JohnMcK

Andy, I and some others proposed we move the 2011 AGM to a Saturday so there could be more member participation. We also encouraged many members to attend. We had the best result for Canberra ever. Having the AGM on a Friday afternoon in Canberra as in years past had very poor attendance. From memory some years only had MaxB. and Ken M. Present, apart from the Board themselves, and staff. Occasionally we had some visitors. You could get exact numbers from old minutes. You would need to discount the Board, staff and visitors to get the actual total of ordinary members. You could count them on one hand. John McK

Hi Guys, The Board voting system is just great. You have the option to cast a secret vote, but most don't. Most times a Board member will give an explanation of why they voted the way they did, which gives the others an insight into their reasoning. There is also an option to change your vote in the seven days should you reconsider after getting more information for instance. Yes sometimes people change their vote after considering the logic of a different point of view. The whole aim is to get the best outcome. If you are the type of person who does not want anyone to know how they voted on different issues, you should not seek a Board position. As an area Rep you should be independent, open and proud of how you voted. Your actions should also be fully transparent to the members in your area as to how you cast your vote. My opinion on this matter goes even further. I believe your local members have a right to know how their Rep voted on all matters. I believe members should receive a full list of all board motions, and that list include not just pass, fail, but list how each member voted. Without full transparency you will never get accountability. John McK

Hi Turbo, As far as I am aware there was no second advice obtained by anyone. Posted on the Board Forum was the original legal advice from the JG incident for Board Member information. I have already made mention about this above. No one was "excluded" from the vote. Voting is open for a full seven days to allow participation of all Board members. If members vote early and a majority is achieved then the vote is carried. In theory, you could have a vote result within half a minute or so of the vote being posted if a majority voted quickly. Or it could be a full seven days before a result could be declared. John McK

Hi JG As far as I am aware that resolution still stands, but as I lost all my files in the Brisbane flood I can't be sure of the exact wording. If the wording was not to except a resignation withdrawal, then this Resolution should have been rescinded first, before the vote was cast. Yes, I consider it legal. The vote was properly conducted. A majority of the Board voted to accept Steve Runciman's withdrawal of his resignation. For information purposes the Board vote is Yes, No, Abstain. It is optional secret voting in that you can just vote, or you can give an explanation of how you voted and why you voted that way. Proper procedure was perhaps not followed. Eg. Vote to rescind the old resolution (if it is as I remember it). Then Vote to except the withdrawal of resignation of the NQ Rep. (SR not only resigned as President but as NQ Rep. There was legal advice to say this could be done). Then vote for SR to fill the vacant President's position. Riverduct. You sent your letter to the wrong person. Steve Tizzard is the CEO. he does not get involved in politics. He can not reply to your questions, except to say he has received your correspondence. You must direct political or policy questions to your local Board Member and the Executive. John McK

Hi All, Tonight I was asked by one of the members about a vote to accept Steve Runciman's withdrawal of resignation. I told this person I knew nothing about the vote. The normal process when there is a Board vote is to email and/or phone all members to tell them there is a vote so they can go to the Board forum. Apparently I was missed this time. It happens. I logged on to the Board Forum just now and there was indeed a formal vote. There were also extracts from the legal opinion the Board received after the JG matter. (There was not a new legal opinion). I remembered this bit of legal advice. "Once done it is done" However there was also advice that in the event of a withdrawal of resignation the Board could vote to either accept or reject the withdrawal. A Proper Board vote was held and the majority of the Board has voted to accept the withdrawal. I voted no, but my vote had no relevance. Jim is correct in his post above. Until my vote tonight there were no, NO votes. A majority had been achieved before I voted. Mine was just a token vote. I must now accept the majority decision. Steve Runciman has been voted back as President. John McK

Hi Guys The Board meeting this Friday has been cancelled John McK

Hi All, I believe one serious issue facing RAA is lack of transparency, and lack of member information. So let me stop any rumours right now, and give some clarification. Kiwi's post above was an email sent to him as Vice President of a local club in my area. It was for club information only, and perhaps should not have been posted on this forum. The President and some Board members have been extremely critical about this information becoming public. My belief is the Resignation of our President, and a subsequent withdrawal is extremely important and must be communicated to the membership. You the membership, must make up your own mind on this. I have not released the Resignation email itself to anyone. I am seeking advice on the contents of the resignation email.. The Facts. - On 25/11/12 at 18.30 I sent an email to the Board telling them of my efforts to try to get the GM postponed to February, not just as a cost saving benefit, but also as the delay would let tempers cool as I believe decisions made in haste or anger, are often poor decisions. At the end of the email I made the statement the President no longer had my support (over other internal issues), but he could cement the support of the others. I also said that with perhaps a slight attitude change, SR would get more member participation in some of the discussions. Steve Runciman took real offence at this email, and it appears to me it was this email that caused his resignation. Now let me state here publicly, Steve Runciman is an extremely hard worker for the Association, and is one person who really does what he believes is in the best interests of the Association. He is not on the Board for ulterior motives. But in my personal opinion he often acts before thinking, and he won't accept any different view and will attack the messenger and not the issue. Now please be aware this is entirely my opinion. Steve Runciman has the total support of the majority of the Board. I am the odd one out here. My views differ from some of the others, in that I believe as the elected representative for South Queensland (one of three) my duty is first and foremost to represent the majority view of those in my area, and keep them informed of what is happening inside the Association, even if it means I am isolated and alone. This is not to say my view on this is right and others wrong. It is just different. It is up to the membership to vote in as their Rep one who will represent the majority view in their particular area. The members can choose someone who will toe the "party line" (term used loosely) or be their own person and act independently. It is your choice. On 26/11/12 at 2.55 pm Steve Runciman wrote a resignation email (Resigning as President and as Nth Qld Rep) to the Secretary, with a copy to the Board. " ..... To that end, please accept this e-mail as official notification of my resignation as President and as the North Queensland board member for RA-Aus" In it he was extremely critical of me (perhaps bordering on defamation) I did not immediately inform the members of the resignation as SR had stated he was going to post his Resignation later that afternoon on the RAA web site. It is just common courtesy to allow the President to inform the general membership first. I decided to wait until next day before informing the members in my local area. 27/11/12 at 5.43 am Steve Runciman sent an email to the secretary with a copy to the Board, asking the Secretary for permission to withdraw the Resignation. I have heard some claim SR was just game playing, but my personal view is he likely acted in anger and haste, and regretted pressing the send button after the fact. I do not know this as fact, it is only an opinion. SR is the only person who would know. During the day SR received a number of emails of total support from other Board members. As for the legality of the withdrawal? - I do not know. A precedent has been set with a former Presidential resignation, and advice at the time was all dependent on the wording of the resignation letter. From memory, if the resignation was "offered" it could be rejected or accepted by the Board, but if stated as fact, e.g. I resign, then it could not be withdrawn. This a legal area and one I am staying well away from. At the time of writing this, there has been no notification from the Secretary to the Board as to whether he accepted or rejected the resignation, or allowed a retraction. Here again this is a legal area and I do not know if the Secretary has the power or it is a full Board matter. My personal view is the Board needs a written legal opinion on this matter, particularly in view of the Precedent being set some years ago. Added later - Another issue that needs clarification is, if you resign from your region, can the Board accept a retraction, or is this a matter for the region itself? - I don't know. Look Guys, politics, by its very nature is a nasty business. Many things have and will be said and done in anger and on the spur of the moment. Particularly in stressful times like we have at the moment. That is just human nature. Was I really offended by statements made by SR against me in his resignation letter? - You bet I was. Will I get over it? - I already have. Regards John McK 29/11/12 - Post updated slightly for better clarification and to stop speculation and rumours.

Hi Turbo, I asked the President today if he had received the formal CASA Audit report yet. He said no. CASA can sometimes take some time, as I understand it, they run a lot of stuff through their legal people first. There are a lot of people putting in a great effort to fix things, and I am fully aware our distributors and manufactures are hurting big time, and I really feel for them. All I know at this stage is our paperwork and procedures were not up to scratch. Were CASA nit picking? I really don't know, but I can understand they would have, by this stage, demanded zero tolerance of any errors. Cheers, John McK

Hi All, Some clarification. We failed four audits in a row, not three. The Board is yet to see the CASA report on the last CASA audit, so I can't make official comment. I do know some unofficial reasons from a private chat with CASA. We are currently waiting for the Ex to release the report to the full Board. Although the Board do only meet two times a year officially, most also meet at Natfly unofficially and there is a very good communication system via the Board forum and Board email process. Full Board communication is often done on a daily basis, with numerous emails going back and forward. As for more official Board meetings, well you people DO call the shots. If the majority want more Board meetings then it will be done. However you must look at the cost benefit basis. You, the members will end up paying for it in higher fees. My personal view is the extra cost would not outweigh the benefit. Another option is to reduce the Board size and have more meetings so the overall cost remains the same. This would mean a change from State based representation to zone based representation. Once again it is you the Membership that has the final say. If that is what the majority want, then that is what will happen. Same for fixed terms. If the majority want fixed terms, then you can have that. But please read again Turbo's post above about forcing out the good. Wouldn't it be better to vote out the bad? One of our big issues is lack of communication. This works both ways. You guys must keep in contact with your local Rep. This keeps him/her accountable and you informed. If you don't like the answers and communication you get, then vote them out. Don't now say "But that is another two years away". You people now have the power to easily call a GM and vote them out in a month. Let me state yet again. This is your Association. You people (the Members) have all the power. You just need to use it. John McK

Hi All, I have already written to Don about this, but will post it here as the Mail Out has gone out universally. The last paragraph on the mail out from the Reform Group concerns me. "NOTE: Signing this requisition for a meeting form does not require you to attend the meeting. It is only an indication that you support the calling of the meeting. Failure to return the form immediately, will indicate that you do not have the interests of our Association at heart and could ultimately lead to the erosion of your current hard fought privileges." Don, and others in the Reform Group, will be aware of my stand on Honesty, Transparency, and Accountability in RAA, and Don and some others will also be aware of what I get back when I speak out about contentious issues, such as the Baker incident, Lismore matter, Secrecy, Problems in the office, (just as a small example.) However this bit above guys is pure verbal bullying of the Members. Don, I, and others in RAA have been on the receiving end of stuff like this. But two wrongs do not make a right. To the Reform Group. - Guys I support so much of what you are aiming to achieve. Please don't spoil it. John McK Update. My mistake. I thought this was a full mail out to all RAA members from the Reform Group. The paragraph I have written about above was added on to the bottom of an email by one club, and only to their members. -- Sorry Guys.

Hi All, As I said previously, "It is a very ill wind that blows no good" Although this matter has been very Traumatic, I can see many positives that can come out of this, if we seek them. Yes it has been a huge wake up call. Not a gentle shake, more a hammer to the head. But we deserved it. Make no mistake, the major blame falls on the Board itself. Myself and the other eleven Board members. (There is one vacancy in Vic) We were elected to manage the business (Association) on your behalf, and to have failed all these audits, and had all those groundings etc, means we have failed you. The positives are we have the potential to emerge much stronger, with cutting edge procedures and systems for our paperwork. The membership is now taking much more interest in how their Association is run, and ideally they will now have more contact with their local Rep. More contact with your Rep means more communication, both ways, and less rumours and more transparency. Hopefully more persons will nominate for Board positions, and most important, more Members will hopefully read the election statements of the candidates, make an informed decision, and actually vote. If you don't hold us accountable, we will not hold accountable those down the line. On the Technical side, we will gain a much clearer understanding of all our aircraft types and in particular LSA. We will come to understand the fine lines of compliance with these aircraft, and we should not make any more Registration mistakes. John McK

Hi All, The President has just informed the Board that CASA have lifted the ban on Registration renewals. New registrations are still subject to the ban but we are working through the issues. The President also stated he is having trouble updating our web site, and this information will be posted as soon as the technical difficulties are overcome. I am sure this a big relief to all of us. John McK

Hi Guys, I have had so many phone calls today and heard so many rumours my head is spinning. Seriously, each of you have an area representative, so if you are not sure of something ask your local Rep, their contact details are in the front of our magazine. Our issues are we have failed another CASA audit. Paperwork and procedures we were suppose to fix after the previous audits was not up to scratch. CASA are just doing their job, and we need to lift our game and get our house and paperwork in order. One big issue is the sheer number and complexity of aircraft types we administer, and our staff have some difficulty in correctly identifying the correct "boxes to tick". Foreign LSA are causing us a particular problem due to the numbers of type and the complexities of the paperwork required, and the strict procedures to be followed to be allowed to be registered LSA in Australia. We are in the process of employing a special consultant, acceptable to CASA, to help us put in place proper procedures, checks and staff training. No, we did not have three consultants forced on to us at $200 per hour each by CASA, as I heard 6 times today. And NO, all aircraft will not be grounded next week. I have it direct from CASA personally that they want us to succeed, but they are the Regulator, and you can be sure there is serious pressure on them as well. If in doubt, have another look at our current legal case document. Paul Middelton (Secretary and NSW Rep), due to his knowledge and experience, is working overtime with the President and staff to get our house in order, and with the consultant they are working on procedures and a system of checks that will give CASA confidence that we can get on top of this problem. I doubt there is any other country in the world that has anywhere near the sheer number of types and variants in aircraft that we have in RAA Australia. So we have to design unique systems from the ground up. Remember, every time there is an incident or accident, the authorities come straight for the paperwork. We have to get it right. What we thought in the past would be acceptable, particularly for LSA registration, we now find this is not the case. Also, we are now over 10,000 strong, and we get our share of those who will misrepresent, cheat and lie to register an aircraft out of spec, so we have to checks on checks for these as well. We will get it right, (and soon) and be far stronger and more proficient and professional from this exercise in the future. (It is a very ill wind ......) John McK

Well said Turbo, I have been talking the dangers of member apathy for years, but it has fallen on deaf ears as most members "just want to fly". - Well without a well run and effective Association they will not fly. As is shown above. RAAus is an Association of members with flying privileges, and these privileges come with responsibilities. The general membership must embrace these responsibilities and become involved in the running of their Association. As well as asking questions, and demanding answers from the Board, they must nominate for a board position if they are able (to give something back), and above all vote in the Board elections. Just count up the number of current Board positions where there was no vote. Some long standing Board members have never had to face a vote. If you do not vote for, or question your local Member, human nature being what it is, the Member will do their own thing, the rules of the constitution and proper procedure will not be followed, and they almost certainly, will not represent the views and wishes of the majority of their constituents. If this gross member apathy continues there will be no flying for those who "just want to fly". Re the recent actions of CASA. - CASA are just doing their job as the regulator. - As they should. - It is the RAA that is not doing it right. Regards, John McK

Andy there are 13 Board members each with different views, sometimes there is an imbalance, (from memory, at one time 10 of the 13 were instructors.) Currently there appears to be a good balance. But you are the guys who elect us. You guys, the general membership, choose the composition of the Board. If the majority of the Board fly expensive plastic there will naturally be a bias towards that end of aviation, and if all are rag and tube the bias will be towards that end. The hope is you get a Board who will put personal bias aside and work for the betterment of all Rec. Aviation. Re your questions. Time yes, but expense, not really. Some in the past pushed hard for 760 kg as a natural progression and growth path, but currently most are now happy with 600kg. As we grow 760kg will most probably come back. Who knows in 100 years time we may have 5,000kg and multi engine miniature turbines, perhaps even Mach 2 approvals. And our 10 million members will have even more differences of opinion. CTA itself is not a priority at the moment, but transition approval is. (On safety grounds. Eg Coffs, M.Dor, Coolie etc) Those who really want CTA should get a PPL, and with a current medical, and approved engine can fly numbered aircraft into CTA right now. One thing you need to understand is human nature of those in power. It is a fact of life that money and numbers "talk". 10,000 odd members gives far more serious leverage than, say 200. Also you have economies of scale. There are fixed costs that must be met and these get cheaper on a unit basis as the numbers increase. Also with a large membership we are not only able to get good deals like insurance, but able to better fight those who wish to do us harm. Do you think councils would dare shut down those recent airfields if a vote swinging number of vocal pilots lived in the electorate? If we had 500,000 members across Australia right now we could shift the balance of power and vote out those pollies who would do us harm. Re the rag and tube. I am one of those, and believe we have advanced for the better. Remember it was not all that long ago where we were restricted to a maximum height of 300 feet and couldn't fly across a road. It was also forbidden to have 2 seat training aircraft. The instructor talked through the flight process and sent the student off solo to practice. No wonder we had a high fatality rate. Here came "civil disobedience" with condoned direct flouting of the rules and illegal dual instruction to reduce the death rate. Not too many would want to go back to that. As we grow I do see a stage where perhaps we will have sufficient numbers to form sub groups. Eg, Real ultralights, perhaps seaplanes, and of course weight shift. They would look after their own kind and come together under one umbrella. But you are the guys who will make these decisions, not us. That is something many on this site seem to forget. You have an opinion and a vote. Use it and make it count. Vote for those who will not only represent the views of the majority, but look after the minorities as well. It is your call. Cheers, John McK

Hi Alan, We are aware we had a problem here. Apart from deliberate action to not register, we also had issues with unintended lapse of registration. People change address and don't inform the office, occasionally AP loses mail, and sometimes people get the renewal and the follow up, but just forget. To help overcome these issues we introduced car type rego. stickers that are dated and must be displayed in a position viewable from outside the aircraft. But just as some people drive around in unregistered cars, and without a licence, there will be those who do similar actions in aviation. That is life. Thankfully it is much rarer in Aviation. Cheers John McK

Hi Turbo, Some clarification. ATSB "owns" all accidents and incidents and it will pick and choose which ones it investigates. I personally would like to see them do all fatals, but they have budget constraints and only investigate those which it feels can provide learning. Sometimes it is directed to do high profile accidents by political pressure. Re RAAus. If ATSB declines to investigate, it is passed to the police and although an RAAus Investigator may do the work his report is handed to the police and then on to the Coroner. It is the Coroner who releases the report, and yes I know this can take years and is unsatisfactory. I personally would like to see our investigators working under ATSB control and supervision. We could do the work and hand the report to ATSB and they could release a prelim. like they do now. But we can only lobby and hope. Cheers John McK

Hi Mr Bull First I am also rag and tube trained back in the old days, (member 4838) and love the Drifters, also coming from the old AUF I share some of your concerns, but Recreational Aviation is for all types of flyers sharing a common goal. Re RAAus. CASA is the regulator, not us. We self administer certain types of aircraft under CASA's direction and authority. In your example above say the guy belonged to the Bowen Bull Automobile Club. All you could do as President is kick him out of the club. If his membership had expired many months ago you could do nothing. Same with us. CASA or the Police will bring charges, should they choose. RAAus has no power to bring charges itself, but on occasion we have petitioned CASA or the Police to do so on our behalf. Perhaps this could change in the future and the Government give us the power and authority to bring charges (Like the RSPCA) but I personally would not like to see this happen. The same applies to all the other Rec. people. If someone goes parachuting or gliding without the correct qualifications those bodies can terminate membership, but it is CASA or the Police only who have the power to bring charges. All in all the vast majority of our 10,000 members do the right thing, and it is extremely rare we have to ask for charges to be laid. Cheers, John McK PS Drop in at Boonah. The guys there provide most of what you desire, including great hanger talk and monthly bar-b-ques.

Mr Bull, I see you are a new member, and as such it may explain why you are not quite familiar with the rules. Perhaps there are others, so this may help. CASA "owns" all aviation in Australia, and RAAus is a self administering body for certain types of aircraft working under CASA's direct authority. RAAus has no "prosecuting" power, and all it can do is suspend or cancel a members "licence" or membership. Nothing more. If you aren't a member, RAAus have absolutely no authority or power over you. If you are not a member and fly an RAAus registered aircraft, RAAus still has absolutely no power over you. All RAAus can do is report you to CASA and the local police. Re the crash itself. All accidents come under the control and authority of ATSB. Here again RAAus have absolutely no authority. If the ATSB decides, for whatever reason, not to investigate the accident it passes the authority to the local police. RAAus Accident Investigators are often called in to assist in the investigation and either help ATSB or the police as they have the technical knowledge, however there is no requirement for this to happen. Some years ago I was personally involved in investigating a Drifter crash that never went anywhere in RAAus because it was unregistered (Just like this case). I assisted the police on the technical side as we had an interest to find the cause (to help prevent similar accidents). The local police were in charge as ATSB didn't want to investigate. (Management of scarce resources) Once we had determined the most likely cause of the accident we departed and left the matter up to the police. RAAus believes the cause of Hume accident is fairly obvious. If a wing fell off in flight, for example, I am sure we would offer our assistance on the technical side, as we would have an interest to know why. The police could accept or decline our technical help. In the case in question here the only people with any power or authority are ATSB, CASA and the local police. Only CASA or the police can lay charges against the pilot. I read some pretty harsh comments in this thread. Perhaps we should wait until all the facts come out. For all we know this may be a once off, out of character brain snap. There is no doubt this guy is in serious trouble, he will have no hull insurance, and no third party insurance, so criminal charges are not his only concern. If he is wealthy there could be numerous civil actions against him for "stress", "anxiety" or whatever else the litigation lawyers can claim. We may think the worst of him privately, but perhaps we should not act so much like a pack of dogs, (all against one in a dog fight) in print format. My thoughts anyway. John mcK

Hi All, I don't know how this thread ever got onto firearms but since it has I have a story for you. Many years ago I was at Boonah with my Drifter when another Drifter flew in for pod repairs. There was a dinner plate sized hole in the front right of the pod. On asking about the damage I got this story. This aircraft was used in mustering, and the pilot had a rifle holster mounted beside his leg inside the pod. He kept a "shortened" shotgun with small buckshot or saltpetre as the charge to move on reluctant scrub bulls which ignored the low flying drifter or the extremely loud siren mounted underneath. On this occasion the pilot forgot the rifle was cocked and when he went to extract it from its holster to move on a very large and intransigent bull, the gun discharged making the hole in the pod and doing some serious damage to his pedal foot. As I understand it the old bull was not intimidated in the slightest by the aerial action happening above him. (Perhaps his mind was on those three cows nearby) Cheers John McK

Hi All, I haven't read all the posts so I may be repeating this info. (sorry) The President has approved a press release so I can report it here. "The registration of the aircraft in question had expired some time ago. The Pilots membership and licence had also expired some time ago. This accident has nothing to do with RA-Aus and will not be investigated by RA-Aus" Cheers John McK

Hi Mr Rat, You are right to agree with Steve R. There needs to be some continuity with the Board. The first term is a steep learning period, and there is much to learn. The second term is a real productive one for the member as they now know the procedures, get to know the senior CASA officials, and can have real productive input. With a third term a Board member can provide a steadying influence and historical knowledge for the newer members. After that I think they should have a break and let some new blood in. Re the Life members. They are listed in the Board Room in Canberra. If you write to the Secretary I am sure he will provide a list for you, and yes, they should be on our web site. I personally think more input should be put into a such an important decision, perhaps an article in the magazine where ordinary members can have prior input as well, particularly if it concerns another Board member. Current Board Members voting for a current Board Member could be perceived as nepotism, and in my opinion is not transparent or appropriate, regardless of the worthiness of the applicnt. Cheers, John McK

Hi All, Some information for you. Rule 33 (ii) "it is passed by at least three quarters of the votes those members of the association who being entitled to vote, vote in person or by proxy" Notice the last few words. What this has in the past been taken to mean, is a change to the constitution is accomplished if three quarters of the cast votes are for the change. Not three quarters of the total membership. This can be very good, or very dangerous, depending on your point of view. At my first Board meeting and AGM in 2007 I witnessed a change to the constitution that was passed by just three ordinary members. That is right 1,2,3. Apart from the Board members themselves they were the only ones present, and they were the only votes cast by ordinary members. There were no proxies, and there were no postal votes. (probably because no ballot papers were included with the notice of motion) and there was no checking the membership of the three members present to see if they were entitled to vote. I objected to the vote being taken, and a change to the Constitution effected by just three members, and on the basis of no ballot papers being included with the notice of rule change. This was rejected and the vote cast. On later reading the Constitution I believe the decision to vote was valid as there is no compulsion to include a ballot paper with the notice of rule change. Just 21 days notice of the proposed change is required. There you have it guys. Is this good or is it bad? Cheers, John McK

Welcome to Australia JT, With your CASA certificate you can hire GA aircraft in Australia, (most probably after a check flight). However if you wish to fly a Recreational registered aircraft (numbered rego not leters) you need an RAA pilot certificate. You will need to do a conversion course to low inertia aircraft, and you need to join the Association, to exercise the privileges to fly under the CASA regulations. Some aircraft like Jabiru are registered under both systems. Should you wish to fly an RAA registered aircraft you would be best advised to contact the Operations Manager of RAA, Mick Poole, directly. He is the final authority for any operational matters regarding Recreational Aviation. Mick Poole, email - [email protected] ph RAA office 02 6280 4700 Cheers, John mcK

Hi All, One of my constituents sent me this report about Sapphire Problems. He has previously sent it officially to the authority but feels not enough was done to inform other local owners of the problem. I personally can't comment on the technical side of his report, but I do feel there is merit in his report. Other Sapphire owners may have also have some interest in what he has to say. I have removed his name, but I could put other concerned owners in touch with him if they wish further clarification. Forums like this are a good way to get out information quickly. However it must always be remembered that to do things properly an authority must examine all evidence, find out if there is a systemic problem, or only a once off isolated issue, and then make a judgement or decision. This takes time, and sometimes investigations can produce outcomes that are different to those originally thought. Cheers, John McK Sapphire Problems I have owned my Sapphire for two years. When I test flew the aircraft, I remember thinking that its sensitivity to the controls would probably be quite enjoyable when I got used to it. Coming from a GA/gliding background, and having received information from people I then regarded as informed, it had never occurred to me that there would exist a popular design like the Sapphire with an undocumented dynamic instability on one of its flight control axes. However, as it turns out, the Sapphire design is inherently unstable in pitch and requires either continuous hands-on control or a fully serviceable stabilator-centring system to maintain a constant attitude. A notable difference between the Sapphire and most other small aircraft is that it does not use conventional stabilizer/elevator surfaces for pitch control. Sapphires are fitted with stabilators, a type of horizontal tail, the whole surface of which changes angle of attack in response to control inputs. Unlike conventional tails, which tend to dampen pitch change caused by turbulence, undampened stabilators can exacerbate pitch change. Firstly, they tend to align themselves with changes in airflow (weather-cocking) and, secondly, they respond inertially to vertical movements of the tail because their centres of gravity are behind their hinges. Normally, stabilator-equipped aircraft have systems which provide a centering force on their stabilators. For instance, the Piper PA-28 series of aircraft has an anti-servo tab along the trailing edge of their stabilator. This tab moves in the same direction as the stabilator, increasing the centring moment in proportion to the deflection of the stabilator from its trimmed centre point. The other type of centring system that can be employed is a mechanical one working on the stabilator push rod. The original Sapphire design had no such centering system, aerodynamic or mechanical. The only warning of the aircraft’s pitch instability was in the flight manual, which instructed pilots to always fly the aircraft hands-on (this is still the case, actually). However, in the 1990s, a stabilator-centering system was added by the then owner of the business, Don Bowd. This system is located under the pilot’s seat, a very inaccessible (and therefore difficult to inspect) position in the Sapphire. It employs shock cord (bungee strap) to provide centering forces to the stabilator via the push rod. The system is functional, though perhaps insubstantial, relying on the use of hose clips to secure the shock cord to the push rod. After buying my plane in southern NSW, I flew it north to Brisbane and quite a bit of the flight was done hands-off, trying to fold maps, etc, without any unusual occurrence. I had been told about the system under the seat, but only in the context that it was a trimming system which had very little adjustment. I don’t believe the previous owner had any idea of the system’s critical importance to the safe operation of the aircraft. I suggest that this ignorance might be very common among Sapphire operators. Last year, I discovered the consequences of a malfunction in this system. Basically, the detachment of the rear shock cord of this system caused a sudden change of pitch downwards in response to minor turbulence when the aircraft was being flown hands-off. The aircraft immediately went into a negative g condition causing disarray in the cockpit and requiring prompt hands-on recovery. Simply the array of objects that came loose in such a situation could have caused catastrophe. The cause of the problem was the rear shock cord had slid through the hose clip attachment point on the pushrod. I have since built a more substantial and accessible (easier to inspect), alternative system for centring my aircraft’s stabilator. The existing system, if properly maintained and inspected, is a satisfactory one, however, Sapphire pilots must understand the system’s critical importance to the safe operation of their aeroplanes. It should be checked every six months or so, and only high quality aviation or marine grade shock cord should be used. There would be Sapphires out there now with shock cord under their seats that is more than ten years old. Sapphire Owner (name removed)