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'm not really sure why you'd think a commercial operation would be able to fill the shoes of RA-AUS at a cheaper price (unless I've misread your post). The fact it's commercial means they are out to make a buck rather then just cost recovery. I agree that it has become more about regulators and less about being advocates, maybe that's a worthwhile submission to be made to the CEO in regards to the constitutional review, however I don't see a commercial element being the answer here.
  2. rhysmcc
    For those who don't receive the RA-AUS newsletter:
  3. rhysmcc
    Sadly the amendment didn't define resolutions enough, therefore we aren't seeing any decisions which have been decided outside of the face to face meetings. Something I hope the board will reconsider. Don are you part of any current constitutional review team. The CEO has assured me the constitution is being reviewed with a complete rewrite from April (and therefore no special resolutions this GM).
  4. rhysmcc
    Hope all is okay and the school can get back on it's feet, they seem to have had issues with a few aircraft after the freak storms a few months ago turned the fleet upside down.
  5. rhysmcc
    In terms of cost savings, from the July-Dec Financial Report $28455 was spent on Board related expenses (over the 6 month period). That's an average of $2188 per board member, reduce by 5 members and you may have saved $10,944 over the same 6 month period, or around $20,000 annually.
  6. rhysmcc
    $38.00 is the fee for the lodgement of a special resolution.
  7. rhysmcc
    Call it a temporary measure then to get the ball rolling, until "the perfect system" has been drafted. Frankly I can't see how any brand newly written constitution will ever receive the 75% support it requires to get up. Polling the thoughts of the members on the various issues is a great idea, but you are the one in the best position to do that. In terms of costs, these are minimal. A copy could be published in the magazine together with the agenda (which is already required). You suggest it would be a separate mail out which is incorrect. Rule 37 also allows for notices to be delivered electronically (email) which doesn't cost alot either. There would be a fee no doubt with the relevant Government Department for the filing of the new constitution, I shall research how much that will be but I'm sure it's no more then a couple hundred. I'm sure we'd save that in travel costs alone at the next AGM. I'm not going to go more off topic by discussing the interpretation the board as created on what a resolution is and it's difference from a board decision and therefore what needs to be published and what can remain hidden from the members.
  8. rhysmcc
    While the board member is selected by members based on the region, they don't actually need to be a resident of that region to stand for election. Regional based is not my preference (but a lot of members are for it). If you try and change too much too quickly we'll end up still discussing this in 10 years time without any changes at all.
  9. rhysmcc
    3 reasons, one is that 13 doesn't seem manageable and this has been quoted a few times from both board members and RAA management staff. The fact it only seems to meet and pass resolutions twice a year also (still waiting for the recent resolution to cancel NATFLY for 2015 to be published, or is that another board decision that doesn't qualify as a vote and resolution by the board), suggests not much is done in phone hookup meetings. Another reason as you touched on is to reduce costs. It's alot cheaper in travel and reimbusements for 8 members then 13, and while I acknowledge it won't solve our financial crisis, every little bit helps. And lastly, because the current divisions is not representative. Like 102 members (about 1%) being able to elect one of the 13 board members, or Qld having an extra board position over NSW/ACT while representing less members.
  10. rhysmcc
    Removing the executive isn't required for a reduction of the board and should be treated and addressed separately. You still need a process between board meetings, I doubt that should be given to a single person (no checks and balances) I don't understand the one region reference?
  11. rhysmcc
    Having a look at the recent membership spread published in the magazine, I can't see why at the next AGM a resolution can't be put forward reducing the board to 8. An even number of board members isn't of great concern since we have a procedure in place for resolutions which are dead locked. A special resolution isn't that complicated and if the board are serious about getting it done could be ready by April, you are editing the Appendix B and one clause 18vii (quorum from 7 to 5). This years election would elect the new Group B and fill the vacant positions of Group A. RA-AUS Board.xls RA-AUS Board.xls RA-AUS Board.xls
  12. rhysmcc
    Hi Andy, do you know if the different activities of RA-AUS have been costed? For example how much is spent administrating pilot certificates, how much on aircraft registration, how much on FTFs? I can't quite see anything like that in the financials but wondered if such a presentation has been made to the board?
  13. rhysmcc
    Personally I don't see this as the way forward for RA-AUS and indeed the maintenance and systems required to be in place to support such a fleet would increase costs for the membership. Stick with amateur built aircraft which can be owner maintained or factory LSA. Move away from issuing pilot certiciates and instead get us an exception to the medical requirement for the RPL in RA-AUS aircraft. How much money would we save not having to administer pilot licensing but focusing on recreational aircraft instead?
  14. rhysmcc
    I could see RAAUS offering a class of amateur built aircraft similar to the experimental VH kits (rv etc) attracting new members, but we'd need to reel in our current annual costs (membership and fees) and offer something casa don't (less regulation and medical requirements). I can't see casa going for it and you'd need SAAA onside to convince them it's the way forward. I can't see RAAUS administrating factory aircraft bigger then LSA
  15. rhysmcc
    I was referring to the cost of the RPL (one off $50 fee) vs the RPC which is a much higher annual fee. The cost of aircraft ownership maybe cheaper but it's really like comparing apples with oranges (a 30yo factory c172 vs j230), which was the point I was trying to make. RAAUS and CASA are no more in competition then RAAUS and the local boating club. It's great to want and ask for something, but is there a plan on how it'll all work and look?
  16. rhysmcc
    Given the President is the view that RA-AUS and CASA are in competition, charging more when already your "competitor" offers a cheaper alternative (comparing RPC and RPL costs) would not be the answer. I don't see how operating in CTA would increase your exposure to liability considering there is now a 3rd party involved who is responsible to keeping you separated with the IFR traffic. I'm interested to hear what the board is asking for here in regards to increased MTOW, considering a limit isn't actually placed on the RPC but a restriction on aircraft that can be registered. Is the attempt to raise the current LSA/Ultralight limit to 1500kg, or introduce another "class" of aircraft?
  17. rhysmcc
    Primary isn't getting phased out. It's required in terminal areas for the reduced separation, as you point out ADSB just wouldn't cut it. But neither radar or ADSB is required unless you need the service (controlled airspace).
  18. rhysmcc
    Primary radars are only really used at the major aerodromes, outside that "secondary" radars (which rely wholly on transponders) provide the radar coverage. Over the last few years a lot of these have been replaced or refurbished so end of life is way off. Radar/ADSB is only required for controlled airspace, you'd need to be close to ground stations or have a decent amount of altitude to get picked up.
  19. rhysmcc
    I'm sure they would be, but you said mandated ADSB. It's only mandated for aircraft that operate IFR.
  20. rhysmcc
    mandated ADSB? I don't think we'll be flying IFR anytime soon to be mandated for ADSB.
  21. rhysmcc
    I wonder if the "strategic plan" that's been in the works since last GM will be announced and discussed with the members. The newsletters have been a bust, very little information on what's actually happening back at HQ and on the board, lots of good information on staff hobbies and holidays though
  22. rhysmcc
    Andy, the stall speed requirement isn't placed on the RPL, nor is it placed on the RPC. It's a requirement on the aircraft to be registered under the CAO's, like you mention a line has to be drawn somewhere. What are we trying to achieve, to bring the RPC inline with the RPL (then why not just move completely to a RPL)? or are we trying to increase the range of aircraft that could be registered under RA-AUS? If indeed we want to increase the aircraft then we must have better systems/maintenance requirements (and be prepared to pay for them) Out of interest, the EASA have a Very Light Aircraft (VLA) category, which is MTOW 750kg and 45kt stall - sounds like a good next step for RA-AUS
  23. rhysmcc
    narromine would be a guess
  24. rhysmcc
    I didn't mean you in particular, i agree with some of your outside the square ideas if all the rules were up to be changed. I agree combining the RPC and RPL makes sense, if we can get CASA to do away with the Aviation Medical requirement and have a simple medical "wavier" like we do with RA-AUS (with the same restrictions without the Class 2 Medical that we have today). RA-AUS and SAAA combined to administer aircraft registration for the experimental/amateur built aircraft as well as Light Sport Aircraft (factory and kit) and CASA were left with all "commercial" operations.
  25. rhysmcc
    The difference between 4 people or 2 is requiring a Medical, if RAA were to go down this route you can be sure that Medicals will become a requirement and even if only for carrying more then 1 pax it would be an addition cost on administrating. If you want to go fly a 1500kg machine with 3 pax then go and get your RPL it isn't that hard, maybe 2-5 hrs "cross training". If you can't get the medical, then ask yourself do you really think you should be responsible for 3 lives and over a tonne of weight?
×
×
  • Create New...