DWF

Thank you Oscar. That is (almost) exactly what I have been trying to say. The responsibilities and liabilities of the body overseeing the Management/Regulatory functions of RA-Aus are considerably greater than the average community association and so require board members with the requisite skills and experience. The current RAAus means of selecting Board members does not guarantee or even make likely the selection of appropriately qualified people. Board members should meet a set of selection criteria and be appointed on skills/merit. This would mean that at least some of the Board members may need to be recruited form outside RAAus. I realise this may be difficult to achieve under our present structure which is why I have suggested the one included with post #1 above. There is still very much the need for the members and their elected representatives to be in ultimate control of the organisation - even more so than is currently the case - but running the Management/Regulatory functions should be given to those with the skills, experience and enthusiasm to do so. We need to start thinking outside the box a bit. DWF

What is this traffic you are on about? Here is SE WA when you make a radio call usually the only response you get is from the AFRU It seems that airspace/the authorities/and population conspire to concentrate OCTA aircraft in inappropriate locations. [Level restrictions, designated tracking points, inhospitable terrain and often poor visibility/weather.] The Mark I eyeball is still the best and most reliable short range traffic detection device - but it has its (significant) limitations and for most of us does not work well beyond 2 - 3 miles - which does not give much time to take avoiding action. Use your radio (on the appropriate frequency). Alerted see and avoid is significantly more effective than just looking out. Maintain situational awareness - figure out where the other traffic is in relation to your position and track. I am not in favour of devices that require you to divert your attention to inside the cockpit when in areas of potentially high traffic density. Look out and Live!

Unlike many other members, I suspect, I have read these documents. I am not a lawyer, so I may be corrected on this, but I do not see any insurmountable impediment in any of these documents to the implementation of a structure similar to that I have suggested. As has been suggested by others, if the ATC Act causes problems then there are a number of other jurisdictions that provide a more conducive legislative environment. The RA-Aus Constitution is ours to amend as we see fit provided it complies with the appropriate Act. The Sport Aviation Self-Administration Handbook 2010 does not preclude the proposed structure. Indeed the proposed structure creates an environment more conducive to implementing the requirements of the Handbook. The current structure, or those working within it, has not served the association well in this respect. You [collective noun] say it won't work but no one has given even one specific instance or reference as to why. DWF

G'day again Dafydd Thank you for your comments and opinions. I am pleased someone has responded to my efforts, although I had hoped for something a little more constructive or alternative. I had assumed that most people would have got a good idea of what the tasks RAAus has to perform from my original post here and those on another thread. It appears I was wrong. As I have said elsewhere, I see a review of the RAAus structure as the second step after the preparation of a STRATEGIC PLAN. A Strategic Plan should specify what the organisation wants/needs to do and when, with what priorities, to achieve its objectives. A Strategic Plan is something I had hoped to see prepared and distributed for comment some considerable time ago. It should have been one of their first priorities. As far as I can see, the whole focus of the Board and management has been on fighting the bushfires resulting from the CASA audits. Very little apparent effort has been devoted to keeping members informed about what is happening (is anything?) or providing guidance, education or other member services. The majority of the tasks currently performed by RAAus result from the need to comply with the Deed of Agreement with CASA. My proposed structure is designed to ensure the Board operates professionally and efficiently, management has clear tasks and objectives (and is able to achieve them) and that the members are able to contribute to the running of the organisation (should they so desire), are kept in the information loop and are provided with educational and social services. DWF

G'day Dafydd I agree that the directors of any organisation should be familiar with the regulatory environment in which they operate and that, in the case of the RA-Aus board, they should include or have ready access to people who have extensive knowledge of CARs, however I do not envisage a board of aviation lawyers. I would expect that the CEO would be an/the executive director on the board and should be able to provide most of the required Regulatory input - assisted by the Ops and Tech managers. A board should not need to have a detailed nuts and bolts knowledge of aviation to function properly- in fact it may be a hindrance at times - by getting bogged down in detail. The job of the board is to set policy, ensure compliance with ALL appropriate legislation (including accounting, corporate, OH&S, CARs and the RA-Aus constitution) and monitor performance. DWF

Here are some thoughts on a new structure for our association. The main idea is to separate the Management functions from the Membership functions. The management would be overseen by a skills based board of 5 to 7 Directors, who are not necessarily members of the association but, who have governance expertise and experience in running an organisation of our size. The function of management is to provide the service the members require and those the association has agreed to provide under its Deed of Agreement with CASA. It may be useful for the management functions of the association become the responsibility of a separate entity that is a wholly owned subsidiary of RA-Aus. - Just a thought. The diagram below does not have a lot of detail yet but should be enough to start discussion and explore the idea(s). DWF Proposed Structure dwf201403.pdf Proposed Structure dwf201403.pdf Proposed Structure dwf201403.pdf

Not really. Well, maybe a bit of a dig. As I am sure you are aware, it is one of the documents the (usually CASA) inspector will look for if you are ramp checked on a cross country flight. [RAAus Ops Managers can also conduct ramp checks as part of their compliance assurance requirements under the Deed of Agreement with CASA.]

Have a look at http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/ersa/FAC_YWLG_6-Mar-2014.pdf You do have the latest ERSA don't you?

The stationary circus? The running around in circles circus?

RA-Aus has two main functions or streams. For simplicity lets call them Management and Members. Management looks after Admin, Ops, Tech, SMS, functions RAAus has agreed to undertake or provide and day to day operations. Members rarely (if ever) need to physically visit Management offices. Therefore, from the members point of view, it does not matter where the office is located. So, logically, the office should be located where it can operate most effectively, efficiently and economically - this includes access to stakeholders (primarily CASA?), access to economic transport, access and conditions for staff, relatively low cost accommodation, etc. Somewhere near Brisbane airport would have to rank highly - but I do not discount places like Caboolture, etc. However, I do not think relocating is a high priority unless there is some compelling economic or operational reason of which I am unaware. RAAus has enough, much higher priority "irons in the fire" at present and moving would just be a big distraction. Most of us are mere males and only able to do one thing at a time but I do note that there are a few ladies at HO now who seem to be stirring things along a bit ... but i digress. I do not think that just because Natfly is at a particular location that HO should be there also. Although there may be some advantages during the event they are, in my view, outweighed by the disadvantages during the rest of the year. You are either tied to that location for Natfly forever or will need to move HO each time you move Natfly. There are good reasons for keeping Natfly at the same location for at least a number of years running. You will not get the same local support, infrastructure and efficiencies if you move it every year. Wherever you have it there will be those who cannot make it and/or complain. What do you think the chances are that we will ever have it in WA? I think the Board and Management priority should be the development, promulgation and implementation of a STRATEGIC PLAN. At the moment the hierarchy seems to be running around in circles putting out bush fires with no clear plan of where we are going or how to get there. "If you don't know where you are going, how will you know when you get there?" The next priority of the Board should be a review of the structure of RAAus. I have some thoughts on this but will start a new thread and see if it "runs". Notice what is missing from the above? MEMBERS At the moment the association is doing very little for the members unless it is to cause heartache and despair (for some) over aircraft rego or enforce some sort of "compliance". Where is the communication, involvement and fun stuff for members? The computer gremlins have destroyed the rest of this post that took me forever to write, so I will have to try to regain my train of thought and have another go .... soon. Safe and Happy Flying DWF PS. A semi trailer may be a bit of overkill but I favor the idea of RAAus trainers and officials making regular visits to local members/clubs rather than having one centralised training/education facility.

RA-Aus has two main functions or streams. For simplicity lets call them Management and Members. Management looks after Admin, Ops, Tech, SMS, functions RAAus has agreed to undertake or provide and day to day operations. Members rarely (if ever) need to physically visit Management offices. Therefore, from the members point of view, it does not matter where the office is located. So, logically, the office should be located where it can operate most effectively, efficiently and economically - this includes access to stakeholders (primarily CASA?), access to economic transport, access and conditions for staff, relatively low cost accommodation, etc. Somewhere near Brisbane airport would have to rank highly - but I do not discount places like Caboolture, etc. However, I do not think relocating is a high priority unless there is some compelling economic or operational reason of which I am unaware. RAAus has enough, much higher priority "irons in the fire" at present and moving would just be a big distraction. Most of us are mere males and only able to do one thing at a time but I do note that there are a few ladies at HO now who seem to be stirring things along a bit ... but i digress. I do not think that just because Natfly is at a particular location that HO should be there also. Although there may be some advantages during the event they are, in my view, outweighed by the disadvantages during the rest of the year. You are either tied to that location for Natfly forever or will need to move HO each time you move Natfly. There are good reasons for keeping Natfly at the same location for at least a number of years running. You will not get the same local support, infrastructure and efficiencies if you move it every year. Wherever you have it there will be those who cannot make it and/or complain. What do you think the chances are that we will ever have it in WA? I think the Board and Management priority should be the development, promulgation and implementation of a STRATEGIC PLAN. At the moment the hierarchy seems to be running around in circles putting out bush fires with no clear plan of where we are going or how to get there. "If you don't know where you are going, how will you know when you get there?" The next priority of the Board should be a review of the structure of RAAus. I have some thoughts on this but will start a new thread and see if it "runs". Notice what is missing from the above? MEMBERS At the moment the association is doing very little for the members unless it is to cause heartache and despair (for some) over aircraft rego or enforce some sort of "compliance". Where is the communication, involvement and fun stuff for members? The computer gremlins have destroyed the rest of this post that took me forever to write, so I will have to try to regain my train of thought and have another go .... soon. Safe and Happy Flying DWF PS. A semi trailer may be a bit of overkill but I favor the idea of RAAus trainers and officials making regular visits to local members/clubs rather than having one centralised training/education facility.

Flying competitions. Attendance Incentive Draws (total of $300). Saturday dinner function. All aviators welcome. For more details contact David on dwf177@gmail.com or 0407 036 173

Why? Aerial application ops are ag ops. eg cropdusting They have nothing to do with RAAus flying training. The question is what is the intention of the CAO? To me it looks like you can't use a 19- aircraft for (any) flying training unless you built it yourself; however it is probably one of those questions the lawyers/judges will sort out at the subsequent inquiry. DWF

Remember the Swiss cheese analogy. If any one of the above factors had been as they should have been then the outcome would probably have been different.

Helicopters are just about as unstable an aeronautical conveyance as one can get. Just sayin

HITC. I think you are confusing the issue and/or are confused about aircraft stability theory. I cannot seem to capture the link to put here, but if you go to raaus.com - safety - John Brandon's fly safe tutorials - scroll down to and click on "flight theory" - and select "stability" you will find the conventional explanation of aircraft Stability. This is similar to the explanation you will find in most text books. Sorry to drag this thread off topic but I think it is important that student pilot (and other) readers are provided with access to the generally accepted view on stability. It is the explanation that is (or should be) given to all student pilots in their second (or so) lesson - Straight and Level. DWF

HITC. Directional stability is stability in YAW. Longitudinal stability is stability in PITCH. They are not the same! Please clarify your post.

Sounds like you are convening an EGM - and you know how much they cost!

Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect. - Captain A. G. Lamplugh

I do. Use one (or two [for dual and solo]) of the (usually) spare columns in your log book to record your RA-Aus time - it is all aeronautical experience. Include it in your total hours on each page. DWF

As a general rule I DO NOT recommend learning to fly on a tail-dragger. I have >1800 hours on tail-draggers and fly a C170 (amongst other types) and still enjoy the challenge and satisfaction of making a good 3 pointer or wheeler landing. I also agree that tailwheel training makes better pilots and demonstrates that the rudder pedals are not just footrests. Not using the rudder pedals properly is a common fault in students and needs to be given some attention early to make sure bad habits do not set in. However, I think that, as many (most?) of our learner pilots are of the more mature variety; taking learning to fly in easy steps is the best way to go. The extra challenge presented by learning to fly in a tailwheel aircraft can discourage students making the experience less enjoyable and possibly putting them off altogether. Once they have mastered tricycle U/C aircraft then move on to tailwheels. If, however, the student understands and is prepared to accept the extra challenge (and probably longer training time) then go for it! DWF

I gather this thread is about the content of Rod Birrell's President's Report. I have not received my September Sports Mag yet so don't know what he has said and what you guys are talking about. Very frustrating! DWF

G'day Don Thank you for all your work researching, preparing and presenting these amendments. It has been a good first step in revamping our association. I, too, was surprised that SR 5 regarding the Secretary Duties did not get up. It seemed to be a no brainer to me. Voter turnout, including proxies, was a bit disappointing at about 250 out of 9500 members - only 2.6% approx. Next time, a bit more notice and an opportunity for member debate of the resolutions before hand (plus a bit more lobbying) may produce more interest. Congratulations on getting 11 out of 15 SRs through. Keep up the good work. DWF

Merv I DID NOT say that "the poh is stating to approach at minimum speed for controllable flight" and I certainly DID NOT say that 60 knots is the normal approach speed for the J160. The POH (and I) said that VSO is the "Stalling Speed: or the minimum steady flight speed at which the aircraft is controllable in the landing configuration." I DID say that the POH states that VREF ...is "the airspeed equal to 1.3 x VSO and is the airspeed used on approach down to 50 feet". The POH also states that VREF in the J160 is 63 knots. I did also say that at reduced weight the aircraft's VSO would be lower and therefore VREF would be lower. A figure for VREF at 100kg below MTOW (540 kg) for the J160. i.e. at 440kg VREF would be just under 60kts. 100/540 = 18.5% less lift is required. Lift is proportional to V squared. The square root of 18.5% of 63kts (MTOW VREF) = 3.4kts approx less airspeed is required for VREF at the lower weight. [This is a quick and dirty method but is probably fairly close to the mark.] I have not tried to give anyone advice on flying a J160, I have merely stated what is in the POH. You seem to disagree with the speeds recommended in the POH in light of your experience on type. You may well be right to do so, especially for student pilots. I do not think this discussion is too far off thread as the pilot on this occasion seemed to be making a short field or precautionary landing to reduce his landing roll. DWF

From the official J160 POH: 1.6.2 General Airspeed Terminology and Symbols VREF Reference Landing Approach Speed: the airspeed equal to 1.3VSO and is the airspeed used on approach down to 50 feet above the runway when determining landing distances. VSO Stalling Speed: or the minimum steady flight speed at which the aircraft is controllable in the landing configuration. 4.2 SPEEDS FOR NORMAL OPERATION Landing Approach: VREF (Speed @ 50 ft) ................................... 63 KIAS 3.3.3 Precautionary Landing With Engine Power .............. 5. Wing Flaps ...............................................FULL ON FINAL APPROACH 6. Airspeed ...................................................60 KIAS 5.2.2 Stall Speeds ............. NOTE: Stalling speeds will reduce as weight is reduced. As I said in my post #43 above I do not profess to be a J160 expert, however the Jabiru J160 POH seems to confirm my general assertions. Contrary to to your statement above, Jabiru seem to think that VREF "is the airspeed used on approach..." Who do I believe? The POH or you? I agree that many people use speeds higher than recommended in the POH but that does not make what I have said incorrect. DWF