DWF

How about Amberly?

You asked for it ..... [My comments are in italics.] Document Set 2.1 The document hierarchy consists of: (a) the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act); (b) relevant Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs); © the Manual of Standards (MOS); and (d) Advisory Circulars (ACs). 2.2 The Act establishes the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) with functions relating to civil aviation, in particular the safety of civil aviation and for related purposes. 2.3 CASRs establish the regulatory framework (Regulations) within which all service providers must operate. 2.4 The MOS comprises specifications (Standards) prescribed by CASA, of uniform application, determined to be necessary for the safety of air navigation. In those parts of the MOS where it is necessary to establish the context of standards to assist in their comprehension, the sense of parent regulations has been reiterated. 2.5 Readers should understand that in the circumstance of any perceived disparity of meaning between MOS and CASRs, primacy of intent rests with the regulations. 2.6 Service providers must document internal actions (Rules) in their own operational manuals, to ensure the maintenance of and compliance with standards. 2.7 ACs are intended to provide recommendations and guidance to illustrate a means, but not necessarily the only means of complying with the Regulations. ACs may explain certain regulatory requirements by providing interpretive and explanatory materials. It is expected that service providers will document internal actions in their own operational manuals, to put into effect those, or similarly adequate, practices. Civil Aviation Orders support the CARs 1988 (Civil Aviation Regulations). They will be progressively removed as we move to the CASRs 1998.[CAOs were used to amplify the intent and means of complying with the CARs.] [So you can expect that some time in the future CAO 95 will be replaced by one or more CASRs.] AC21-41(0) is the Advisory Circular showing how CASR 21 Subpart H can be complied with. CASR Part 21 subpart H deals with "Certificates of airworthiness (except provisional certificates of airworthiness) and special flight permits." [Including Light Sport Aircraft] You can see AC21-41(0) at http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c41.pdf As you can see it is all a bit of a can of worms but basically Advisory Circular 21-41(0) explains (?) the requirements of CASR 21H and how one can comply with them. Here endeth the lesson. Still confused? .... oh well, I did my best. DWF

Sign displayed at a Met Briefing Office some years ago: "This is a non-prophet organisation!" DWF

Curses! Foiled again. Anon

This looks like a jewel of a duel over a duel that should have been a dual. There are quite a few four letter words that can get you into trouble DWF

'Rusty' has caused the rain here. Usually it is the other way around DWF

The question was: "What defines Ultralight V. LSA?" Ultralight aircraft are defined in the various versions of CAO 95. They must have a MTOW not greater than 600kg, carry a maximum of 2 people and meet certain performance criteria. Basically a LSA (Light Sports Aircraft) is a particular category of Ultralight as defined in AC21-41(0) [see Post #12]. A LSA is distinguished by its manufacture and certification rather than its performance (although LSAs must also meet certain performance criteria). LSAs must not be modified without the certifier's approval. In a nutshell, without all the fine print. Does that help? DWF .

I agree with Ian's original concept here - an Instructor only forum. "...some form of proof of having an Instructor Rating ..." could be via RAAus member number. The RAAus web site lists (presumably all) CFIs, SIs, and Instructors. It would mean a certain amount of loss of anonymity but it would only be to the site administrator and I don't see that as a bad thing anyway. Perhaps a poll would be in order, with a question such as "For INSTRUCTORS only! Would you like to have an Instructor Only forum on this site?" With answers 'Yes', 'No' or 'Maybe'. This may elicit some responses by non-instructors but would, I hope, give some indication of the demand. OR, just set up the Instructor Only forum and see how it goes. [in other words, stop messing about and do something about it. ] DWF

I am very much in favour of a forum for Instructors. A couple of topics that come to mind are: * the Ops Manual update (or lack thereof), * the training syllabus (what needs to be changed/added/deleted?), * problem students, * training records, etc. On balance I think it would be better if it were an instructor only forum, particularly when discussing problem students and student problems - so that they are not able to identify themselves (or think they do) and get angry/discouraged/disappointed, etc. I have thought for some time that it would be a good idea for there to be a way for RAAus instructors to get together to discuss training issues. My thought was to suggest an instructor forum/workshop/seminar at Natfly and possibly also organised at regional centres. I also think that a more formal approach to instructor training and standardisation through RAAus is in order. There does not seem to be much guidance from that quarter at the moment. For one thing, there is no syllabus and very little guidance on instructor training in the Ops Manual (or elsewhere in RAAus literature(?)). David

Maybe they already have enough of these. DWF

How about Esperance. No CTA, no big hills, very few pollies (and some are pilots), good weather, quite a long way from most places but a lot closer to REALITY than Canberra. DWF

The next General Meeting will be at Natfly on Sat 30th March. That is in 45 days. If my interpretation of the constitution is correct any notices of motion(s) to be presented at the GM need to be advised to members at least 14 days before the meeting. If you allow 7 days for the printing and dissemination of the notice that means we have about 24 days to get the motions sorted out and sent to members. [i know that motions can be put from the floor of the meeting but if you want all members to be given an opportunity to vote on an issue they need to know what it will be.] If such a notice is to be included in the next edition of the magazine it is probably almost too late already. DWF .

OK It seems to me that not a lot was achieved at the meeting to getting our problems fixed. We all (or at least many of us) know that there are serious problems with the administration and governance of our Association. We have even been able to fairly clearly define most (some?) of them. The only group that can do anything about the problems is the Board and Executive; We, the members, cannot do anything directly to fix the problems, except lean on the Board. The Executive/Board have acknowledged that there may "be some problems" and they "may have made some mistakes" and "we will try harder next time" but, as far as I can ascertain, they have not set any goals or made any promises to fix any of the problems. I would like the Board to devise and publish a plan which: 1. Lists each problem 2. Lists a solution to each problem 3. Says what they are going to do about implementing the solution to each problem 4. Gives a timeline for the solution of each problem. If they can't do that then the members should prepare the plan and instruct the Board to implement it. DWF .

Leakage should always be a major concern. Any retailer will tell you that it is (or should be) easier and cheaper to retain customers (or members) than to get new ones. That is why there are all these loyalty programs and other strategies to retain customers. Find out why they are "leaking" and plug the hole (if possible) ! Spend a few dollars to keep the current customers (members) happy. They will stay, and hopefully encourage their friends to join also! DWF

Can anyone provide the exact wording of the motions passed at the meeting? Or do we have to wait until the minutes are published? Has anyone set any goals or targets to be achieved by, say, Natfly? Maybe we will see some set at the Board meeting today. DWF .

How many members were at the meeting? What (if anything) happens next? What motions are to be put at the Natfly GM? DWF

The audit report is now on the RA-Aus web site. Disturbing reading. It confirms that there has been gross mismanagement in dealing with the deficiencies identified by the audit. But we knew that anyway - didn't we. DWF

See .... it's getting bigger already. DWF .

Or you can look up the frequencies at many aerodromes in ERSA - http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/aip.asp?pg=40&vdate=7-Mar-2013&ver=2 If you have an iPad or iPhone have you tried OzRunways?

... or forums.

"Are we losing our heritage??" No. I don't think so. RAA and the regs still allow people to build their own basic aircraft. Fortunately there are still some people out there who want to build and fly these machines whether due to nostalgia or economics. But most people, including or maybe especially aviation enthusiasts, will admire and compliment these efforts but will not want to fly them on a regular basis. Our pioneers were experimenters and builders always trying to find a better (economical?) way of going further, higher and faster. What we have not is the result of their efforts. The automobile scene also has a wonderful heritage with enthusiasts who keep the history and old machines alive but there are not many who now days want to do their daily drive (for business or pleasure) in a 1910 Rolls Canardly (rolls down hill and can ardly get up the other side:laugh: ). RAAus can and should cater for anyone who wants to fly safely and economically. It cannot and should not be just for those who want to get "back to basics" and hanker for "the good old days". Maybe you could look at it as we are the pioneers working towards better, safer, faster, etc. flying machines and experiences for future generations. [if we ever get RAA governance issues sorted .] DWF .

Or, as my mother used to say, "I'm not often wrong, but I'm right this time." DWF

It is not the Board's job to "do the CEO's job for him". It is the Board/Exec's job to make sure the CEO has a comprehensive and appropriate duty statement and then make sure that the CEO does his job properly [throw in a few KPIs here]. DWF

The approval is in CAR 252A: "252A Emergency locator transmitters (1) The pilot in command of an Australian aircraft that is not an exempted aircraft may begin a flight only if the aircraft: (a) is fitted with an approved ELT: (i) that is in working order; and (ii) whose switch is set to the position marked ‘armed’, if that switch has a position so marked; or (b) carries, in a place readily accessible to the operating crew, an approved portable ELT that is in working order. ...... (6) To be an approved portable ELT, an eligible ELT must meet the following requirements: (a) it must be portable; (b) it must be of one of the following types: (i) an emergency position indicating radio beacon of a type that meets the requirements of AS/NZS 4280.1:2003; (ii) a personal locator beacon of a typethat meets the requirements of AS/NZS 4280.2:2003; ....." And must be registered with AMSA. You can find the CARs here: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012C00622/Html/Volume_3#_Toc334537047 CAR 252A is in Part 14 Division 3 DWF