David Isaac

01rmb, These are my take on a couple of issues you have raised ... Does it really matter, why limit what we may be able to do in 20 or 30 years Agree that no right of appeal to a rejection is problematic given we currently hold a monopoly on Pilots Certificates. The Directors can only delegate the ability to approve a membership to the CEO (see 14.2). Only the Directors can reject a membership application (see 14.3). Procedural fairness enshrines the right of appeal legally. there is no reference to a draft constitution in Members Charter section. Cant find these references in the current draft. Cant find this reference in the current draft

Hargraves, were you around during our 2012/13 management crisis? It is much more than changing our constitution and there is very much a ground swell to do just that to reduce the number and consequential cost burden of the current number of Directors, not to mention the confused and poor wording in places. Because we are changing our entity from a state based 'Association' to a National 'Company', we need a new constitution and there is no way we would cut and paste our old constitution into a new Company one, it wouldn't comply with the Corporations Act and Regulations. The Corporation Act and Regulations better protects us as members and always overrides our constitution and / or Directors actions where the actions are in breach of the Act and Regulations. Do yourself a favour and read the old constitution and compare it with the proposed new one and tell us where we the members are not better served by the new arrangement.

Jeez Kasp, just a little over reactionary buddy. Don is saying if you kill it off because you are correct, we would need to fix and resubmit. I don't read that as an insult at all, it is unfortunate you see it that way. Obviously I have come late to the party, so hopefully not as sensitive YET ... And even if you are correct on this consent issue Kasper ... and I suspect you are ... there is no impediment, because RAAus Ltd can simply write to one and all and the problem is fixed. I still say it is NOT a case to reject the whole constitution. I have now read the latest draft and it is an improvement in many ways over our current Association constitution. I can see no reason to vote NO and many reasons to vote YES.

Sounds a bit like the operation of the app 'Wikicamps' you could call it 'Wikirunways' (joking), but the concept sounds the same.

Well from me and I am sure many members, thank you for your work in contributing to an improved result. Some how it seems the constitutional review committee has erred in not responding to you. I find that very unfortunate, at least if you put the effort in, there could and should have been some response and they may have valid reasons to not adopt some suggestions; hard to know though if there is no communication. Tough gig though being on that committee ... all volunteers burning their asses to get this done. I'm reluctant to criticize too much. The problem is poor communication feeds disillusionment whether justified or not. Too much disillusionment and the NO vote may get up and the resolution fail. Kasper, are there really any "show stoppers" that justify a NO vote?

I agree Alan, thanks Kasper. Kasper, are you saying that submissions you sent were too late or that submissions you sent were not acted upon?

I personally agree with the change of incorporation to a Company limited by guarantee. IMHO it better represents a National organisation of such a large size. Incorporated associations were introduced to simplify incorporation for smaller more parochial type clubs and organizations and the accountability process is less onerous (which is not a good thing for an organisation of our size). I just don't think it is appropriate (my opinion) that a National organization of our size should be reporting to a single State/Territory Office of Regulatory Services (ORS); we are a National body and our organisation should be protected by Federal Law (again my personal opinion). My old Aero Club (founded in the late 70s) is a Company limited by guarantee and I have been a Director and President several times over the last 35 years of membership. The process works as well as an association and members interests are equally if not arguably better protected in a company structure. Better protection is important if the Board loses its direction and it can happen. The issue at hand here is that the Company limited by guarantee requires a complete new constitution that reflects our operation; you cant have the constitution introduced by stages; RAAus must be incorporated with a new constitution (if the resolution is passed) albeit it can then be amended in accordance with the new constitution, the right of which is laid down in Corporate Law. We do need to get this constitution as right as we possibly can in the first pass; so to this end debate on the issues is democratic and critical. It is more than unfortunate that some feel their correspondence with RAAus regarding the new constitution has been inadequately dealt with; perhaps not sufficient communication as to why their suggestions were not adopted. I cannot say as I was not involved. However, I am confident we have a capable and competent Board these days and I do know that a tremendous amount of work has gone into this new constitution and given the checkered recent past, we should have learn't some lessons as to what can go wrong and what protections are needed for the members. I don't believe it helps when we are sawing sawdust over whether RAAus needs to write to us and seek approval for electronic communication ... of course it has to have our approval and it can do that by writing to all of us which it will have to do in any case if the resolution to incorporate is successful. That is hardly an issue that justifies a NO vote ... but there may be other issues. We should be concentrating on "show stoppers" .... are there any???? Can we have some constructive debate on the serious issues please. Can some one identify them. If there are, then the meeting should be postponed until they can be resolved. Too late to continue now as the notice and draft have gone out for voting. I need to read the latest draft myself in any case to see what may or may not have changed. If there are no "show stoppers" then we could proceed without fear and deal with any future issues as they arise as we will have to do even if we think we have the 'perfect' (choke) constitution.

Yes ... but simply solved by RAAus Ltd sending all members a letter which they will have to do if the resolution is successful in any case, to advise all members of the change in member status.

Im not so sure Don was saying that. I just don't see it as a problem at all , it just forms part of the letter that has to go out either way.

Hi mate, I don't quite see the problem as you do, but I agree with your point. The way I see it, the wording regarding notice is very clear as you have said. Subject to the success of the special resolution at the meeting, then RAAus Ltd. will be REQUIRED to write to all members physical addresses (in accordance with the new constitution) advising of the success of the resolution and the resultant changes to their membership. In that letter the RAAus Ltd will be required to seek approval for 'other' means of notice acceptable to the member. Surely it is that simple and that should end any confusion on the matter.

HH, David appeared to have a medical incident that wasn't discovered by autopsy. It was a brand new aircraft in David's case. Again terribly sad.

Very sad outcome. RIP Ian Cook. Condolences to his and his friends families.

Even a 20 year has been known to make a pilot error; no shame in that, we have all made errors. Doesn't mean we should give up flying. Just as long as we learn from it and hopefully don't hurt anyone. We don't usually make the same mistake twice; that is the benefit of learning.

Its a pity that he has conceded he may give a up flying (evening news tonight). 78 is still young enough to fly if you still have your marbles and I plan to keep mine well into my 90s. I still plan to fly at that age (God willing).

DJP, I understand the purpose of the circular to cover externally mounted equipment. Is there anything illegal about mounting a camera internally in the cabin on one of the internal support structures as an example?

Right on Bruce. It doesn't matter what engine type, a hand turn over at least before first flight on any day IMHO is essential to have any indication of at least part of the mechanical engine condition.

You cannot be certain of any cutoffs or switches so you should always treat props as live and if they fire you wont be surprised or sliced or diced.

Was that Temora DJP?

I agree Nev. I was thinking more along GA lines. I was specifically taught look ahead, make a judgement and separate by slowing down. Something most GA aircraft can do with relative safety. Not so of course with some types. Extending the circuit has a tendency to compound the problem for other aircraft behind you in a busy circuit.

Or reduce your speed Nev.

Wouldn't be pleasant in anything like a Tiger in windy gusting conditions. A very sad outcome in any case and absolutely devastating for joy flight companies using historic birds.

Hi Nev, I was taught stalls in climbing turns and with flap out back in the 80s. I was also taught spins, spirals and recovery and unusual attitudes under the hood. I had a damn good instructor.

It is done reasonably regularly I believe by Drifters usually as a group. They put floatation in the wings. I would do it with the right gear and preparation in a group, BUT ... no way in hell Shirley would let me do it LOL.

What .. Glide in a Thruster ... Not a real good glide ratio with all that Drag.

It clearly wouldn't. We all need to understand that CASA can prosecute an RAA pilot if they breach the rules. RAA pilots are not exempt from The Law.