DWF

As these are 6 Special Resolutions (albeit voted on as one) they require a YES vote of 75% to pass (or a NO vote of 26% to fail). I agree that members should read the draft constitution and members' charter very carefully and decide if this is how you want your association to operate. If you don't like it vote NO - it is relatively simple to put revised (hopefully improved) documents to another general meeting, however it is much more difficult IMHO to amend the documents once they have been passed as they will start an almost irreversible process and incur significant workload and expense. If you do like it or think it (in its present form) is the way forward, vote YES. DWF

The only down side there is that at most schools you are paying student (supervised solo) rates. Once you get your PC you can hire at a lower rate to do the extra solo time.

What assurance is there that governance oversight by ASIC will be any better than that we have experienced with the ACT ORS? We would be a rather small fish in a much bigger pond. ASIC does not seem to have a particularly good track record pursuing the big boys - why would they worry about us - if they had the time? ASIC is experiencing significant financial constraints. In the news today - ASIC is to become self funding - this means 'user pays' and pays and pays. i.e. the cost will go up. I think there are probably better options than ACT ORS but is ASIC the right one for us? DWF

AOPA has 2,600 members RAAus has 10,000 members If just half the RAAus members joined AOPA 'we' would outnumber 'them' 2:1 Perhaps then the RAAus interests would prevail - We will even soon have 6 or so Board members looking for a job. DWF

I think the answer is yes. But you can, and probably should, nominate the chairman of the meeting (there has to be one) if you have directed your vote. If you nominate someone to vote on your behalf as they see fit they obviously they have to be physically present at the meeting to exercise their and your vote. DWF

G'day Kaz It is (or was 12months ago) bowser fuel at Warburton. Do not plan to stay overnight [or get anything to eat] there - it is the end of the Earth. Probably best to give them a phone call (number in ERSA). If you have any doubts I suggest you call Goldfields Air Services in Kalgoorlie. They have a flight out there almost every day and can give you the latest info. DWF

The VARIATION would not be a problem as you would be flying along the agonic line - the line of NO or zero magnetic variation. But it changes depending on where you are which is I guess why they call it variation. The DEVIATION of your compass could still be a problem and would have to be accounted for. DWF

G'day Kaz Be sure to call into Myrup Heights (just north of Myrup airstrip - YMYU) [Esperance] on your way home. We have airstrip and accommodation. PM me for details. Are you sure there is no AVGAS at Warburton? ERSA still says both AVTUR and AVGAS are available - with prior notice. It is a busy aviation hub and I would be surprised if you can't get AVGAS there any more. I don't think they have AVGAS at Cobra though. Have a great trip. DWF

I started (GA) flying in 1968 and it has always been a requirement or recommendation that private flights carry 45 min fixed reserve and commercial flights carry the 45 minutes fixed plus 15% variable reserve fuel. 45 minutes is a generally accepted but IMHO fairly arbitary figure. Helicopters are only required to carry 30min fixed reserve - I guess it is easier for them to find a place to land if things go pear shaped. The military can get away with a lot less! I have had no problem with carrying 45 min reserve in GA or RAAus aircraft and on a travel flight usually carry as much fuel as I legally can. You could adjust the amount of fuel (litres/weight) to a certain extent depending on the consumption rate you choose to use. e.g. 75% power high speed cruise rate as against 45% holding rate, etc. You can certainly do this when you have to carry 30 or 60 minutes extra holding. My concern is that if you use some of your reserve because of unforseen circumstances do you then get pinged (strict liability)? It seems to me that the whole purpose of the reserve is to cater for the unexpected but if it occurs and you use some of your reserve you become a criminal. Would common sense prevail? I don't think the current requirement is broken. Why try to 'fix' it? DWF

Keep that up and you are bound to have a quack up.

Which is precisely why, especially if we are to become a company, the Purpose of being for the benefit of members needs to be explicitly stated in the Purpose statement of the constitution. DWF

Don, you seem to be coming round to my way of thinking - at last. THAT should be the focus of the PURPOSE of RAAus [in our new constitution]. As you point out, RAAus has evolved over the time it has been in existance. A "Purpose" statement in the constitution along the above lines would not have hindered this evolution. I have had a look at the rules/constitution of the associations listed below (selected at random) and ALL indicate (in part at least) of existing for the benefit of Members. (I can forward extracts if you wish.) Royal Automobile Club of WA (800,000 members) Royal Aero Club of WA (>1,000 members) WA Council of Social Services (>300 organisations representing 515,000 members) CBH (Co-operative Bulk Handling) (1,000s of grain grower members) I ran out of time to chase up more examples but I am sure there are many more out there. DWF

If you can't figure it out from the docs, you shouldn't be trying to fly in CTA! It's part of the PPL test. Almost everyone stuffs it up occasionally. Remember ... ATCs tell pilots where to go.

G'day Don Thank you for the kind words in post #246. I will take your words to heart and send my thoughts to the CEO. I will also continue to post here from time to time as it sometimes produces interesting (although sometimes difficult to understand) responses. I have not had the time or opportunity to do this for myself yet but I expect I will find that there will be a broad spectrum of "Purposes" from the very broad (as you suggest) to the restrictively narrow. I believe that the "Purpose" statement in the proposed draft RAAus constitution is too broad. If one follows your logic then we should adopt one which says: . Purpose - to do anything we want. and as for the powers of the company: . Powers - to do anything the law will allow. This is placing an awful lot of trust and power in the hands of 5 to 7 individuals. The constitution should be a guiding document indicating what the organisation is set up to do and, in broad terms, how it can and should go about doing it. If the members of the organisation wish to change the direction (purpose) of the orgaisation there is (or should be) a process specified in the constituion whereby this can be achieved. Most RAAus members want the purpose of the organisation to be to enable them to build, maintain and/or fly light aircraft for fun - not set up a commercial paper aeroplane factory (for example). Agreed. And that is why I do not wish to give them cate blanch. "Power corrupts and absolute power, corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton. (I am not saying that we have this problem at the moment but your proposal would facilitate it.) The Purpose of the organisation needs to have some focus. The broader the focus the more thinly our resources are (or can be) spread. We also need to stipluate that that focus includes the aspirations of the members. You may be correct regarding the SAAA statement of purpose but I think it is closer to what we need than the waffelly one currently proposed. It is my contention that we should adopt a Purpose that states what we want to do now and in the foreseeable future and not cater for ALL possibilities. If our focus changes then the constitution can be ameded - as it has been done by RAAus and many other organisations is the past. That resolution didn't last very long, did it? DWF

I strongly disagree that getting the purpose statement correct is a non-issue. Everything you do after stating the purpose depends on what the purpose is. To get this statement correct we need to ask (and answer) the questions: Why does/should RAAus exist? i.e. what is its purpose. Why (apart from the current requirement to be a member if I wish to fly or register an ultralight aircraft) should I become a member? As a matter of interest and comparison the Purpose of the SAAA as stated in their rules is: "The purpose of the SAAA is to assist and mentor members to build, fly and maintain the aircraft of their choice legally and affordably in as safe a manner as possible through education and assistance from other members." It is probably not exactly what we need for our organisation but it does definitely and clearly have members as the focus of its purpose and is a lot closer to the statement we need than that currently proposed. To play devil's advocate - "The advancement of aviation" may not be in the best interests of the 95.10 fraternity. Increasing rules, regulations, retrictions and requirements brought about by "the advancement of aviation" clearly do not help those who wish to participate in aviation at the grass roots level. [While I have some sympathy for and support the 95.10 aviators, I am not advocating on their behalf here but merely pointing out that the proposed "Purpose" may not be purpose they would like the orgainsation to exist for.] I may be a bit old and slow but I find the currently proposed "Purpose" to be cumbersome, poorly worded and difficult to read and understand. I have had to read it a number of times to try to understand what it really says and means. Pauses to catch breath ....... DWF

Meanwhile, back at the constitution ...... What do you think of the proposed Object of the orgainsation? "6. Object The Company's object is to pursue the following purposes: a. The advancement of aviation in Australia including to take all actions howsoever connected with the design manufacture of all and any machine object, device and/or concept that relates directly or indirectly to the advancement of flight whether powered or otherwise whereby such flight is under the control, supervision or participation in any degree by human activity. b. To encourage training in the art and science of aviation piloting, operation, design, manufacture of aviation and/or space craft of whatsoever design and capability." This is at least shorter than the 9 paragarphs in the 'Statement of Purpose' in our current constituition but it is now perhaps too short, tries to cover everything conceivable in aviation and does not IMHO actually state what we are about. Where is any mention of the Members and their aspirations? It only mentions two purposese: a. The advancement of aviation; and b. To encourage training. While these are commendable purposes they are not what we are primarily about. The real purpose of our organisation is much closer to the Vision and Mission Statements in our Strategic Plan: Vision: "Safe, Accessible, Fun, Enjoyable Aviation (SAFE Aviation)" Mission: "Accessible, safe [affordable] aviation for all by being an industry leader in developing sport and recreational aviation for the fun and enjoyment of our members." [i put in the 'affordable'.] DWF

Under the CARs and CASRs ALL Australian aircraft are required to be registered by/with CASA; however the various versions of CAO 95 grant exemptions from the CARs/CASRs for certain ultralight aircraft and are entitled to and do specifiy the conditions under which those exemptions apply. One of those conditions is that aircraft subject to CAO 95 are registered with RAAus.

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 11.160 What exemptions can be granted under this Division (1) For subsection 98(5A) of the Act, CASA may, by instrument, grant an exemption under this Division from compliance with: (a) a provision of these Regulations; or (b) a provision of a Civil Aviation Order; in relation to a matter mentioned in that subsection. (2) CASA may grant an exemption under this Division to a person, or to a class of persons, and may specify the class by reference to membership of a specified body or any other characteristic. (3) CASA may grant an exemption under this Division either on application or on its own initiative. Note 1: For the application of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 to an instrument granting an exemption under this Division, see subsections 98(5AA), (5AB), (5B) and (5BA) of the Act. Note 2: For review of a decision refusing to grant an exemption under this Division, see regulation 201.004. Note 3: Despite the repeal of regulation 308 of CAR, an exemption granted under that regulation before 27 June 2011 continues to have effect on and after 27 June 2011 according to its terms--see subregulation 202.011(2). ........................... I, JOHN FRANCIS McCORMICK, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under subregulation 308 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988. [signed John F. McCormick] John F. McCormick Director of Aviation Safety 6 April 2011 Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Instrument 2011 1 Name of instrument This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Instrument 2011. 2 Commencement This instrument commences on the day after it is registered. 3 New Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Civil Aviation Order 95.55 is repealed and a new Civil Aviation Order 95.55 is substituted as set out in Schedule 1. Schedule 1 Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Exemption from provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — certain ultralight aeroplanes ....................... [i have no legal training and may be wrong but] From my reading of the CARs, CASRs and CAOs, etc. CASA has (as one would expect) all the legislative bases covered regarding the legality of the CAO 95.55 and others affecting RAAus. DWF

Quango: Quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization, an organization or agency that receives funding from a government but is able to act independently. Quango: a semi-public government-financed administrative body whose members are appointed by the government. ……………………………………………. CASA's role The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) was established on 6 July 1995 as an independent statutory authority. Under section 8 of the, Civil Aviation Act 1988, CASA is a body corporate separate from the Commonwealth. CASA's primary function is to conduct the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australia and the operation of Australian aircraft overseas. It is also required to provide comprehensive safety education and training programmes, cooperate with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and administer certain features of Part IVA of the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959. The Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, made under authority of the Civil Aviation Act, provide for general regulatory controls for the safety of air navigation. The Civil Aviation Act and CAR 1988 empower CASA to issue Civil Aviation Orders on detailed matters of regulation. The CASRs 1998 empower CASA to issue Manuals of Standards which support CASR by providing detailed technical material. From the CASA web site: https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/about-casa ……………………………….. The CASA structure appears to be very similar to that of RAAus and most other bodies corporate in that it has a Board (in this case appointed by the Government), a CEO (appointed by the Board, I think) and an administrative hierarchy which implements the directives of the Board and CEO in accordance with the Act (constitution).

I agree that our representative organisation (in whatever form) should do all this. However RAAus (and its membership) is a different kettle of fish. For a start SSA does not have to regulate, licence or control its members. SSA members in general are probably more passionate and concerned about their sport as far as their awareness of and sensitivity to public opinion is concerned. This is also true. I think member apathy is one of our biggest problems. In a previous post I bemoand the lack of opportuity for debate on this (or any other) RAAus topic; and the lack of people participating in this forum. There is, for the most part, also a dirth of positive or alternative suggestions - most posts seem to be criticisms. Reasoned debate can disagree with or counter ideas without trying to shoot the messenger. It is not just Board members who can and should find the need for constitutional change. In fact, if you look at recent RAAus history, you will see that it was non-Board members who instigated constitutional change. I think that presenting a draft completely new constitution for public (member) comment is jumping the gun a bit when there has been no information provided or consensus sought on what options are available and which direction we should head. Drafting a good constitution is not a simple matter (I have done more than one). You should at least get some agreement on the basics before putting all that work into the detail. I guess what I am trying to do is generate a bit more interest in this constitutional reform. How do we overcome the general apathy. This is a very imporant step in the evolution of RAAus. What is decided and put in place here will guide the organisation for a long while to come (I hope). DWF

Oh No! Now look what you have done Turbs ...... You have 'P'ed Gandalf off.

Thought bubble for RAAus structure ...... As I see it RAAus is now a two headed beast (or monster if you prefer). On the one hand the association is to advocate on behalf of members, promote recreational aviation in all its forms, organise social and educational events for members and provide a forum for members views and interests. On the other hand we must be an adminsitrative and regulatory body that controls pilot certification and aircraft registration and regulates the activities of recreational flyers. Sometimes (often, you say?) these two functions are at odds with each other. A struture that would accommodate these two disparate functions would be to have: 1. an association similar to the current one with a committee (which could be relatively large) that undertook the first listed functions; and then 2. a wholy owned subsidiary limited company that undertook the admin and regulatory functions with its own board of suitably qualified directors. The association would set the policy/strategic direction of the organisation and charge the directors of the company with implementing it within the bounds of legal requirements and good governance. The down side of this arrangement would be the additional cost and infrastructure in running, in effect, two organisations. Also it may be possible that people would have to pay for pilot certificates and aircraft registrations but would not necessarily need to be members of the association. If this were the case the association may lose some income but more importantly members and therefore political clout. The up side would be that individual members of the association would potentially have more direct say in the running of the association and its direction. Do you think this would work? DWF

G'day Don "Nil Carborundum Illigitimi" (Don't let the bastards grind you down.) I, for one, greatly value your contribution to RAAus and this forum. If no-one raised their head and stated point of view the critics would have nothing to criticise. Your reasoned, (usually) logical and well thought out arguments add greatly to the debate(s). While I might not agree with your point of view at times (although I usually do) I respect it and sometimes use it to fine tune my own. ............................... I think it is a pity that this is the only place (forum) where RAAus members (and others) can debate changes to the RAAus structure and constitiution. (I know we can send our ideas and thoughts to the CEO and President but rarely does one get a response and (in my experience) never a debate.) I don't think a new constitution can/will be accepted by many members if it is presented in a take it or leave it document without at least some form of meaningfull consultation, justification and hopefully debate. Also, there is no point in arguing the fine points of each clause if there is no agreement that the topic should be amended. There are some big questions to be decided before you get down to the niggy gritty. For instance: Does RAAus become a company limited by guarantee, move to an incorporated association in a jurisdiction deemed to be more benign or stay as we are in the ACT? I am of the view that we should become a Company Ltd but I am sure there are other opinions. Similarly with the number of Board members. Reduce to 7 or stay at 13. This also brings up the question of the relevance of Regional representation as a way of selecting Board candidates. My view (as already expressed several times) is that the number of Board members should be reduced to 5 or 7 and regional selection of candidates should be scrapped in favour of opening the field to any and all suitable candidates. Then we must decide on the definition of a suitable candidate. In my opinion the process of restructuring RAAus should be broken down into a series of logical steps where the content of each step depends on the decision(s) made in the previous step. This sounds a bit anal (even to me) but it would be a process whereby the outcome should be a solution acceptable to most if not all. End of waffle (for now). DWF

I agree. The 'Explanatory document for members' says: "Voting at General Meetings There is no material change to the way that votes are conducted at general meetings. Members may still appoint proxies, a poll may be called by members at the meeting and each member holds only one vote." I can find no metion of postal voting in the draft constitution. "Clause 31. How voting is carried out" does not mention postal voting. "31.1© another method chosen by the Chairman that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances." Would not be usable for postal voting as a postal vote requires that the ballot be organised and taken before the meeting. Postal voting has its problems, not the least of which is cost, but it may provide a better means of determining (more widespread) member opinion than a general meeting attended by a very few members. (A quorum is 20 members but only 5 must be physically present. The rest can be proxies!). In some ways appointing a proxy can achieve the same result as a postal vote if it is done correctly. However it requires a lot more work on the part of the member appointing the proxy. Maybe some form of electronic voting could be devised and included in the constitution. Members watche the meeting (live) via the internet and votes on resolutions using their personally assigned code - again, via the internet. I think this part of the document (constitution) needs more thought to get it right. DWF

Don You seem to be saying that we should not be contacting Board members. The staff are, of course, the best people to contact for admin, ops and tech matters, however the Board and its members are responsible for and directly influence the policy and direction of our association and it is they with whom we should be communicating about such matters (e.g. the new constitution). The staff are of no help here and should not be. Therefore a readily accessable list of Board member contact details should be available to members both in Sport Pilot and on the web site. DWF