rhysmcc

thanks gandalph, I've heard they make engines for UAV's but wasn't sure if it's just the same engine or something different. As you could imagine I was reluctant to spend the afternoon googling the operator

I can't see why it's a secret to know who was appointed acting CEO and public officer, and to be quite honest with you it wasn't that much of an issue to me but an example of the lack of communication the board is still having with it's members. Now I'm concerned because it appears not only wasn't it communicated but it's top secret. How does a Board member (or the Board on a whole) read the sentiment of the members when we don't even know what's changes/projects are on the cards until they have already been decided. I do agree with you that it's impossible and not expected that they contact each member and ask their opinion on each topic, that's not really how representation works, however I do expect to receive adequate information and policy to form an opinion and express that to my representative. It's this part of representation that is missing in the association. Oscar, I totally agree with on implications of the whole Jabiru issue and I'm sure the management are doing everything they can on behalf of the members, my concern isn't really related to Jabiru but more so the constant lack of change with the communication and "progress" of the association. Things such as constitutional review and strategic planning that has been an "agenda" item for at least 24 months now and still have nothing new to show for it. I have raised this a few times over the last 12 months, and every time we get the same excuses or reasons for nil change and the assurance that "improvement" is coming, yet 3 months later we are still in the same place.

is the UAV engine the same as the 2200 or 3300 and any idea how those 250 engines are doing?

I'll start with the fact the position (Public Officer) is detailed in the constitution, it would be prudent for member's to be aware of whom is acting as the Public Officer at all times, it's also a person referenced in the CASA Deed with RA-AUS (which some seem to believe stands for the Board or Office, it's actually the association of members which the board represents and the office is employed by). Why is it you seem to think members don't need to know who is actually acting as the CEO? I'm more concerned now that something untoward may have happened and maybe someone who shouldn't have been was acting in the role, or more likely no one was at the wheel? I look forward to reading the published resolution on the Modernisation project somewhere in the future, I guess since that's the first time members will see the project board members will be voting based on their own views rather then actually representing that of members?

Yet still no board resolutions (decisions) that are made between the 2 face to face meeting are being published. A clear breach of the constitution. Kept in the dark on the issues we have been promised were being addressed... Modernisation, detailed budget information based on the different functions of the operation, anything from the reform committee (last I can find is Easter 2014). How about something as simple as who was appointed acting CEO while he was on holiday for an extended period (which also wasn't published). What if any advocating has the association conducted? Right now there is an election in QLD, has the association or state based board members approached any candidates about how they can assist recreational aviation, in particular the effects on local jobs in Bundaberg and various flight training schools across the state with the imposed restrictions being placed on recreational aircraft.

The problem with a whole new constitution is it only takes one small point that a member isn't happy with for the whole thing to be voted down. If you choose to go down that path you will not get the 75% required for it to pass. 24 Months ago we were told that having so many board members was making it too hard for decisions to be made but now it's all okay? Sorry Andy but I don't see how you can think this board is functioning when we as the members are still not being put in the loop and the fact this association needs some major changes yet the Board only discusses and votes on resolutions twice a year. Where are the multiple issues that have been raised been addressed by the board, where are the sub committees which are meant moving our association forward and where is the strategic planning? To me it's just another case of fighting fires with no progress made to stopping them alighting in the first place.

It does suggest some are no longer operating, in that 20,000 across 7000 engines is only 2.8 hours each a year, however you can't really draw any facts out of it.

It would be in their interest to promote recreational aviation locally.

Totally agree, but I personally wouldn't want another "body" setup under the board for that role (like was suggested a couple years ago by the review committee). CFI's should be working locally on behalf of the association, after all they are members and making a living on it succeeding.

Sounds like something our CFI's could do, either through the annual CFI conference or directly with a designated board member. Most members have contact with a CFI (If only for the BFR) that can discuss issues they are having and for those involved in a more club type arrangement, is usually the go to person already. There has to be some kind of elected representatives, if only to select the board. However in my opinion you'd be better off just having a 7 person board elected by all the members. Quality applicants should emerge if being selected from a single pool. Those who aren't or can't be bothered being in contact with members will struggle to find the votes.

The problem with that is you will have members who are in favour of reducing the board but don't want to lose their "state rep", others who will want to get rid of "state reps", you'd have some who want to get rid of reps all together and have them "selected" based on skills. If you put up any one of these 3 options, 2 of the groups will vote no and we will be stuck with this insanely large board that doesn't seem to get much done. But if you ask the question, to reduce the board (keeping the same election system for the time being), you'll get all 3 groups on side and the motion stands a chance of getting up. Then you can harsh out over the next 6 months how you want to elect/appoint the board. A good example is the old Republic Referendum. A majority of australians were for the idea of becoming a republic, but that wasn't the question asked. Instead we voted on system which divided those that were Pro republic.

We've had two general meetings since the "board had constitutional reform in sight" and yet not a single resolution on reducing the board numbers. In fact it doesn't even appear to have been on the Annual Board Meeting agenda. If the "board" seem in favour of the idea no action has been shown, most likely as you pointed out, none really want to lose their seat. As I've mentioned before on this forum, you need to set your goals small and focus on one change at a time if you want the members support. Start by reducing the number of board positions, let the members decide on that single issue. Then discuss how we will go about electing them. Separate resolutions at separate meetings. If you try to draft a whole new constitution and put that up for a vote, it will lose.

Sorry, Melbourne Aircraft Group (MAG) and Brisbane Flying Group (BFG), they are aircraft syndicates. A trip to Hamilton Island would be quite nice, Shute Harbour is quite turbulent i'm told (why the 100hrs limit)

I'm moving to Brisbane in the next few months and will also be looking at securing a regular flying machine. Is there anything like MAG or BFG in Redcliffe or Caboolture? Either VH or RA-AUS registered?

Out of those 7000, how many actually didn't or aren't still on the way to make 1000 hours. It's not unusual to see recreational aircraft that do less then 50 hours a year. The figure you quote does not mean much unless you can tell us the status of the other 6500 engines.

So the fuel starvation was a design fault of the aircraft or an error in the operation? While I'm sure the Tecnam is a lovely aircraft, your 2nd paragraph adds nothing to that discussion.

isn't there also a C150 with a seat removed on the register?

Seems fair to expect an aircraft be able to carry the pilot and some fuel, guess they are worried that it will be operated outside the MTOW.

What is the MTOW in the POH? Does it meet the 45kt stall rule?

CASA recently (with Part 61) decided up to 1500KG would be classed as recreational. Increasing the MTOW allows for heavier aircraft with increased safety and structural support. The 45kt stall speed limit should limit any "extreme performance" machines and provide the difference between Recreational and General Aircraft.

Having a Driver's License issued, does not mean you a medically fit to drive a motor vehicle. Just like flying the onus is on you to ensure you are medically fit prior to each occasion you hop behind the wheel. For some conditions this requires a medical certificate to be carried with you when you drive, from your doctor saying your condition does not impede your ability behind the wheel.

A medical statement from your doctor doesn't mean another form has to be completed, rather a simple statement from the doctor. If they wanted that form, then it should clearly say that.

Is that not the form required for an instructor who doesn't have a Class 2 Medical, rather then for a normal Pilot Certificate?

It applies to passengers, I don't think being an owner would make a difference. If they had a pilots certificate and flew as co-pilot then I guess they wouldn't be classed as a passenger.

Why is the CEO on leave for a month? He hasn't been in the job a year and already accrued that amount of leave?