Jump to content

rhysmcc

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    924

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by rhysmcc

  1. rhysmcc
    I've not come across the "PPL instructors" in my readings. Are you saying a PPL holder can gain an Instructor Rating? Or are you using the term "PPL instructors" to describe non CFI's who can now conduct design features? I wouldn't describe RA-AUS instructors as just a PPL if that was your meaning, they have minimum hours and go through an instructors course just like the GA instructors.
  2. rhysmcc
    assuming it's a factory built aircraft (not familiar with LSA 55 if they came in kits/factory).
  3. rhysmcc
    The alternative was always there (PPL), CASA have just created a PPL targeted more to the recreational pilot. I believe it was actually the SAAA who were the big drivers for the RPL, however with most things CASA the end goal was lost along the way (DL Medical). I'd be interested to see what facts you have to support this case? RA-AUS would only be able to tell the number of members who haven't renewed, but would have no way of seeing if it's because they have got a RPL or in fact the number of members who hold both a RPL and RA-AUS. I hope that's not the case as it will no doubt mean the complete demise of RA-AUS. I'm sure our board and the management will fight tooth and nail on the members behalf to ensure any changes have a strong safety case to back up additional regulation.
  4. rhysmcc
    Sorry for misunderstanding your original post. The benefits of holding an RPL are quite clear. You gain access to Controlled Airspace endorsement, you gain access to larger aircraft (up to 1500kg). The benefits to RA-AUS are none but why should they be. It was never about RA-AUS.
  5. rhysmcc
    So what part of your statement makes CASA a monopoly and RA-AUS not? While I don't agree with the whole funding (or lack of it), I don't think you can try and argue CASA is a monopoly, they are not a company out to make money but a Government Agency providing regulation and oversight (and recovering costs). If CASA made an annual profit then they wouldn't need money from the Government, unless you are including that funding as part of the profit/loss statement, in which case almost every Government Dept would be considered profit making.
  6. rhysmcc
    Military and Police airwing don't come up with mlat unless using civilian codes.
  7. rhysmcc
    And if you are flying VFR your not paying for the nav aids, which unless you have some proof I don't believe are "questionable". They have higher tolerances for sure but your implying they somehow are incorrect or faulty. The upper end, according to airservices pays for 80% of its costs so don't think you can blame them either.
  8. rhysmcc
    And if you are flying VFR your not paying for the nav aids, which unless you have some proof I don't believe are "questionable". They have higher tolerances for sure but your implying they somehow are incorrect or faulty. The upper end, according to airservices pays for 80% of its costs so don't think you can blame them either.
  9. rhysmcc
    Top heavy indeed, but do you see my point about wanting ADSB exemption for Aircraft operating outside controlled airspace at the same time as wanting to change most of uncontrolled airspace to E. There's lots of reasons why GA is dying, the fact people can fly brisbane to melb for $89 means many don't see why they should be paying $300 plus for a 45min trip to the bush. casa and Asa have played their part but aren't the sole reason
  10. rhysmcc
    Top heavy indeed, but do you see my point about wanting ADSB exemption for Aircraft operating outside controlled airspace at the same time as wanting to change most of uncontrolled airspace to E. There's lots of reasons why GA is dying, the fact people can fly brisbane to melb for $89 means many don't see why they should be paying $300 plus for a 45min trip to the bush. casa and Asa have played their part but aren't the sole reason
  11. rhysmcc
    Dick is a funny guy, watching his interview with the Committee, I'm still not sure what exactly he wants he was all over the place jumping from one thing to another. Remove ADSB requirement for aircraft OCTA, but at the same time increase the amount of controlled airspace (E to the ground/700ft AGL at SOME airports). Claiming delays are killing the industry yet happy for people to hold on the ground or at 6000 because procedural separation standard won't allow more then one in one out under "the new E" Good for him for standing up, but please put some thought into what you are asking for.
  12. rhysmcc
    Dick is a funny guy, watching his interview with the Committee, I'm still not sure what exactly he wants he was all over the place jumping from one thing to another. Remove ADSB requirement for aircraft OCTA, but at the same time increase the amount of controlled airspace (E to the ground/700ft AGL at SOME airports). Claiming delays are killing the industry yet happy for people to hold on the ground or at 6000 because procedural separation standard won't allow more then one in one out under "the new E" Good for him for standing up, but please put some thought into what you are asking for.
  13. rhysmcc
    did you have a RPL prior to that or just went straight for PPL?
  14. rhysmcc
    did you have a RPL prior to that or just went straight for PPL?
  15. rhysmcc
    Well before the RPL, surely they were marketing the PPL. RPL and RPC are not interchangeable in that you can't operate the same aircraft with a RPC as you can with a RPL and vice versa. People who go the RPC route do so because it's either cheaper or because they want to fly a RA-AUS registered aircraft. That hasn't changed since RPL came in.
  16. rhysmcc
    Well before the RPL, surely they were marketing the PPL. RPL and RPC are not interchangeable in that you can't operate the same aircraft with a RPC as you can with a RPL and vice versa. People who go the RPC route do so because it's either cheaper or because they want to fly a RA-AUS registered aircraft. That hasn't changed since RPL came in.
  17. rhysmcc
    Unless I've misunderstood your question, a lot of the schools that advertise for the RPC only would be because they are RA-AUS Flight Training Facilities and don't hold the authentications from CASA to provide RPL (thus PPL and CPL) training. It's not about hours but competency, in regards to flight schools signing you off, CASA count the hours for minimum required.
  18. rhysmcc
    Unless I've misunderstood your question, a lot of the schools that advertise for the RPC only would be because they are RA-AUS Flight Training Facilities and don't hold the authentications from CASA to provide RPL (thus PPL and CPL) training. It's not about hours but competency, in regards to flight schools signing you off, CASA count the hours for minimum required.
  19. rhysmcc
    I agree with the policy and management to the point they propose oversight to the CEO. If the staff isn't performing then it's the CEO who is responsible. If the board don't do anything then it's the members turn to ditch the board. Besides the lack of information comin out of HQ/board, things appear to be functioning well. There will always be room for improvement, I think policy development being one huge issue that needs addressing.
  20. rhysmcc
    Thanks Keith, what we are talking about is for the board to provide oversight and direction (i.e. policy) to the management, rather then be involved into the day to day operations (i.e. chasing up why Member X isn't on the members email list or that Member Y wants to start a FTF). I think you'll find this is how the majority of company boards operate. When I referred to DRAFT, I was trying to point out we should be talking about what we want in the constitution and how we should operate, rather then reference what our current constitution says on the matter (of board "management"). At the end of the day, it's a members association so we (at least 75% that vote) get the final say on how we want our board to operate.
  21. rhysmcc
    It's more a regulation then an Act. Acts are passed by parliament which give the powers to the executive to make the regulations. For example the CAO never was passed by the parliament, therefore isn't considered and Act. The Civial Aviation Act is but there is no mention of RAA in it. Going from memory only, the CAOs don't actully give RAA any powers or establishment, it's only reference is that pilots must be members, have a certificate issued and operate according to their manual. No mention of the board and how it must be setup, elected or handle the day to day operations.
  22. rhysmcc
    Implies you can't do a solo nav
  23. rhysmcc
    Which is way I said SHOULD in a thread about drafting the new constitution. The board should be for policy and oversight not management. In terms of the deed, it's what grants us RAAO status, I don't think you'll find RA-AUS mentioned in any Acts.
  24. rhysmcc
    The August issue is on Issuu, that's where I've read it but I don't recall it being "announced" this time via email or on the raa website. I think you are trying to create interpretations which simply aren't there. CASA do not require a position titled "Accountable Manager", they require the position be it the CEO, the President or the Ops Manager to be the nominated Accountable Manager. I've not seen anywhere in the "handbook" that it requires Board members be involved in the day to day operations of the association. They need to be across the oversight of the association insuring the association (not the board nor the CEO) meets it's requirements. The Deed of Agreement (the actual legal binding document) has the terms Specified Person and Organisation's Representative and actually has the names of the people nominated for those positions (2014 was General Manager Mark Clayton and President Rodney Birrell). The Deed in clause 13 actually says it's the Specified Persons who is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Deeds tasks and funcations. So tell me where, besides the current constitution (which we are trying to discuss changing in this thread) does it say anywhere that the board must be involved in the day to day operations or management of the association?
  25. rhysmcc
    I'm assuming the 2010 reference is regards to the Sport Aviation Self-Administration Handbook 2010? It requires an accountable manager (appointed by the board), but it doesn't give any indiction that the board needs to be involved in the day to day operations. Oversight is required.
×
×
  • Create New...