rhysmcc

I thought we were talking about increasing the LSA weight, I think the weight limit applies to the registration of aircraft rather then what the pilot can fly. LSA to 750kg would be a good first step then allowing amateur built to 1500kg.

 

 

I used the Issuu App on the iPad the last 2 editions and had a much better experience then directly from their website (or RA-AUS PDF).

 

 

Shouldn't it be digital already somewhere? It would have been sent to the printers in digital format at same stage?

 

 

I'm in favour for a push for the MTOW for LSA to be increased to 750kg, and work towards lifting the amateur built limit to 1500kg. Maybe a new aircraft type (VLA) for factory built aircraft.

 

 

I didn't think there was anything stopping someone from registering an aircraft under GA (i.e. VH). Just a different set of paperwork to get through

 

 

wouldn't be required at those aerodromes (if your suggesting that might be why the restriction).

 

 

What type of aircraft are you flying out of Redcliffe?

 

 

I guess we will see what gets decided on our behalf at the upcoming board meeting and how much consultation actually took place before reaching those decisions.

 

 

Yes Maj I have received (and read) your emails and the CEO's eNewsletter. I didn't say there was no communication, what I said was I didn't see the amount of change that Nev had indicated. For me communication is more then getting a newsletter, the work you've done has been great and well above the previous NQ member however I still think there is room for improvement, not so much from yourself but the Board as a whole, in involving members in the discussions.

 

As an example, the last 6 eNewsletters dating back to July actually contained no member involvement or discussion about any of the resolutions passed at the GM Board meeting. No details on the modernisation system, no details on MTOW and CTA privileges, nothing on the process of the strategic plan and development of a policy manual, we've received nothing on the constitution update yet and no information regarding any of the subcommittees currently formed.

 

I'm sorry if this sounds critical of your performance, the fact we are all still able to fly indicates the Board is doing work but yet there is a complete lack of involving members in anything other then electing the board every 2 years (in my case).

 

 

But Rule 24 (which is refers to) does not say it has to be printed. So by receiving an email from the CEO giving Notice, consider rule 24 met.

 

 

again, the CAO is the law, the fact the ops manual has an outdated copy does not change the law. I don't regard the outdated copy to be part of the Ops Manual and happy to take the chance.

 

 

Just get a bit tired of the negativity. Reading a lot of this criticism would not help people feel good about it. Criticise when it is really required. It's better now than for a very long time, and it's only ordinary people that make it work. You don't know when you are well off. Nev

Yes, things are a lot better then a couple years ago because we are not grounded. But in terms of an open board commenting with members, I don't see the amount of change you do. Most of the criticism is very minor in nature and is more about getting the Board to keep striving to improve. Without criticism nothing will improve and we risk falling back in the days when no one said anything, the board did what they like and the first members know something is wrong is when aircraft are not allowed into the air.

 

Is By-Law #2 constitutional if you have to pay to get the printed magazine? You could argue that you should not have to pay to get notice of an election sent to you.

You still get the notice electronically (via the magazine and with the new eNewsletter. I don't think the constitution says it must be in printed form and mailed out via the postal system.

 

 

the Ops Manual has no legal standing. It's not a LAW or INSTRUMENT passed by parliament or regulation signed off by the Minister. The fact that the CAO refers to the Ops Manual does not mean what is in the Ops Manual becomes law, it also doesn't mean something in the Ops Manual can over rule what the CAR/CASR say.

 

Your right that it's untidy but the intent is pretty clear, factor in the instrument that changes references to CAR 5 to now mean Part 61 and I think you'll find the sky isn't falling at all.

 

 

The Ops Manual has no legal status. The CAO's are included for reference, just like everything on the CASA website. The real laws are on the comlaw website.

 

 

again, nothing in the constitution that states members must run for the board to put up (or knock down) ideas. Likewise nothing states the Board has to have all the answers and not refer to members at all

 

 

There was an instrument out re the Part 61 vice Part 5 for the CAOs, i can't be bothered finding it for you but it was on the comlaw website and has been quoted on this forum before (try searching RPL)

 

 

Not sure of the legalities of an Instructor providing "informal" training. Would the same instructor be happy to train you up to CPL standard in your RA-AUS aircraft and just put you in the C182 for the flight test?

 

 

It's not in the Ops Manual, it's in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. To receive training for controlled airspace endorsement it must be undertaken by CASA Part 61 Licence Flight Instructor. The Instructor can only use the privileges of his licence (i.e. give you instruction) in a registered aircraft. RA-AUS aircraft are not considered registered aircraft under the CASR (not to be confused with Australian Aircraft).

 

Now that's not to say you can't fly in controlled airspace as a RPC in a RA-AUS with a RA-AUS Instructor who also holds a Part 61 Licence with CTA. The CAO makes an exemption to allow that to take place. However it does not allow you to receive instruction/training leading to the issue of a Part 61 Licence or Endorsement.

 

 

a block clearance is just a clearance to operate between 2 levels, this could be defined in an area of operation or along a route. Much the same really (i.e. cleared coastal not above 1500, is a block clearance along a route).

 

 

61.195 and 61.495 don't say this.Said person would have to be both an RA/GA instructor, of course, but:

 

- what stops you from receiving instruction for an RPL Nav Endorsement in an RAA aircraft?

 

- what is different between the Nav endorsement and controlled airspace?

The Post is here, was originally about PPL flying RA-AUS aircraft but also would apply to a CASA flight instructor who can only exercise the privileges of his license in a registered aircraft. RA-Aus are not considered registered aircraft, therefore any training they provide must be in a VH aircraft.

 

 

I agree turbo, decisions regarding other members would warrant in-camera, and privacy laws would come into play. Commercial agreements on behalf of the association would not.

 

 

Rhys, while the Constitution appears to give a member to go to Canberra and look at any file they want, there are a few laws (e.g. Privacy) and contracts that might constrain that right. We can write what we like in the Constitution but it does not overrule any law.

I'm not sure what part of the Sport Pilot tender would come under Privacy laws, the fact they have entered into a contract with the association (i.e. the members) would give the members the right to see any of the "Privacy" details (i.e. names, addresses, payments etc). In terms of contracts, the CEO (or Board) would not be able to sign a contract that prevents disclosure to the members. Remember the office are just agents for the members, it's not like a Company keeping details from employees. We own the association and have a right to all the information should we wish to go and take a peak. There would be rules regarding what we then go and do with that information (I'm sure the office has a disclosure agreement for members to sign who take up that right).

 

While certain processes are taking place, it wouldn't be proper for participating tenderers (as an example) to be aware of other submissions, but it would be reasonable to find what certain legal costs were, relating to specific matters.The older version of the AUF/RAAus, couldn't be counted on to keep any confidences, which restricted it's ability to process information sent to it, as few did, fearing the possible consequences. Nev

As part of any tender process, normally a non disclosure agreement would be bound on the parties receiving the tender, the same would be for a member seeking the information. I would thought that during the actual process, tender documents would not yet be available until the contract has been completed.

 

 

You can't get a Nav endorsement (from CASA) in a RA-AUS aircraft either, unless you already hold the endorsement with RA-AUS and are having it crossed over (i.e. an instructor isn't issuing it). I covered it in another thread when the RPL first came out, it's all about the definition of registered aircraft. RA-AUS are not part of that definition, but often confused to be because they are considered "Australian Aircraft".

 

 

I'd need to read the regs again but I'd doubt you could go do CTA/CTX training in your own (RA-AUS) aircraft. I know you can't complete a (CASA) AFR in a RA-AUS registered aircraft, i'd bet the same restriction on a CASA Flight instructor providing training in other then a registered aircraft (as far as Part 61 is concerned).

 

 

Keep in mind, the constitution doesn't preclude "commercial-in-confidence" from the members right to attend HQ and read the details. So if a member wanted to go and find out exactly the conditions of the Sport Pilot tender, they are within their rights to do so.