000 of us all satisfied.

 

 

For those that are interested, the assembly instructions for the propeller set up I have can be accessed from this page http://www.competitionaircraft.com/Brolga.htm then click on the link contained within the 1st paragraph under the heading "Assembly and Care of the Brolga Ultra-Prop"Pud

Hi Pud, remember that an ultra brolga prop is not the same as our brolga prop we use on our thrusters etc. The fellow that made our props got his hubs from ultra brolga props but that's all. The props we have are far superior and designed differently. If you had an ultra brolga prop then your 13 degrees pitch blocks would be correct, but you don't. What you have is a Australian made brolga which require 15 degree pitch blocks for a 582. If you borrow a another prop that tracks true with 15 degree pitch blocks I thinks both your revs problem and over heating problem will disappear.

Terry

 

 

Hi Pud, Did you think to check the reduction of your gearbox. On some it is stamped on the body under the propeller. only some. I don't think it is a 2.58-1 but a 2.24-1. I think that would account for the 12 degree pitch blocks. I'm no expert but enjoying chasing info on propellers, blade pitch and gearboxs for you.

 

Terry.