rhysmcc

the mag isn't "canned" it's now a subscription if you want it in hard copy, or free to members in digital. Hardly the end of the world stuff. Hopefully the CEO and Executive will show us the details at the upcoming GM in terms of how much the magazine costs to produce and mail out to members, how much it makes in advertising (and why that doesn't cover the cost of the Mag), how much we will be saving from the budget with subscription method and what increase in membership fee we are avoiding by going down this path. Going digital is nothing new, a lot of organisations are going down this path. Embrace new technologies, done right the digital version may actually reach a wider audience and attract new members that don't go into newsagents browsing for magazines.

I think Andy pointed out earlier in the year (or late last year) that charging extra for the Mag would be the same as putting up the fees and then offering a rebate for those who didn't want the Mag. I would tend to agree and believe the rebate option would have cost us more to administer then an "opt-in" method being proposed. I doubt I'd be renewing my membership if there is another increase of fees this year.

Sounds like a trifecta, wonder if a fine was also attached to the jail time.

I don't think landing fees are the cause, but the behaviour of some pilots in trying to avoid being charged. It's not a matter of landing fees not being safe, but poor airmanship.

I don't think there is any difference, and if you look up the definitions they are much the same. (Resolution is defined as a decision). Guess we'll have to wait until the GM to see what if anything has progressed since the last board meeting.

Maj Millard, you may want to check your facts on what has actually be published to the members. The last board decision was posted on the members site on 26th of Oct 2014 (from the Board Meeting 19th of Oct 2014). No board minutes of have been published since then and certainly nothing from the board forum. Writing an article in the magazine saying the board has decided to cancel NATFLY for 2015 (for example), does not meet the requirements under the constitution, It might be worth while at the next board meeting having a group read along to ensure all board members actually understand their responsibilities under the constitution.

If the last published resolution was following the AGM 2014, then unless the board isn't complying with the constitution, that would mean no decisions have been made since then (excluding the last 7 days). That was the point I was making, I know the board has had a lot of discussions and provided direction to the CEO on matters, but they could only do this by reaching a majority agreement. At some stage a vote would have taken place. This is the very definition of a board resolution and MUST be published so. Just because you decide to not call it a MOTION (when in effect it is anyway), doesn't make it exempt from what is required under the constitution. Individual board members deciding not to attend the GM is fine, and from what you said sounds like what has happened. However the Board can not make the decision that board members not attend or make the decision that travel costs not be reimbursed. It's in the constitution and not something the Board has the power to change.

I'm not sure where you plucked "formal resolution" from, it isn't in the constitution. It uses the term resolution, which without a definition included in the document you refer to the English meaning of decision. Any decision the board has made on behalf of the association should be considered a resolution and published as such. Nothing has been published since the AGM, so what have the board done over the last 6 months? How much longer are we expected to "wait for the new board" to get familiar before we will see some real change and progress?

Clearly the board hasn't made such a decision, otherwise the Secretary would have published such a decision as per our constitution. I don't see how the board or executive can be taken seriously when they can't seem to follow the simplest of requirements of governance. No wonder CASA no confidence in self administration anymore.

Why would you want to see every restricted airspace in the country? Type in the AREA code or airspace group and it'll show you all the restricted areas

but a pic tells a 1000 words :D

Have you tried the Restricted Airspace Briefing on NAIPS? It lists the restricted areas in a table with all the information and colour coded status. Hopefully further down the track we will see the end of civil and military ATC and instead just a combined operation with better access to airspace, however I don't believe it's on the cards yet with this new system.

It looks good on PC, will try on mobile later.

It's either, and I don't see how it would impact recreational aviators at all. Think of it more as the computer system in the background that ATC use, instead of having 2 different networks like we do now, ASA and RAAF will be using the same network. It should reduce ATC comms workload between ASA and RAAF, there may be a flow on benefit to aviators in terms of reduced delays for clearances etc as the system should have your flight plan and ETA's correct. The current system is nearing it's end of life and so a new system was always on the cards, it's not about saving money (it will actually cost millions and at this stage there isn't any talk of reducing ATC jobs. However it is the reason why Cairns and Adelaide Approach Units are being moved to the Centres.

From my experience, the instructor rate is the same for both RA-AUS and CASA streams. It's the aircraft rate that is lower with RA-AUS. ($100-120 per hour for dual).

Why not, they seem to control the autocorrect

In simple terms, The same people that train them now, but instead of issuing a certificate they receive a licence.

SAAA would be making a huge mistake by taking on pilot training and as I've mentioned before, I believe the way forward for RA-AUS is to move away from that area and focus more on the recreational aircraft we choose to fly. The hard work is ensuring the correct exceptions are in place such that no one who has a RPC would be excluded from a RPL (ie medical) and appropriate support in place for our FTFs. We should be working with SAAA in developing our building and maintenance programs while providing them additional ways for aircraft registration and operation (away from the CASA stream).

Any idea of the hourly rate? Looking forward to flying a sling when I'm in Brisbane, they seem to be highly rated.

I'm looking forward to watching the CEO's presentation on the finances and what changes/ideas are being suggested to reduce our overheads. This to me is biggest important issue facing RA-AUS, how it can reduce the costs to members. There are a lot more issues at play, but if can't find a way to reduce the annual fees more and more (medically able) members will go the RPL route.

Surely the overheads required for a smaller organisation as you mention would make the cost per member probative. I understand what your saying though in terms of a "niche" area being over run by differing needs/wants. What is it about LSA aircraft (mini GA) that has caused rag and tube aircraft more regulation? If this is an issue, then it should be addressed. However if the "more regulation" is due to a change in what CASA deems acceptable risk, then you can hardly blame the LSA mob? I guess the answer would need to be a complete review of our operations and regulations and why they are there. Can some be lifted from certain aircraft?

In terms of voting on special resolutions at the meeting, the regulations around associations in the ACT prohibit any form of electronic or postal voting. So you either need a proxy or physically be there to cast your vote. Note this only applies to special resolutions, the association could conduct a "poll" of the members via electronic means should it see fit to do so. Board meetings are allowed to be electronic including voting. I also thought it was odd that the board members were not going to be present. I can understand the idea of reducing costs, but considering a board meeting is held the following day at HQ which will require the travel costs, combining the two would have made sense (i.e. board meets in the afternoon/evening after the GM at Cessnock). Yet again it's another example of the board making a decision and not following the correct procedures for publishing it to members. However I'd also question whether the Board has the power to decide such an arrangement in the first place, given they are entitled to attend such a meeting (as members of the association), they are also elected to represent members of their region which would include at General Meetings and thus under the constitution entitled for reimbursement of costs associated with that role. If each individual board member has decided they won't be attending in an official capacity to reduce costs, then that's great.

CASA isn't a commercial operation either, they work on cost recovery plus a whole bunch of tax payer money (avgas tax). I agree that it appears cheaper to go the CASA way (no annual fees or regos), but from what I'm told, getting a LAME to do your maintenance is one of the huge costs and compliance with the regs (i.e. you can't just go fit an iPad to the console). Our focus should be on ways to minimise the costs of RA-AUS, thus lowering the membership fee requirements. If we can also work on ways to reduce the amount of regulation and complexities, that will also reduce the cost base. You're right in saying that a majority of members are only part of RA-AUS because it's mandated, which is most likely why it takes a less advocacy roll and why member participation in elections and meetings is low. You can't claim to be the voice of 10,000 members, if those members haven't had input into the message. I don't own an aircraft so I'm not really up to speed on the RA-AUS maintenance rules and the increase in complexity and compliance you mention, however if that's the problem then shouldn't we be trying to address that rather then create a new entity? How much of that problem is from CASA and would be required by the new entity anyway and how much is our own doing and can be fixed?

Depending how easy it is to add new ones later, I would start with just acronyms. I don't really like the idea of linking away from the page (unless by default it opens in another tab :D). You also don't want a thread that is full of hyper links as it will just look ugly to read. Another issue is many acronyms have multiple definitions (i.e. the recent discussion on RoC), how will you interrupt which is the correct one being mentioned? Will the poster have the final say (maybe an option to exclude the markup)?

I originally voted for the click, my concern was on mobile devices (I hate pop-ups), however since you've now said they will still be clicked (tap of the finger) I've changed my vote to hover (for PC).